MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
also concluded based upon the heights decision that there was a different tone corner before the accident is to the change of marital status or residency and we have failed to do so and with the rest of the panel myself we didn't f that jeffrey landis would have been covered for the use of the run through a vehicle as we argued and then with the car proper correctly found was that pursuant to the holding in preferred risk mutual versus heights jeffrey landis was considered to have the same coverage the other almost that doesn't matter because he was out of there in october of two thousand and three left ok so they didn't offer a second on the residence and that's the argument and that's what that's what i think the the trial court was residence address anything like that it would really not be a difficult thing to do is to just blindly sending out the renewal offer to make a basic cursory in dissolution as we have seen previously discussed and i know it was kind of a kind of a little bit of a joke but i was going to argue with this house it was issued a factor why one am on on january twentieth of two because if he's if he's got the coverage under the policy then it would apply to any vehicle that he runs and you would be entitled to rely on his progressive policy when he goes run the car  did you have a camera in your position up until the time the accident occurred answer yes so during that time we were supplying jeff with what you want to know answer yes so i think we ought to use the contract itself does have an explicit exclusion for criminal condor and record our position is of course that in two thousand and nine was incorrect in and casting aside our contract offenses but the run two was for or that in any way he wasn't a qualified rancher under the terms of the contract there's likewise no evidence in the record that tequila dorsey had contact with anybody at hertz at any time along she in connection with the actual use of the vehicle this was a a joyride in the country nothing nothing else not no one no drugs being transported delta no appliance fifty hundred it's what fifty one hundred  c eleven programs fourteen through twenty five of the complaint we did plead that landis did not inform hertz that he intended to allow an unlicensed fifteen year old girl to drive a vehicle he did not advise of any of the drivers
legal expertise and that's seen in this case the seriously i think states that he's losing he's trying he didn't know better and you can see that within the record in this case and with nat and the post conviction sharing act in the supreme proceedings this defendant ever quest for indicate or suggest that he wants to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea he could it would have been really easy for him to say in his post conviction petition i want to file i want to withdraw i want to start over he didn't he only said but he wanted a shorter sentence of course anybody serious and this one's a shorter sentence there was no skin in the game for him to file a motion to defendant did actually want to file a motion to withdraw still there's no longer the prejudice the outcome of the proceedings would have been exactly the same how do we know that the trial for specifically noted in its findings that it would have denied any motion to withdraw guilty told and obviously a private conversation that there is nothing he could do he's just there because he was appointed to be there and we have to take that as true at this point because the record doesn't directly it resulted in his sentence reduction motion being made by dismissed and naturally from that comes the fact that he cannot directly appeal no matter what he did once his motion to reduce the sentence was dismissed because those things this is regarding the consequences of his plea what he knew at the time he entered into this plea so at the time he entered into the screen he thought if he gave this eighteen years he could reduce it later because the council told him he could and of course this is an off off the record conversation but when he entered it he thought you could reduce it and that's what he did but actually show clearly that he found the procedure motion to reduce and he discusses that in the petition as well
two he was unfit to practice law and to be able to see was not comfortable with him representing clients and for the safety of the public who wanted him to basically be suspended now mr brooks fall after they were appealed that decision to the inquiry board but he did not appeal the factual justice alone at the time is that he's looking at a lawyer again and we tend to believe lawyers when they're testifying about trial strategy and mr here mr brooks had said well the reason why i don't offer any evidence of a defense was because the client told me not to but he that he was he gone through this pending suspension so i and their mind it was that we're going for a per se rule and even though i have i took a meeting stricklin i mean what mr brooks says is yeah i know about witnesses and i knew about the defense i just didn't think that i had to offer any evidence of this will i will i was listening and again it makes absolutely no sense that your client wants you to advance a compulsion defense that you don't notice up to the state but you don't request a jury instructions for a while and then you make this bizarre convoluted argument in closing population scored better on him and organization strategizing and problem solving that he was impaired in a action and distraction but he problems putting things together conceptually which is apparent because you cannot conceptual c at the time of the trial before the defense counsel was under a recommendation of suspension but he was still a licensed attorney he had the right to practice law he had a right to represent his client and none of the obligations of say that the abrogation to tell to inform anyone court counsel the client's does not kick in until the until the suspension becomes official after all a supreme court might not impose a suspension so well the basic result of this is what we're dealing with is not the chronic standard but the strickland standard defense also that they resulted in prejudice to him and because of the circumstances of this case pointing out prejudice would be extremely difficult the specific allegations that defended find a case with more overwhelming evidence ok this is a robbery in which the two surviving of the three robbers were found inside the the premises the premises was locked they tried to escape through a that cost him his life and as a result because he was killed during the forcible felony the other two are automatically chargeable with felony murder so the evidence is it cannot be considered even remotely closely balanced saying is a mentally ill and mentally ill a man who was unfit to practice law the mistake that it's find that they take up the mantle and represent murder defendants there's no slippery slope here there's no danger that that you were creating a because of the numerous instances of misconduct that this court can find there has been a push to violation of the six member right to counsel alternatively we can do not have a verdict that's worthy of confidence when we have an attorney who is suffering actively from
know i  oh oh river that road leads to the highway of life they are at the crossroads and be way out of the hypocrite and the false prophet go  lady but not heavy beautiful is one that owns it and you know i've got something right here in this bag that will make you even more lovely  sixty five the kingdom of god and his righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you that wouldn't you look funny in the city with nothing on but that night gown
guy friends in santa cruz are preparing to move against the dictator they wish me to come  looks to me like she's got a few lies you  i've been around the block a couple times i must find out why or sixty whenever his name is mentioned you must learn to concentrate on the image i wish i had your patience again but i have someday someday you will understand tony mention only one name before that phone went  she's a code fish that you can hook even a killer shark with the right kind of if you play dress up you really got to sell or trade so back north mr i got nothing to say to you that truck was about to say plenty look let me tell you something carol good lookin how command i read your palm you don't have a long life line take my advice and go to a cold shock you a little but there's a lesson in it for us we're about to show you and he was real of an actual execution execution that took place on the few hours ago the place was the victim but i actually need to general this lot of truth he told the world what it was and now he's dead but everyone in santa cruz knows is dying wish that i pray for his soul and that i speak openly to my people within twenty four hours the journalism old be overthrown road within twenty four hours santa cruz will no no
because you had a lawyer you had the wife acting as your lawyer and so you had to file a no i noticed deal only after she too was this while good point that it wasn't until then that's what she did and that's what i did right an unrelated coincidence there but that's not my point my point is a way of us following here revise school three point seven one point seven claire this case is important i don't know of any decision in the state of illinois that has interpret it and rendered in decision applying the revised three point seven one point seven of the rules professional cried out there's already cases out there for us because it's been adopted by many states and it's the federal risk of what you're saying what do you court didn't follow the law didn't follow cases that are in this district i mean the morning karl case which is i cited repeatedly you know at the at the court order that was entered after suing to two that ruling which would be the march twenty ninth two thousand and ten order and if the march twenty ninth two thousand and ten order says and identifies only th lawyer in my firm can come in the judge did nice the motion for just for reconsideration effectively say sorry not so in addition why would i have filed for clarification opening myself up to a potential appeal  for the we go on what the words that are on the order itself i don't think it doesn't matter to me whether there was a court order not because the explanations don't make any difference what the the final the bottom line is what's contained in the rubber and  in addition to his motion to reconsider i do need to address one quick thing and that is the fact that mr malay states to this court that he believes that the court had a conflict of interest all along and that's the reason that that happened if that were the case you could have filed a motion asking questions about why the person who was sitting with me was chummy with the click and that's why you think it was a good idea to bring a person with you know if i had to do over again if she'd been sitting in the office that never would have happened because there was no conflict and they just ate she
the committee will come to order we will now begin the roll call me explain first we have the first five amendments three eyes and thirty six knows the amendment is defeated the next row drums on the frank substitute to the water amendment the kirk will call the rol i'm sorry  chairman when you say they want amendment as amended how is the if we were to take a vote on this how would it be different then the text of the amendment that we just voted on it would not be that that's what it meant as amended is now yes mr jones the chairman votes  yes mrs biggert this is to more vocal group you voted for the second time feel free to leave i believe we get into more and will come back at nine thirty tomorrow morning and finish up fairly quickly to kirk will report on that vote the eyes are thirty three on the nose with thirty six and the amendment is defeated i's and forty seven knows the members repeated in the final vote this evening we will be back at nine thirty tomorrow morning we will have one two three four amendments and we could be finished in twenty minutes or so mr lynch mr lynch votes no mr miller mr mccarthy mr mccarthy both i mr heller
when the traffic cleared he began train left into the intersection and then looked to his right wide because there was potential traffic coming from the medical building or from the hill and he was worried that the nearest cars would be approaching his right negligence on the part it is the responsibility of trier of fact to determine whether the driver was acting a she was acting reasonably under the circumstances do they did everything right then this gentleman pulls up and you just saw this picture we're going to excuse his conduct we're going to say those ladies to you know he's full from you for a minute and he's going to just drive right away and we
case number twenty dash one hundred and seventeen bowler michigan education association family retired staff associate association at all as michigan education association and all oral argument not to exceed fifteen minutes per side mr this is a dispute that after all of the recent litigation in recent years the standard is that in order to show the right to vested retiree the tickle benefits  vested unquote in fact in the case of the omari document the labor agreement actually quote vested for life signed by both parties that makes this unlike literally every other case that has been decided in recent years in this  succeed on the merits and this legal error was labeled by the court as disp sounds parties and there's nothing it doesn't seem to mean a document that sets out exactly who the parties are and i is there's some dispute about whether the whether the person who signed experience whereby there was one person negotiating for the collectively bargain boys and that was several unions and there was another person who was bargaining on behalf of the porters and that was three different orders very recently not been  till complaint was amended in may but very recently the defendants have raised the argument that the person who was signing was negotiating this document on behalf of the employers didn't have authority for all sorts of reasons we think that's a very difficult argument to carry it wasn't an argument that was even addressed or taken into consideration by the judge below but just to clarify your question the issue there i'm understanding being raised is not whether it was that
and so she she she
no mccarthy mccarthy
good morning your honor student i think the first question the question maybe you're just asking is the record seems to show that there were deportations proceedings for this the fairness started in two thousand  identifies immigration identifies since they are to stay here or her desire to stay here doesn't that give them some additional responsibility i think it does but i think a fair this is he told them absolutely there of this offense or now that he was it in the united states illegally this is a pity of this matter united states illegally served in him forces he spent forty years in the united states completely different situation th up any other questions thank you thank
there's nine thousand she's going to get her share and in one thousand it was referred to as clear in the in the record that's also contained on this appeal was dealt with in the first deal was the net number that he actually received from his bones additionally there is there never been an issue or an argument frankly thought after the decision came out before the mandate was issued as i recall timeline as to whether or not the issue was gross vs net there had been bonuses received each year that the case confusion here this is where this language of prayer and that's really all you're correct that correct now the question is if you disagree with that i'm sorry i'm almost positive it's in the october thirty first twenty thirteen transcript it's all you can figure out the math and after thirty plus years of pricing together mr albright mr reach will see it will probably agree on something for once that's just the reality of under the circumstances i guess the flip side would be if the twelve o three motion can't be directed at that and what is it really being directed at because it's not or are we then forestall even approaching twelve o three motion somebody perhaps working a year or two water but then getting to heat more of their bonus money as they go after is a fairly decent marriage it's a fairly decent sized state that is devoted so to divide those in to try to page nineteen if you accept the gross calculation one hundred thousand dollars bonus he's paying over thirty five thousand dollars you're receiving two softly forty two if it's one hundred thousand dollars bonus if you take into account a tax c a one k or you're talking about him messing with the adoptions but i'm not hearing any of that the ones that so plainly gets back to the fact that the issue double taxation which is ultimately would be rendered his decision based  it's under your example in unfortunate it doesn't happen every single day for the better different that's not the issue here but they do take those things into consideration and examination during the trial then joint appearance statements during the motion to reconsider hearing its incentivization not maximizing necessarily the tax consequences of mrs doubt so those are the things that we have to fit into consideration when example on the first fifty thousand dollars she would get twenty five he would get twenty five children pay tax on the twenty five and he would be belka three and the next fifty thousand she got twenty percent which was ten indicators that we have brought up and i don't disagree that the judgment could have been drafted in or dealt with better but that doesn't change the fact that what we're here to do now is try to determine what the and
takes kids school does two or three other things clearly use the st half of that paying for personal business or personal stuff  the sense that the committee has paid for something that the candidate used himself or herself personal personal are you saying that this section eight to is where that type of conduct would fall in the code and that's the way that person who work in the campaign would be charged yeah i think  accounted for taking into consideration recurring fine while you separate but i know it's separate but i mean that's a lot different than taking five hundred dollars and spending one hundred  because you're not really i'm not suggesting that it's ok but you're not really in rich in yourself if for morning your trips you end up with eighteen dollars extra table we know this was a forget for a moment if somebody occurred an extra benefit for failing to provide or to ask for reimbursement based on mile is a violation and further it provides no transparency anybody is interested in political campaigns in our conducted and how expensive be taken care of by the amount of the fine so that they use their individual ideas and discretion to say yeah this was clearly a violation but it didn't want to anybody's there isn't that is it the failure to properly document raise the presumption that it was used and brought there by requiring the committee to show yes you're right we committed to stylization that we have this evidence to show that either all or ninety nine percent of it was spent exactly as it would have been experience but i'm trying to understand why what do we do to a defendant in a civil case who disposes of the records that are absolutely necessary either put on a defense or answer questions by the point i mean not you know there's missing evidence you know you've done away with it i'm not suggesting that that was purposeful but what is the continuing obligation to words double jeopardy but flowing through this is the idea that the committees are even saying shoot for their report while many actions
basically at that point in time the employer social security received one hundred percent social security disability benefits he's getting about one thousand eight hundred dollars a month right now there is a period of time in two thousand and eight when he was first during the period of time while the divorce going on him over six zero seven because i had problems with her being a contract employee federal government could be terminated court no if you d the plaintiff has said that there is this overwhelming agreement as to almost all the marital assets and there's just no evidence of that so there's no representation there is now one page of transfer printing i believe ninety six hundred dollars on the day of trial saying that these are assets from i believe will points and that they should have been given to me and it was interesting because still relating to my star certainly there could be some good will attach to my story builder's name and the court took that into account and  that charge it's against the supreme court rules to have at least that there is that as a factor evidence in the case it's simply a summary of what steve wishes would have happened
average or what not and if i'm reading the call transcript you might have something there but then i saw that he testified about another incident in the winter where he said that he was in a car with somebody who had it done he immediately got out of the car which obviously didn't happen on this occasion and it could provide support for a factual i knew that he was talking not just specifically about this the general rule which historically understood to be i'm not going to let you put this into the record now you're testifying well you have opened the door you have opened the door and so you will be cross examined on it so that limits our reveal whether that line which opened the door that had been closed because of potential prejudicial initially sought to introduce it under about ins six or nine the court did a careful analysis and decided to initially a conviction because it was worried about any possible that mr lee's testimony were the judge's  question that i asked before which is what's your view on what rule of evidence this was injured under six thousand and eighty six or nine or what is known as the rule or against a rule of contradiction but i believe the government's purpose was introducing it as impeachment by contradiction i think there is some support of the record that the court also thought that mr lee's testimony changed the probative value of the conviction under rule six and nine if you look at the source of the transcript i think it's  is not whether he has his whole his whole life but whether it comes as a result of prior convictions which makes the possession of a criminal a crime for him so i don't help me understand it seems to me that either he said i just never do that all my life i have not had guns around me that's one thing but to say i don't have guns around me since i was convicted before because it would be a little bit different if mr we had i don't keep guns around me since i became a felon because i'm not allowed that's not in fact say they are at home in response to the government's questions when they were trying to tie him little bit of the prejudice because mr lee was able to take that prior conviction and use it said to further what is the best was which was going to keep any guns around him after two thousand and five that theory also doesn't really make any sense because mr lee had been a felon well before that two thousand and five that conviction you actually had or prior convictions or death including another firearm conviction so st of all it wouldn't make any sense because policy not to keep guns around and you have begun in two thousand position on how we're supposed to resolve this issue when there's this inherent invigorate ambiguity about kind of what what he was referring to or how far back i know that there is one example really yes not just