MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
of the one stage shows to why they simply did not approve the dated events here it was december twenty first two thousand and two no charges brought in just of temper thirteenth two thousand and six well over three years after the date of  diligent investigation by the law enforcement authorities we are not disputing the first two components here certainly this of the alleged offense involved with instance of sexual penetration the victim did report it well within specifically appears in the supreme court's morris decision it says an exception becomes an element to the charge to be proved to trial to be proved and we will submit an element to be proved means it has to be proved  beyond a reasonable doubt how deeply how do you when you look at this issue does the the man to the venue statute also venue issue the defendant who files it motion to dismiss for lack of it hypothetically he he loses that motion he could still get a venue instruction can either dismiss the case or transfer to another county for trial but if the court keeps the case in and county and says the fund is not prevail you're saying that the planet is still is not a time to instruction a venue or a trial good to do is essentially when he doesn't think they can prove statue limitations and all really before trial now have to go through the ordeal of the trial to put your face in the same defense can just sit lay in the woods and go you know i'm going to win here because they have an election statute that's what the legislature has required is that the bettors profile be put in the database no testimony about that all the evidence from what happened and so marshalls is that after they've changed the profile they send it to the illinois state police nothing certain circumstances to the jury in every case these cases concerned motions to dismiss not proved to the jury therefore whatever they said i was over to dick to him and also  statute of limitations is told big want to walk from in this case there were no questions of fact open for resolution as to the circumstances justifying an extension of the statue of limitation sperm contain male d n a on april twenty three two thousand and three i think that the facts definitely showed that there was a diligence on the part of the state  it and on the jury instructions no cold decision references the use of these instructions at trial and no case referring to the state's burden to prove this element addresses the issue in the context of  home as the fourth district points out a factual issue could arise in the form of witness testimony or documentary evidence in that case the court did tell a court noted th disputed the ages of the victim or the family relationship that could be an issue that could be presented to the jury however it didn't come up like this case the state would
cases talking about the need to plead special damages and when you don't need to plead them this is a particular case where they said special damages that need to be read actually damages pursuant to the elements of malicious prosecution which i i want to get into briefly potential that an employer is going to hold it against dr grant offer i question her during a deposition reza an actual employer that did that and she said she was just presuming that someone's going to do that too or that's not the real damages road as your honor
hi i'm david bruce and you're watching visual hollywood where we take offense century point of view of hollywood movies and today's show we're going to take a look at the movies coming in two thousand and fourteen and i got to tell you these these films are all over the map this is going to make it a very interesting year at the theater and it's going to make for a very interesting show right well i hope never to see you again so now this department has invested a lot of money to make sure jump street keeps going the only problem is the koreans bought the church back so we're moving you across the road to twenty two jump str but they'd never expect to find you surefire slam dunk number one pick trade me i'm going to do what's best for the two this is the draft analysis we've all been working on for the last two months you're out of your mind yeah i am now and i proved that already we've had this conversation which is judgement day you just came in with the fresh recruits frankly none of us have ever faced a situation quite like this one before i would not be asking any one of you to take this leap it did not have complete faith in your ability to succeed your courage will never be more needed than it is today i this the spark life here is amazing used to be a bit of a problem but now they've all moved in it's not a huge amazing things you do vikings on the backs of dragons the world just got a whole lot
still knows about it first ok so it's like and so herself ok so i guess what i'm saying if you're saying that that was prejudicial when influenced the judge's decision finding of fact ok conclusions of long it w i didn't mean to switch your your focus with that question i'm having a little trouble understanding the issue the first issue is you framed it are you asking us to find the judge eroni asli allowed the videotape to come in and ending the issue there or are you saying because she allowed it in whether it was right or wrong he was somewhat coerced into giving up this jury trial i'm confused about the scope of the issue so and and you want it you want to be will argue that the deal house this is going to these guys are unreliable he's trying to make a deal with the state well and then without the state be allowed to fill that from the big picture you're saying that the finder of fact if it were a jury that was your argument that they would be prosecuted implicitly convicting on the first one if they convicted on that argument are you ready it along the same thought why don't we measure the trial judge's ruling based on the state of events when she was asked to the sevens there was a jury to me and she had to consider whether the videotape would unduly prejudice the trial or fact that existed at that time and why are we measuring whether she should consider whether it would prejudice her if she was trying the case that i'm just a little bit confused about what is a truck or consider when measuring prejudices and that the current state of i know i know but i think that's putting the cart on the horse after the stable i just see the the issue very differently in this situation the court did not and the flip side of the argument the defendant hadn't played guilt time yet and so the court is confronted with how do we get motive because so i think i can see both sides of this oh well  it's like a few tall motion at that point i mean realistically oh please revisit your earlier yet you know review of impressions that may or may not have been a form and watching that videotape when you decide this case that's basically what you're saying hate i still have to go back to the original question i asked in the beginning what is the first issue because it's a matter there's a lot of strategy that goes into criminal trials on the part of the prosecution in the part of the defense perhaps it was prosecutori sing this he was he didn't voluntarily waive his right to a jury trial what i'm getting at is once the trial court made her ruling you had a couple of auctions that you didn't take you could have had a stipulated bench you want to still look at the prejudice that this ruling would have had on the jury why shouldn't we hold you to the decision that you made to waive the jury and that that you waited based on the record
with when i briefly review worse for the p s s three strike shoes and the p s s for strikes tooth in the second and third paragraph he let's agree not to sell athletic shoes bearing three design rights to describe patterns there is no prevention and write a probation or else you're going to be stuck with the far just kind of copying label think of nobody well let's look at it the other way around and this is where there there are myriad because we say we think for strive so use three now that's an argument we can make to the jury about likelihood of confusion in the context of the entire issue the purchasing experience foot in place now those are all issues that will be proven there that would not be issues in the trade mark infringement case that infringement well your honor when you settle something we said we wouldn't do it they said we agree you can't do it and by the way we're going to release you and we're going to d well we won't use force aerated strikes or they're going to oldest of that bargain but as i understand the court's question we're still to have to think of everything then we would have to think of every conceivable strike and we didn't configurations and design features that have become famous over time that shoe will go to the jury but all of the other shoes which are far and away the whether they're confusing with similar disregarding the stripes based on other aspects of design there's only one issue that we can do that with respect to it with respect to do it with respect to ninety percent of the issues that w are no three strikes sh thrown out because the trademark issues all related to force crimes those have all been removed from the case the only thing that remains in the case is this one trade dr have some of that nature with respect to the heart of our business
there is no obligation to provide the signature there is no obligation to strictly comply with a signature requirements and prefer to think that strict compliance is  standing from the california spring spring and then and then and then to come into the school to have those procedures get worked out because it wasn't entirely clear well who was doing the referendum and that's where it was right in the middle of january or the end of
but it appears to me that we need the honor the agreement as written nobody in his view yes but that's a question of how it's written so tell me why you think has written the way you're saying it's written it doesn't say it doesn't say and le you are correct there is mr or all strong i suppose the way the way to the best way to read as your right is that if he now works for the company who can he could i'm sorry i'm sorry i mean just why isn't it in the record i suppose the best answer i can give you is that he never submitted one so we didn't put it in yes i believe that we hashed out the pivotal issue and problem to enforce this arbitration agreement based upon the term the company is defined naturally the company is defined as you are or not also as indicated in in our brief the company could have easily included the broad definition in paragraph one when it was defining what the company is and who would be bound with this agreement so
are part of your article as it is also relying on the definition of fire because the definition says that something that looks like a gun it says it's th cocaine without the substance being examined for cocaine etc yes he's saying anybody could be subject to prosecution possession of a fire without the introduction of the adjective what could be a fire in there would be sufficient if the witness says oh i know for sure it was a fire
this statute was sent out and it didn't mandate that the hearings be conducted within a year it is there's nearly as practicable language to that effect but doesn't this whole thing just beg the question there's always going to be a new report it seems we have now four years in a row where by the time we get to the probable cause hearing there is a new report there's always a report so isn't the respondent here always to consider twenty sixteen the question presented before this court is whether the circuit court was required to consider the twenty sixteen reporting the twenty fifteen or so so in our brief we don't advocate as far as to say it would be here  circumstances i never ever ever consider the twenty sixteen report are you here at least saying you know either you do have the discretion or you don't should we be man for the court to make a decision after we tell them that they have the pretty disturbing remarks that this is basically the bottom of the totem pole we get one half a day a week to do all these hearings and they're never done timely and this and we can see a number of reasons for that are bad as circuit cour is perfect he is model guy there is no mental illness he should be released yesterday and then the twenty sixteen report says he's his behavior has changed dramatically would you be in the same position trigger a discreet proceeding and the way to deal with delay is that extend one proceeding beyond here there are a number of safety valves one of the easiest ones is actually what happened in this case for the twenty thirteen and twenty four she reports  one way to do it but if if we if we accept respondents argument that the circuit court has to reopen and this is sidestepping the fact that the procedural posture of this case is such that the hearing has already done so we're not asking as as a purely did anticipate that the reporting hearing would be conducted within the twelve months such that the new report would would sort of close the door on the prior finding a problem was a no problem cause fax and and then we're getting a sort of current status examination but the probable cause hearing as it's set up is really meant to be packed to this particular report that's clear from the structure of the act clear from the history of the act the twenty twelve amendments as we explained in our brief made clear that it's tied to a particular resent nation period and it's clear from practice and so we think the circuit court did not use its discretion by considering only the twenty fifteen focus is on the fact that he was a youthful offender but as the supreme court's going stanbridge the standard is that respondent has to provide cost will count of a change in circumstances such that he's no longer a sexually violent person and there's no change in should be because the respondent is always going to get that next hearing the report is going to be considered in fact it was considered and we're just waiting to hear what that what the circuit court did with that so it's not a question of whether or not any
discontinued the chase because in their opinion it was too dangerous frank is right in their judgment he was posing a pretty grave danger to the citizenry at large and police officers who were chasing where you shot i mean have you taken the deposition of this last just a medical examiner said and what does he say about the position of the the body at the time the fatal shot was fired with mr beck crouching down beneath me but actually beneath the dashboard a reasonable officer and situation to take action in order to prevent harm to the public based on the behavior that event had exhibited in the preceding forty minutes because for one  and whatever it is just to say that there was nothing standing between officer williamson and the rest of the citizens of fairbanks who would be in danger apparently that goes out of material question of fact in this case that for some reason good advice lance just ignore it and the jury needs to hear that because it is unreasonable under any standard she is someone who stop
somebody we did the pros and cons and somebody decided that he didn't this didn't result in the black of the costs for the families here actually providing good support to clients and families and then the other than this fal so the commission decided this is a good employee with a good record he's made these mistakes that are more than just a slap on the wrist but they don't whatsoever that these false petition which we have to accept is being paul's did anything to affect the care or welfare of children or the families that was interacting with and in fact they all spoke highly of him and he's got a sixteen year exemplary record so isn't that well the fact that it didn't cause harm would be relevant in determining whether because there's so much change in the staff so much turnover so much cut and paste that you have to learn to read between the lines as opposed to just media reports so well what i'm thinking of is that i think maybe the commission did take into account the general duty of the department to provide for the care welfare of all the children under its auspices by taking into account that he had sixteen years of service with the example record so that shifts the focus from yes there's no harm to these children but that can't be the only standard that's not the only part of the yardstick another part of the yardstick yours is this repeat behavior or is this indicative of a greater flaw than previously been seen but his work was always you know a little bit sketchy so particularly it was without pay that's a hell of a hit may have lost a significant amount of pay in a state job where pay is not six figures that doesn't sound like the commission was ignoring counsel am i correct that the question for this quarter review is whether the commission substantially substantiates its decision isn't that what we're supposed to be doing here that
worth read only communicates to someone that they will receive the consequences of that violating the threat would be emotional distress that's not a true threat that's our position so any of these things we're looking at here it's possible that could be interpreted to be a true threat but again i think it's bad we can't simply just ignore the fact that the special rest of it as someone to be prosecuted for a threat that only certainly not violence issue there th
one of the answers of my clients ignoring them largely because they were of the same name as the defendants in the case i represented the owners of hundreds of thousands of dollars had my clients who process there are those two issues before us and let me take up what i think is the course of least resistance and the simple decision in the case which is the misapplication and the service interpretation of idaho l and seems to make sense but it's not practical and doesn't make sense fair when you fundamentally abuse due process there was knowledge of the existence of third party clients there was at least the possibility that this property was not home by others there was knowledge we believe and the record reflects that the real party is an interest in this case knew that the children had an ownership interest not disclosed to the to the market that's by simply serving that then you have instructed notice on third party orders you don't even need to go through that process and and if you don't have time to going all of the fundamental principles of due process but it certainly  i believe the problem was your honor that when the soul is lost for the marshals went out there they had no idea that there were any adverse ownership claims to any of this property they were going out to therefore it's not that sounds incorrect to me what's wrong w if you are that the
operating in the united states or any place in the world if anyone questions your identity all you've got to do is show him this right is see the picture of captain video on the top is proof that you're a qualified video if you are agents to wear this ring at all t captain video calling video ranger calm and ranger captain video to ranger please answer the sparrows field energy machine got something to do with his brain size but they aren't yours i guess there's only one way to find out about this sudden turn of events yes that's right we're right
minutes before a hearing under two nineteen the circuit judge has the discretion to home deal with it appropriately including sanctions fact on day forty six which would have been july twenty the the hearing was granted to go on july fourteenth and that was prior to the data yes that's would have gone into effect and by the way the s s s statutes do not
so presumably every piece of property in the next area was song or three yes regardless of what it had been shown before  ned a commercial excavating snowplowing in construction or business young contestant testimony even from their own affidavits is that the adams's use it for a commercial excavating stuff probably construction or in violation of our one it is joining landowners that the as my client the neighbor to bring a claim to stop it and that's what he's done and that's what we're doing we have no argument with the village when the village enix did  you you believe that the village of panic station of a larger or it contains multiple nics uses of is interested in resolving those properties out that the powers given you by the legislature and excision and zoning are not together unless it's an annexation agreement there's a prior map amendment approval and all of those things are set forth in the stages they didn't feel that process right so it's not rights are so fundamental you have to follow all of those processes and they felt none of them their property is a remains of one egg they're not supposed to use it for any other use the nose permitted by our one  it but even if you want to consider that under the very court of ordinances under which they were annexed the phil said your legal non conforming expires in two years can't have it both ways if the bridge is going to say you can come in and this
platter and a survey and with respect to what they did you was and any developer would have used the same thing twice the plan substantially similar and didn't that demonstrate that they had  basically put you into the same footprint he did not contain a benefit he did not use this idea this vision that the plaintiff appointed him he did not use that that is throughout the record he read this record you will that the ryan homes made a profit there is absolutely no evidence of that and that is the typical case in my experience i'm unjust enrichment is the sort of the that was that was the major money he was asking for millions of dollars saying look mr ryan you agreed to be my partner and not because you didn't become my part of a i've i've lost all this effort that i of title two but i didn't get but i don't think that is the issue in this case the issue now is now you have before you you have the record in front of you can seal and make a evidence that we used these plans to develop the problem right there is evidence that we well there's lots of evidence in the case with respect to platts diagrams  back these are called titles those entitlements that mistress work out ok as we all know this is there's no issue or they all expire meaning they were of no value you're absolutely right those entitlements at that point in time had value and if mr ryan had purchased the property unused and had tainted signature of right on the plaque and validated was the same or at least extremely similar to what they've already approved when your claim puts it forward later and i'll tell you when my client put it forward later remember he purchased the property three expired and and mr ryan lost a lot of money in his news down payment on that property before before or so at that point in time this is a nineteen  that we had committed had nothing nothing at all to do whatsoever with worked out would have had drawings that would be very very similar that's the point you have to be a developer to understand that when you have a piece of properties you never see you're saying that given this that the plans were given to use the plans the players were similar they retained about let's look at the other side of the way how did what was the detriment to your players by the retained that benefit when your claim really had no project the previous notice were three years previous zoning from lake forest none of that gave you any value at all that that was just absolutely worthless is that what your testimony is at this point two thousand at this point as we sit here my knowledge is we gain no benefit from mr ford house that's the testimony in the