MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
extended for a year up until april th two thousand and twenty one and you don't seem to be taking that as an extension of a finite date to be a traditional emergency is that is that is that your position that it's not well your honor i think there's a understatement because on december three the governor and the public health official declared a true lockdown at that point and that even superseded the blueprint you can see that i'm sure total lockdown december through into january  defendant important right to a trial against the countervailing factors but the government believes that certainly here at this point in time and in this case in particular given the seriousness of the charge showed genuine prejudice with delay are you saying that because of the general order that the trial court could not consider that factor no your honor i  the the court in in conducting the ends of justice d dealt with absolutely consider prejudice and i think you know i don't know exactly what the case would look like but it's a case the federal court has been clear that it's tying this to the blueprint and there isn't any mention of the industrial guidance that's baked into the blueprint and there isn't any mention here about how the blueprint was built although we've had in this circuit extensive litigation about that including the state's epidemiologist you know explaining the factors and why one venue can be equated to another venue so one of those just give you one example a very important factor when one looks at that blueprint and  the state's experts are absolutely consistent on this is ventilation for example just take one factor ventilation and we don't have any in any information about what the ventilation system is like in the court in these courts that you're talk about how difficult it is to get a trial but together but i'm not sure that that's the only factor even if trial in popularity is the standard so to you address that because i think i don't know that he said anything i'd like you to address whether in fact it was possible for there to be a trial because my understanding is that judge carney could not get a jury because the order of the court to which  forcible and a lot of the same place going to be in place it's trial judge in every other trial judge in the district has no choice but to continue trials indefinitely so it doesn't matter that the government says well fowler i think you were well over time but i will give you two minutes honor i want to start by addressing the findings that the court actually made on the record and i was able to find quickly the court actually did not make a finding the jury trials were
already i think it's important to remember the context in which this evidence came out this evidence was not introduced as evidence that the jury could consider every terrorist the ball attempted to introduce this evidence who was shot down by the court  remembered if you ever separate out at any one of the hospital where he would have become consciously aware of his surroundings and the circumstance of the people involved just because we know that next benjamin had a needle just because we know that she was a nurse that does not believe that one point the doctor said they said something to the effect that there would now be this new action so we can that injection can appeal this concept of involuntary intoxication when it was not pursued in the trial court this is human and upon review read it approximately a month ago i don't know if the square has really been met jack or not and in that motion we outlined the progression of the change in the statute the entire legislative debate not just the legislature has spoken
for you you don't have that statutory authority you're making the argument that the prior statute said fully explained to the front of the consequences of such but i know that that a big large language there even though that prior statue of consequences but you're saying that there was no articulate band tory decisional last thing you must talk about consequence of the potential consequences of a conviction that's leading to these difficulties right there on the court and how do you define an abuse of discretion with did he consider that the tragedy consider other than the fact that it wasn't required to give it to him the yeah i mean obviously he didn't allege that it wasn't properly admonished it didn't i mean in the sense that i've i'm really putting this contest because when i i'm confused that we explained to the defendant the consequences of such  know i get out and find that i am going to have to deliver newspapers or you know this is you know now i understand something about a felony that i you know that wasn't explained to me nor didn't ha the judge addressed that is a substantive issue but rather said no i didn't have to tell me about that so he knew all about will you know the consequences because i told them where i was you know it's fair to say that no because i wasn't required telling you and that's something that that means that if i didn't tell you because i didn't have to you're going to have known or or that it can't matter you know that the only thing that you have to know about an offense is what i am legally required to tell you but isn't it i mean that he can say no there were all these other things legitimate for him to say i eat i didn't understand all of this regardless of what you're legally required to tell we all know that that those are in all of the consequences there are other consequences i mean yeah these are legitimate and you know if you just would have been charged six months later the case that by the impending and the legitimacy would be mandatory you know there would be you know a written decision
one single reference
interesting about this particular type of the sentence in fact if you look at it it describes a broad general description doesn't really focus on any particular spot on the face of establish the right to a permit and express permit that's a very hyper as it should be on council talked about the evidence that was submitted the core the course all the evidence of submitted by the allegations that he get the evidence out except for the motion real proof there's no allegations of prejudice there's no allegation if you know that he misapplied anywhere the only ambitions or basis for their ill is we think he weighed all the fact they said well now there's this witness we knew about all and we really wish we would have called it because we really think it would have cooperated fully instead and we want to reopen this whole trial interrupt  and then my guy who was the spring they started knocking on somebody's dog kill somebody else's dog that's not really important but that's you know if they stop being friends and he said i already this license anymore and that's exactly what it is it's a license in the original moral line wanted to be in the same place as evidenced by the rules they actually build nobody could reasonably say well i think that this was meant to go to the screen that's an entirely different place on the property that at the time could and i think it is the well that was referenced in this twenty five year old document to give me access to water he couldn't access for there to be no way to do it it's a judge it mostly just doesn't make sense and i think that the court is that the judge the judge showed it was against the manifest we have the evidence you can look at the evidence there are disagreements but it's at least the time and i think we established strongly that the disease  thank you thank you of the survey but it wasn't until i confronted him that he admitted he had basically lie under oath so i really believe his testimony for anything to do here can really not be accepted by this court because it's somewhat c
that i came in and the dispute in that that action if any as to who may have had a right to the four hundred thousand was that an issue as to whether the stand off at an interesting because nobody knew about
or argument in the why the plaintiff was given an additional twenty one days to respond they were pressed that time to respond and they never never stated in any form that we're just planned to rely on our earlier place which is wayne county and since then i mean this is the first time anybody from chicago has been here to you know to argue their case in any way and then or could granted the motion lease to terminate due to her violations  the purpose of the forceful entry and detainer act is to prevent someone from forcibly removing the tenant in this case her lease expired she had no right to  she left five hundred eighty seven dollars worth of furniture food or cleaning supplies tell seats clothes for two people so i don't think that left and left town she wasn't anywhere around planning our use that my plan or simply remove her against her will and that's just not so she was not even in the same
it's not here we want to wa that someone at that point was substituting the cooler if she goes back to whether or not the defendant we used this speedy trial to me and when i would call it a failure to waiver of his appearance for all subpoena what this is me and what if he doesn't know what if the attorney didn't call him and the attorney apparently just thought this was a return on subpoena not a court date set by the court so decide that the call the isn't important enough is the trial court and the trial judge so the defendant should i believe in this case properly have if that first subpoena returned he had trial judge who are you with your trial judge it wise that i would like to waive my client's you know appearance for a further either status who or subpoena returns there would have been  set by the court i mean it was the state that had the discretion to send it in and he didn't the court was in session so again it doesn't really help your  to their compliance with the various you know rules and regulations that set the date and i believe that since they are operating within the bounds of the court system and the court rules and regulations that is in fact a date set sometimes the wheels of justice are slow i don't believe that the normal trial judge would be so oblivious for i'm compassionate to a defendant most trial judges i've seen are more than willing to work with  subpoena cause any delay in the proceedings i do not believe that it did but as the courts have noticed in the case law the legislature separated out in particular a failure to appear for a special handling when they imposed the waiver request to be tolling now it's way correct so obviously the it is that in the excused absence with continuances which in which a waiver is not found the defendant has taken preemptive action to explain to the couper that they are not appearance treating the waiver of failure to appearance as a separate issue that's one of the things they're trying to do is have the defendant take proactive action when they're not going to appear at their defendant absence can be excused so you know as you pointed out you know the defendant or as i suggested the proper action for the defendant in this case would extend to a period that date say i responsibility to file with the demand if you're going to an issue of the fact in this instance account perhaps i mean i think you're opening up the argument then that by filing the second demand even if we were correct in our position on the first one we're now starting back at one sixty because the
more than should be able to do more than one dollar a month for example
parameters that which set forth in section two f decides in this respect against you use the board's decision reasonable i will support a decision here that would appear that there is some ambiguity in light of this the statute in the stop time  that in connection with an application you have to have good moral character up to the time of the of the application being ruled on because you don't want somebody to get seven and then later ten see good moral character cancelations for an individual not having a good moral character for purposes of kids away should run a one off and what the board doesn't it doesn't very good job pick the fit in the south of the night recognize that it says well let's take a look at that language it was in essence the us and europe such period we have to do we had to in order to interpret the i a e a here we had to make a determination of whether what would its office in the final administrative decision make sense with date there has to be a day here and when reading the i a e a as a whole it only made sense and i think that's what the fifth and the seventh and in the senate specifically because they specifically crush it out and give it chevron deference and talk about cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion so you would be yes you can do so as a matter of discretion but for the purpose is zero zero for purposes of good moral character in that particular timeframe i agencies have medicaid subsequent to those particular subject to those particular printers now should this court decide to chip away at chevron in the future as it continues to go so be it if any of it of course but i from the date be the actual decision and he said there were two other options were page recognized that there's a problem with the the textual way which but it had to take into account the stop jibril with respect to physical presence and therefore you've decided this is how movie makes sense except for th allow bad acts to happen before the or after those are all taken into as a matter of discretion because a person commits a bad act outside that period of time doesn't mean we're going to have the admission created as a matter of discretion it can still be application for adjustment of status under section two forty five of the act does not require good moral character but it also comes with waivers for criminal activity waivers who are on the up for more from this representation on waivers states they can make that an application before the judge but already there are certain requirements for them that they are able to pay for their transportation outside the united states that we're willing to leave they have a nice in that they have a travel document so
back one of the things i do is i'm a sort of specialist at the v a so the concept of peer to peer all the struggles i went with from post traumatic stress disorder i'm trying to help saw what they did so when they come back here expecting you know to go back into their lives they came right exactly and i think it's even worse for these veterans really the son i was with my son was a boat two or three and started walking around i still was having a lot of problems with nightmares and  sexually attracted to girls so i couldn't be gay but everything everything about me to a certain agreement i don't drink sure this is high school i love with all the boys my age but we're talking  so the the have to wait to see how the baby develops really but doctors know this today in the fifty's and sixty's didn't know that so i don't know if i had sometimes it's sometimes it is like the movies if you see something that happened in a matter of minutes it seems like i was how long you're sitting there and before the medical helicopters came in and  and early eighty's and finally i did get a year of total sobriety and at the end of that year of sobriety i still felt like drinking and i was talking to my sponsor and i still felt suicidal and had and i came to a conclusion by myself the only way i could be happy what makes a sponsor that to live the life i want and i made this decision well i've always wanted to be pm of this is how i felt and i literally  do need surgeries and more treatments and more to a certain level of acceptance but your question it's like they say ten percent of the population as a truly value is either a gay or lesbian or i'm so happy that you plainly found what you needed and it was given to you maybe it was given but you know i don't have any idea i don't think insurance
or attempted to purchase items in two separate transactions the first transaction went through with the card for all ever reason the second transaction with the card was not going through they tried several times where they were unsuccessful with the second transaction and those of the cashier went to bill gives the head cashier for assistance during this same time mr wall asked the plaintive do you mind going ahead and taking some of these items to the car and that's what happened state's attorney and as i understand it on november five two thousand and fifteen possibly sixty days after the initial shopping trip the charges were dismissed and again of the couple questions for you know about the the police to determine whether or not any action was taken on them one way or another i believe anyone whether a citizen or a or a general manager of a store or any store should putting and i have in their pocket and wasn't going to pay for my alerted the store and then they took action and called the police do you think that the duty to follow up on that is a shopper and say i want to know what happened to those charges that they charge was there actually at that i do i do not believe that a citizen who was a coke patron right would have a duty to follow up and if the question is i think i'm i'm understanding your question was there some additional duties or things or conduct that should have been engaged in by the menards folks to go a little beyond to make sure before you look for something to be investigated i don't know under under the immediately called them and they were and they were those charges were dismissed and again we didn't know this tremendous name until he came in in late october early november with the receipt so you know that's the one thing that confused to me is it was mr wall who was having the trouble so having mr madden get involved i mean you menards didn't even know the names of the individuals who were there but it would seem to me that mr dear but it's my understanding that they did look at surveillance video and they did look tapes and maybe there was some confusion because of the surveillance video where they had a boy that said a transaction they thought that was a picking on this point of and again i will say it again is sorry that even for sixty days this happened it shouldn't happen to any one i totally agree video surveillance and checks just as well says the purchaser dat it's a labor big weekend it's busy they deal with undertake investigation right away there's something to the manager of the electrical you twenty thousand dollars for actual damages and presumed to damages which i don't understand what that is ok so and my question is intentional infliction of emotional was and asia additionally ended that they had a duty to exercise reasonable care to investigate whether their suspicion the theft was true or not true but general manager in assistant general manager judicially admitted they had to do two that will be like boring for you and not allowed to rule out the rationale and the analysis of the trial court which is the most important item that we need to look at the judge
hearing and the public defender didn't adopt the motion didn't read the motion and really what we have is a sort of improper hiring reverse in taishan where the defendant doesn't know where he write why you need a attorney and trial we don't know what is going to happen we don't know what attorney would do that affects the entire structure of the proceedings is there a question that new comes ten it gets so bad that he moves into a different time to mention well if he's not there anymore i think that situation could occur but given really investigated thoroughly she was here insistent that this was a progressing getting better as time goes by in particular the after show after the witnesses the defendant's obligation to say that i'm suggesting that it is i'm sitting up a situation where it could very well be that the defendant invited on the basis that he just to every stage of the proceedings where you have real consequences it's a the there
losses that was not what the court found the court determined and so even with out the bonuses we are let's see hundred twenty nine dollars shy of forty percent reverence the ruling from the bench and filling in to what extent the guidelines are pretty clear in the statute bill you know we're we're in the process of trying to make some group these requirements which may be awaiting the do you think that maybe the that you practice a lot and could be helpful to the courts in the future all of that was wrong so regardless of what she personally consented to the consent doesn't go to your client what i understand and that's what my arabic accent does it really hasn't i don't think that was as clear before but i think we
the respondent petition agreed all of those are paid there's no evidence in the record of any of the dates of the payments were made petition argues that the amendments to pleading should be liberally allowed but at what point are we going to draw the line when responding agrees the amendments are allowed to comport t case where's the proof if if the purpose of the statute of limitations is to protect them players against claims too old to be investigated how can employ and employer be expected to defend against a claim from may have nine hundred ninety six when it was not aware that the accident was related to petitioner surgery until two thousand and two some four years later how can respond to be expected to defend a claim in two thousand two petitioner surgery was now four years old it would have been before we went into trial he knew that this was going to be an issue there was a note when he amended that application in two thousand and two that this that he knew there was a problem that that he put that note specifically in that but why wouldn't he have come to trial with some proof  payment to me we don't disagree that payments were made but there are no dates misunderstanding is that the payments that we talk about are not the payments for medical bills the payments that were made were for the payments for lost time the last time is stipulated as to be april she testified to during the time she was off she received her those benefits those benefits are pursuant to ha ha is clear and you know we didn't put the little line on the bottom of the application about last payment ha because we thought it was a problem we did it so that the document itself on its face showed a cause of action it showed a cause of action that the payment at the filing was within two years and is a question whether it's two or three even to date that she was off and made ten to nine hundred ninety eight to the initial filing of october seventh ninety nine has been a two year period it had been later it would have been that period and that during that period she received benefits and they were ha benefits they were not workers compensation and so the arbitrator more or less the owner that they would pay these a year earlier  yeah but basically you know it's a very it's a question of why it's a question the statute it's a question of arithmetic we know what day the accident occurred the accent of the app was properly amended under the rules of the commission  was filed within two years of the last payment under ha the language and the decision that the arbitrator wrote and there was a form by the commission except for one clerical error was  by coming in that late in the death if that's the point of the statute of limitations for this the search of limitations just has no limits and it really isn't protecting employer you can come in six years you would not be able to determine when payments were made if you will but is