MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
were asking this court to reverse the commission on the issue of causation if the only issue in the case the material facts regarding causation are on disputed therefore you can rule as a matter of law if and if the if the only inference is that there's causation then you acceleration or cause the aggravation true and in this case because we have we have a gentleman who gave twenty years of heavy work as a diesel mechanic workers comp accidents in other words to his low back he had four accidents a right being out of it in the course of his employment in a seven month period after having worked there for twenty years and then with him a matter of like three months he has the fusion to his low back and then never work again as a mechanic well i submitted that bad chain of  accident and a work related injury unless you're taking the position that every accident automatically means an injury you see the subtle distinction you can stipulate only want there were some accident and worth it doesn't mean necessarily result in an injury does it that's true ok i mean there is a subtle distinction that's true in this case it seems as though there is no medical opinion because the opposite way based and the preexisting history of the guy having a bad back so the question is what do you really hang your hat on here that would capture dicta testimony of  snow back in march of two thousand and one he was complaining of low back pain and november of two thousand and one now november of two thousand and one is one out of two a half months before the petitioner's first accident in november of two thousand when he goes to see a doctor and he says he was helping put a snowplow on a friend's all terrain vehicle and he felt did you continue to problems with your back in july and september two thousand and two that he's got the answer was with you here to keep in mind is set in workers comp cases they have to condition of people being is not necessarily a physical condition but it's a occupational disability in other words here's a fellow that work and was able to work with that back albeit in a bad condition for twenty some years before he did these stipulated work related accidents and now he can't work so it's a question  could condition a bill beam is not initially a medical condition it's a condition where the person is unable to perform his prior occupation i think that you have to keep that in mind and i think that's one of the lessons of duran
is required for any controversy or plainly rising out of or relating to this operating agreement or to the interpretation breach reinforcement there are in your main argument is that this controversy or claim does not relate to the operating
the court judges these parties exactly these individuals and these counsel have before this court before not that long ago it was a different index number than the factual background was pretty much the same and indeed the subject violation of the supreme court rules that it appeared somebody was going in and give a shit ok we're going to get him because he appealed the decision of the trial court and the factual relation of the two cases was nearly identical factor and it certainly would be difficult to say what else would be considered intimidation and the fact of the complaint in the papers did not meet basic requirements this was in spite of years of experience and i think the city council of this case show dead nearly perhaps continuing to move to enforce a code violation would not be sexual but in this case it was reza focused retaliation against my client for that appeal and they were out to invalid so many pending the decision of this court there could be an argument that the complaint could have been grounded in fact in the spirit of that trial court's decision which which did deny sanctions at the end of this case we are anyway in our brief and what i need today that there wasn't a valid reason for that at least not not to the judge actually based his decision on it wasn't based on a valid reason he ignored testimony that was given to hear asking for sation his and instead he relied on testimony some of it that was ever testimony on the record in either case and some of that was testimony at the his decision to deny saying shame is a valid reason and it was based on on his being irritated at being the first on appeal before his not wanting to perhaps irritate having having been there and experienced it personally i think i think you do have to reach the decision that no reasonable person could agree with that particular judge's particular decision not to issued by the circuit court and there's not a central request against the supreme court for any improper language so i just don't get the reasoning behind that  again there are procedures available to the defendant which he didn't tell to make this matter be stayed taking into account that the trial court was very closely involved with the players in this case except for defendant we laughed out of that same sions hearing that last day invention and i turned to my client and i said do you feel that justice has been time which is the way whether you're victorious or not when you got out of the courthouse the hope is that you feel justice has been done and he honestly would to me and said no i do not and that is why we filed this appeal before this court ask
figure out when i look at the skis are we now talking about the trial all i want to bring up with what i believe to be the major points i hear my last point was on the on that issue but because you've got you've got a basic wish wish that you got the basic information you got the standing of the private parties you've got the i c c granting whatever scope of authority they granted to the pipeline third of the oil that would be transported through the pipeline but that there was an undisclosed other part that he was wanting that information for a movie to know how much was going to be transported by misconstrue ever say that i thought he was saying he didn't know that information but second ship it in my wrong and i don't know what he says he does because it changes for so i don't know what the there were seven months of of discovery allowed on the reverse issue and you haven't said how much was allowed to marry her them occur because there was none that might understand there was no discovery time allowed or no discovery problem is that the discovery here that it is they're looking for the name of the second ship or we're back to then challenging the entire project and those issues were resolved by the commission and
so let me ask you specifically what would that evidence of being and i know from the record that your client made a statement about something that had been going on all summer and there were problems oh i wanted to ask you about that because there seems to be a dispute between the parties as to how this would come back if we do remand for frankel your position basically is that your client would also be able to appeal the resolution of the crank call inquiry correct and the state is saying no appeal is available regarding the resolution of the crank will claim you can come evidence that definitively demonstrated that there had been prior incidents are the issue  incident or incidents then there would be no basis to make an offer proof because you have no proof am i wrong oh well i guess what i what i'm saying here is talking about the fact that they had been threatened our summer and that he feared for his brother's life because of these prior incidents opposing counsel stepped up and talked about escalating problems between these groups if defense counsel in this case investigated that and determined that there was no escalation there was sure so we had the testimony of your client testimony and now you're going to give us what the prosecutor asked on cro of discussion and concern about the fact that this motion that he filed with chino where he raised ineffective assistance of counsel that it was prepared by some unknown entity or that it wasn't prepared by do you know anything about that i mean he signed it will  ok tell us what the proper procedure would be why don't you walk us through quickly the proper procedure as far as if we do remain for crank call and get the other things aside for now what are you suggesting as to the proper appointed trial court does that in your scenario
investigation in the murder of valerie percy nd that the release of the records requested were obstruct that investigation and that all the appleby's are participating in that investigation that the the the the paper failed to it in a couple different regards your honor it's a good question st when the appellant and uses a phrase a dead leader or says that suspect has passed away or is no longer an active suspect at this not mean that the information contained in the interviews  new leads and he gave examples of how they've done that exactly in this case throughout the course of the investigation in response to the quote unquote deadly heat he also explained how some leads which may have appeared dead at one point without getting too esoteric one of the problems we have here is a relative explanation of time if investigations are only six months old i think everybody would agree that the entire file should be and were not impressed by the fact that it's does it seem like you're in significant factor in a significant piece about the his trip except that when you have a high profile murder investigation and that is suddenly releasing the recollections of the of the current suspects could be refreshed interested in any information this release read the villages talking to now may not recall the layout of the house but if suddenly they get a floor plan and they look at it because they want their vitally interested in this case and it has a lot of publicity and that's one facet of the owners a rare total comprehensive investigative file maintained by the state police commissioners were the lead investigative agency for nearly thirty six years until two thousand to  i don't know the answer that i mean there is a whole series of supreme court cases cited for whatever reason the university of illinois is separate from the state right and it is a subsidiary
before the lawsuit was filed it was pretty right in your face that you didn't do enough it's a question in other words of how complicated a lot of substantial nexus it's to try to figure it out we have these other cases like national business f will include a little yes beat up the cover to that is that there was really no no effort to really determine yes liability when you know i
and when we do those events we're very clear in saying these funds are going to be part ration we did the fountain we did went to the city to get approval we don't warrant whatever you would think going forward and then we would do a capital and my understanding is they believe there's a line item for the scar but it's just never come back to us and it's well it is a little bit more complicated then right when money comes into the city right in terms of having a a lot of times people will see us we're in the garden to volunteer shirts to designate the place will come up and ask about the garden or whatever we're always taking names adding people to our mailing list i think we're always trying to find creative ways to get more people involved thank you ok thank you
ahead so there's clearly an issue with the fact that you have to travel for it it needs to be looked at as to whether or not this argument they made that the the harm is going to happen anyway and it is granted must it be granted under the see if entity exists or can it be granted under some other based on their own documents that this was only for tip money and i don't think this is an issue that's going to go away wal mart in its own application for it it mentions that it is doing this in numerous localities  applications for chip money to build new stores and i don't care if they do that mean that's coming here or a corporation there they're supposed to maximize their profit or their profits but when this the legislature passes an amendment that says you can offer this money but you can't do it if you're opening up the same store in a new chief district it's within ten miles of the town outside your border and sixty miles apart there were no move none of those specific findings here and i would also add that there was no statute limiting the right to entice businesses to district less than ten miles away and now we have a statute decision can't do that so hope you don't even have to find that the legislature as i believe the trial court wrongfully understood that the he could consider factors in the supreme court says this is the case headed by our cheerily dismissed and refile with the exact same allegations the exact same  in here is the question that we we ask you in you're going right to the six nineteen when there is another substantive action or another action candy why are you doing to six nineteen should we decide t which is so clear in this case is that the relief requested must prevent poorly dressed the alleged injury really requested in this cases to form that to for a solution of they marched down stairs and filed the case again literally within like a week something like that two weeks very short period of time the zacks a cause of action no more or less allegations although you were correct i think counsel was correct the there was only one remaining defendant in the second case but this is the same there was a cause of action here and there was a cause of action here don't fool reason that the dismissal was granted the first time was there was not a cause of action it was not yet right there was pieces missing were pieces missing excuse me so how do we get around this type of business at a fact we have one case the first proceeding was dismissed because it was not right it is now right but everything else about this is the same but for the passage of time and for those reasons judge to consider whether the petition was timely filed was because that plaintiff had voluntarily dismissed his case and then refile the
state's theory was that according to the medical examiner's testimony the fractured ribs and the spine fracture recent injury is odd given the blood assume he punches him in the bottom his founder is able to get off and break down the door to the bedroom is able to get to the kitchen to get a paper towel to put on fractures on his left side and the bruising was contemporaneous with the bruising on his head that is always part of one's meeting since the victim who was on opiates is a big man and his palace problems and  without a rock or any assistance in his own home we simply do not know enough about it now the state could have you know presumably done more about demonstrating something to cling to something chose not to and so we're still left with this big question mark
claims you are not limited to claims particular to a successor is that basically the gist of the notice you think should have been given is yes  as he had requested success post conviction where he would have had the higher burden of the defendant in a court ruled the way that he did shields from doesn't apply the last question i'm in the middle i get asked last question so here's the deal in his pleading he never mentioned ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel nor did he ever ensuring that the defendant gets the consideration of the type of hear he wants to that's why the word is considering it be rea i mean he didn't file something trial judge or brings him up and says just so you know if this is a real post conviction so if you're arguing because he can't counsel appointed because he had an amended blah blah blah that was in a fact his notice for what was contained what he should be putting in this pleading whatever title it guy well st of all i would say that my  titian under the act he will be subject to the restrictions of the yeah and he knows this  just can look at it and go this just makes no sense whatever but or i think of it as a p c i'm a bring you up here and tell you these things wasn't that accomplished by his prior counsel on the or in the record or outside but he has to explore everything vic the defendant brings to him and so why would i assume that there is the ineffective assistance appellate counsel here which would be forfeited if we're on a stage two when it is you have an attorney sitting there going through the record with you asking you questions you can tell that attorney anything and yet
do so all we really promised wasn't to give up any rights it was to voluntarily suspend the enforcement period as long as he did not breach any other defendants were that he'd agreed under the under the two thousand and two agreement now to solicit his existing clients the ones that he brought him i mean it's not accurate as to what the nature of the north competition agreement insurance and all the rest on this separation agreement there's no duction of any and only see the they simply want to enforce a contract the contract was to make your home now to provide you with a windfall there's absolutely nothing in you used to be source but now you are and when those are terms used in that legal practice of law where is if you are the source for the client you get some high service or some additional consideration whereas if you breeze not to be in the area of service or manufacturing or production that you are or does it mean that he is not going to compete in a way which anybody else in the industry oh would be allowed to teach in other words he is at least based upon the down restraint of free trade he's given the right to everything else to some thirty third party w japan and play this for the third country he would cease doing things that he was doing for you and i don't think that is the wall and that's what it sounds like you your sugar coating pill to the extent that you're saying that he got good characterisation got equity and so on and so forth but what you say when you say he's not supposed to compete you're saying he's not supposed to deal with people that he would have been dealing with clients when he accepted the employment agreement which is today i don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of the transaction and so therefore based on your analysis times have changed and so when he wants to leave now there is valid consideration because that contract to go to agreement has now become in force because in return for history the book of
such as conspiracy we do not we still do not the government still fail to produce evidence to substantiate that furthermore the government failed to prove to offer evidence to prove the  case there were there were no athlete to know isn't the underline drug scam enough the underlying drug scam is not enough and in fact the underlying drug scam itself big because notice that what ever that product i e the flour or supposed to fake cocaine was no longer in existence that there was no threat there w that in cases such as this where we have no actual receipt of extortion at funds and where there was no predisposition for mr saldana to engage in these kinds of acts and where the government was on notice that the allegedly that the flour they allegedly cocaine had already been destroyed that at that point they cannot say oh but something happened in the far past that now gives rise to an effect on  implicated federal concern such that they should be at least to begin with and there was no such concern and to reach for acts that they know acts that are in the far past i mean is that enough for and in front of a jury who's has a trial of a police officer who's georgia a serious offense that enough to you know strike reference to the fact that they've already heard that here this person was how an obvious it is at least within our district where if we have a defendant who is going to sever his trial without some intervention by this court it's pretty clear that the government's going to continue or at least his mcclain on the miss thank you at one point your honors you asked at what point do we draw the line and you know this court has events just a real frustration with this hobbs act in and this is the problem because as we look at you and we conceded this much in our brief we understand it can be potential de minimus tenuous but in this case we have we submit it wasn't even there and that was the whole problem because the other had nothing to do with the flour and that's why it was destroyed and that's why there were no assets to be depleted this was simply about getting at several persons who were involved in and so we cannot forget that my
under certain of the terms you would happen just the standard is negotiation good faith and respect to other terms it's and there's an obligation to resolve the issues fairly because i think there is included in the complaint from the story of the play to the post here in gr fact they used the specific language of the software early but it was also evident from the care taken in distinguishing certain costs in the in the grid and the reason for this was valid because they were close our going on so they were has an interest in some respect and the improvements made very will be subject to some reimbursement but in this case the improvements were just made because they
admirably for the last year as want clerks i have knowledge of their credentials and i'm satisfied they possess the necessary qualifications i look forward to seeing that i'm not behind the scenes but u a a agency personnel any right to appeal to the embassy in any way shape or form and that is where congress was working and the veterans preference wasn't even on the radar at that point if it had been on the radar i think you know i may be taking a cause of action and yet there's no way to bring that and that's it's nonsensical certainly by the language of the statute expressly indicates which section may be appealed under this justice system is much broader than unfortunately any individual and you know as judgments i get very nervous when someone asked me to disregard part timers says places with what i think makes more sense in light of what i think they should also a problem in that instance for that i mean back pay act remedies were not granted well when it's the same situation in the intervening four they didn't apply that remedy when someone is legally removed from a position and there reinstated that whole period of time that they were out of work they will they be counted you know there's usually in these cases back pay to remedy those arguments must be made to congress only congress can confer jurisdiction and the only good thing i'd say this is the classic case where you know without exception you know we're converses with the series of exceptions but it's not included something necessarily other exceptions are excluded thank you may please the court and i'd like to address first your honour's question as to is this a gap and i think the answer is that it's not but it's an was to create a separate situation for the f a a it says right there in the statute subsection one that it's due to the meet demands when the agencies work force to provide greater flexibility in the hiring or training was this is absolutely absurd you have a substantive right for whistleblower rights which was a little wiser taken and it's absurd that there is no remedy and with this court said is this is a jurisdictional question really matter i also want to focus on their specific claim that there's nothing in the fourth act which suggests that congress intended to repeal jurisdiction that was granted  right the whole purpose of the ford act was to expand jurisdiction or not to contract the cronje tells his argument is that there was no jurisdiction provided in vo up to entertain claims of veterans