MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
career that if you look at the record evidence he his wife passed away are july nineteenth on july twenty eighth he entered the high school and never went back there was one hundred thirty six days from the day he went to the hospital first got married to his new wife based on a prenuptial agreement indicating they were going to keep their assets secondly they each executed wills which stated that they were leaving their possessions to their biological children there was no cross to mr hill well as i said before any time at the he never changed any of his estate planning to agree to this while his assets consisted of sixty thousand dollars cd and one hundred thousand dollars cd as well
however we are standard to review this manifest weight of the of the defense which means we can only reverse the trial court if an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent so tell me why an opposite conclusion not just i mean you're talking about it's presumed to be i mean that's what the trial court decides but from from our perspective in reviewing that decision under amenophis where the evidence standard requires an opposite conclusion clearly apparent pinning motions do permeate a lot of the issues on appeal so in your argument that the truck court here in declaring these two pieces of property is not a miracle are you depending on any of these documents it really that mr good time to reduce proof of the difference in the values of the woman pac and he did that june twenty second two thousand and ten transcript shows that ms wilson  trial stuff all right so the proofs are closest ordinarily bright so when it comes to trial mr guitar says i've got this i've got that i've got and statements are made by the trial court that you're it's not something that he necessarily marked as exhibit but it's something that the jury can see to kind of get a perspective but i think one of the most important things is just the kind of killing of the witnesses if you go over and read the transcript
what happened following remain and that's not what happened based upon the language of the the three were without any provision for so often which creates two judgments here on its face one a personal judgement for money from a four hundred fifty thousand conjecture that there are remedies but to answer your question more and more directly be able three quarters to create the risk that they would have to be twice the age of three were creating at risk maybe foreseeable reasonably the second trial dealt with mom's action herself for it was an infliction of emotional distress we're the baby essentially was left on the liver with we're now and you know as we testimonial to say ok if there was something that should have been done on evil three is there a responsibility why do the cut off because something else should've been done that's not something that we can decide at this stage by way of summary judgment position again justice is that all of the problems here all of the nuances all of the things that they had to deal with the problems that were created there's no guarantee that even if they saw subjugation that they did the direct appeal all that was not again something would be successful would not be successful is their obligation then to say ok we've alleged that there has been some professional negligence here but then again do in our brief that the issue of whether actual damages have been sustained is a question of all areas of all of the underlining questions w hard using the processes of the court to collect a debt that was not due i think we all agreed that there was e i was sitting there holding on my right the moment thought well this is tantamount to it self by deception and looked at the criminal code and sure enough this is the same type of  made because that is the focal point of the legal malpractise claim then there were no actual damages which could stop or the cause of bash and that's what the trial or rule in the first instance the order of the trial court specifically said that the corps reserves jurisdiction to both portion  there i was entitled to be reimbursed by me to go hard therefore the code of civil procedure and that section been pursued would have resulted in the necessary of just one of the raised and any time the darkroom oafish sent off was not pursued in this case by which brings us to the final feel safe consideration there becomes if indeed party has any action that arose on april three do they therefore have an obligation to basically cut off their action does it mean that the action should be cut off by inaction or does that mean that the action proceeds in these other aspects are still to be resolved the sudden review by way of you know have looked at the cases in terms of the superseding causation and look at home you know whether there are we're talking about something in terms of mitigation the inches as opposed to having actually been the has opposing to
reviewed some things and identified some but they weren't willing to disclose but had been part of the original my understanding is that upon the judge here since first ruling privilege not a modification to the original privileged lot upon which they still hold firm with respect to the consultant privilege documents and they didn't produce those so when we went on the second motion to tell that the documents essentially asking for the rest of the documents to be disclosed that had been part of the original documents were you know we have since we already had it and the attorney client privilege documents in the work product documents we weren't going back screen or rule says the identity of opinions and work product of the consultant covergirl only upon a showing of the exceptional circumstances under which is impractical for the party seeking discovery to obtain mexican's in the same subject matter by other means the us a question about that i mean that the twelve court could have just said these are exceptional circumstances without saying we extend waste management to true it t t did express there's no reason you couldn't cite it that way he did because the consultant and unity like work product is based on a procedural rule by to read again based on encourage the seeking legal advice regardless of whether litigation is in prospect not qualified that's an example of an answer to privilege but we're not like i said we're not dealing with absolute privileges today we're dealing with here is  i like privilege and work product materials generally a defense of the underlying litigation to consult an expert documents were created for the mutual benefit of apex and its insurers in defeating or minimizing the underlying claims that's that's the notion of common interests that you referred to earlier the consulting expert documents like privilege to work product materials generated in defense of the underlying action are an issue in the coverage action because the very conduct of the even expert documents that i described previously and while we still managed it never addressed consulting expert documents it sinus on this subject does not limit the logic of his analysis it doesn't matter documents is necessary for fear education of the particular action the at issue exception to privileges and discovery immunities depends on whether the party resisting discovering this would be an issue matters it cannot be  adjudicated would only without allowing access to otherwise not discoverable material in terms of these distinctions between substantive and procedural issues substantive issues on balance as a whole depends on
injury and its work related and so opposing counsel was saying describing the condition of building that any employee has while on the work site is not sufficient it has to have a statement or  talking notice that there has to be a linkage whether it's not a get it validly case just for the litigation phase of these cases were apparently right here on the issue
twelve months that time so she knew that she wasn't going to pay she knew that her boyfriend was living there and he was a good one too it's a basically they allow a bit property to depreciate in value will lose one hundred thousand dollars and believe that was the correct amount but all these other things that you're arguing i don't see where they can preserve except for the fifteen or the decrease in m accepted a no or by the wife and there was nothing to support it whatsoever and she didn't have any evidence to support it when he did it was that usually true but five percent and it was which meant the bulk of it was before the marriage six percent and this considering that the portion that was given to her in the final three g trust to manage it he would had no problem with her managing it at a hundred thousand dollars because he felt that that probably would be an amount that would be appropriate but when they were gave her him her the entire amount then he felt there was a problem because that only gave her incentive to do what she did with the house which she did with his boat and what she did with be when you figure out what number should be allocated the children if they need three hundred thousand dollars over the next six years then to take that reduces to the present cash value that is the amount of money that could  family was exceeded by what was of the awarded good they would not have gotten from but i mean from the mother if he did stretch credibility she said in one point it was two thousand dollars a month for the kids activit do that that's pretty desperate and she left of retirement to get the cash to pay for the kid and you know in other areas of the law we have experts who come in and then accountants and a telescope present cash value is needed to pay for x maybe this is the correct amount for  expenses were so bad for the poor wife that she didn't charge her boyfriend for living there for a year she just couldn't afford it that's how bad they were she was able to run him living room and board in that charge and that's a better expenses through almost a four thousand dollars a month job because she had cash in that retirement account cash in retirement account she left her job she left a job that would give the kids free education free college education and that's the test and that's the record which she left that she gave a better opportunity so it's stretches belief to say she quit a bed job because she didn't have money to support a house she wouldn't pay for anyway so with three thousand  illinois champaign in or specific things around for the next speculative at best again doesn't answer the question how come to the dollar the judge or the or the only reason he did that is he wanted to push my client and he wanted to give every single possible dollar into
the jail who actually sponsored it who is there how much the government know about well your honor we don't know exactly what happened sacramento county sheriff's meeting the united states attorney found out that the meeting had been taped and ordering the sacramento county sheriffs to turn the tape over to the attorney for but didn't bother to attend you know i believe he relied upon his clients who was the spiritual leader of the other people attending the meeting to bring his followers prosecutor or the state prosecutor help us with that your honor it means all of them i'm using that as a blanket term it so happens that this plea bargain involved state it involves the federal government  improper coercion government induced who were presumably the prosecutor who who stood to to win a conviction coersion i think you have to be more specific certainly from my point of view i think i need to understand precisely what's the theory under which you can make it out here because on the surface it has some appeal that that someone is persuaded because it will let his his guy so to speak off the hook if he he if surrenders his own will but if he does that on his own terms and for reasons that are best to him that's one thing in which case there is no the there is no constitutional violation that violation lee arises if you can establish that somehow or other that some acts non state confess despite the fact that he was he was presented with the minimal physical evidence that they had against i think he's good there was no which leads to the meeting in the jail help us from your standpoint understand what was going on there and how it was brought about and to what extent that might have played a role in trying to co from the u s attorney and involved the state prosecutor really wasn't involved in this part of it it was just the u s attorney the u s attorney doesn't make any direction and there was nothing in this record and no counsel was actually present during the confession so presumably the other terms of the deal may have been important to his attorney and rightfully so but they weren't of concern to mr muhammad who promptly upon learning that his and the fact that the original idea then for the bargain came from someone a government it's not mean that there was no government action in this case if you look at the state courts opinion the state court  law enforcement officials now why would the state court say something like that there was state action in this case without the state action appellant would not have been able
damage right if you agree with me injury yes natural sounds that yeah i agree and so damages it would compensate you for the injury so payment of cost for the economic disaster action is only implicated in certain situations certain situations and that is where there is an economic growth without any harm to one's person or provides a sick test for the same focus of determining that that injury itself so it's not serious if there's an exception to the mormon doctrine and it's not so it's it's that it just doesn't implicate the any injuries but you do have the damage of being hit by another person's car right of the injury and say that's example they used as the basis for lewis and getting to recall that i do yeah and does that make sense to cover cost of who knows how many tests etc etc are you not is that speculative this is from a program that it depends on what's necessary for the the person involved so it can be it can be implemented in a number of case for increased risk of the nat seeking compensatory damages they're seeking medical monitoring relief which is something altogether different and unless you have any further questions
in addition in a district court and be presented evidence that the oregon court of appeals has i think we would say it formally although it comes out in writing in all of their orders allowed  different standard and followed a different standard for the scheduling of breaks the state public defender is not held to the forty nine day rule they continually extend the deadline and v briefings by the attorney general in the public defender cases experience i think the record was of two hundred fifty days perhaps the other remedy that this court could grant would be to grant direct and order discharge within sixty days unless the state provides a meaningful appeal and it would be on of the transcript i don't understand he's ever made any argument he didn't object to the delay in fines rather he's never made any argument here about that there is any sort of in ordinance away in the general course of things and the organ appellate courts and finally transcripts from state courts are trampling on my federal constitutional rights because they are not processing my appeal quickly enough and he comes into this court and he says i'm entitle to your treatment than anybody else because i am  into the federal courts and complain about the way the state courts are handling their job and saying that the state courts have frankly not his constitutional rights when he has never asked the state courts for any affirmative or leave and he has never complained in any way to the state operated and was told you're out of luck get yourself a lawyer hire yourself a lawyer if you want anything done differently those letters are in the answer for the record second they said nay can complain to the state they missed the entire point of all of the decisions that are cited harris simmons all of them say when the state system is broke you don't have to do that and is because of the barker factors which in this court said in court to be applied include the reason for the delay the reason for the delay as found by the district court in this case confusion in the law about whether  but you have the finding of the district court and the facts that were presented in the district court that says that the organ system is in fact underfunded understaffed and the proof was that the cases from the state public defender almost never are resolved in less than two years in the record you
orson case is worse than this one because what he said to her in morrison was you're never going to see her again see me again and yet they still found that this wasn't a trying situation he had come to pick up the child and she had moved out and he circumstances had to be taken into account with respect to his intent as well and it's to tell you everything and the fact that he did bring them back ten minutes later it was she said and then told her when we were going down and having breakfast like i said he he had access child he was regularly in the child's life he had regular visits freighters seeing the child had taken a break previously and she has no problem with him being admitted as a father or supporting him there was no reason to believe him and her reasonable person to believe that this isn't the end norm that this is a situation where he wasn't intending to take this general move from the mother other then as they grieve for the brightest and the faith to call them afterwards supports a conclusion as never called him right so i think all of that doesn't stand otherwise what do we have we're talking about and how i mean where do you draw the line in terms of the time frame and how that would be impact the issue of
don't think so yes i mean in this case what i mean it was an agreement because it didn't contain provisions about pensions and real estate and so forth and so on and since it was an agreement there's nothing in there about what the value of those assets are at the time that the original agreement was presented to him you know when to have reviewed it and and i understand you're saying i mean there are it was an inconsistency of saying no maintenance but of course there was an event but beyond that how could he determine if that was unconscionable on go through all the details of what was done to shawn and just we made some observations about well he was a businessman he could have hired or hire a lawyer that's fine section or mr cheater changed her to bearing on your decision just as it had no bearing on judge suites decision property settlement should now be set aside merely because one part of the second thoughts in fact all presumptions
he doesn't read the rules he doesn't know that they're similar  opposing counsel seems to recognize that having having the late notice of appeal to reflect march seventeenth twenty fifteen which is the date on which she would through the post in motion the said january thirtieth hearing it was two months after the plea and there's nothing to suggest that he would even figure out that it was going to be the same procedure with a copy of the illinois supreme court rules this is a a situation where we're not plea we're not asking for a bright line rule just to reiterate and that at the same time with her that she too having to bring independent in every time a motion to make it pleased to find it's not a very common situation this isn't something that happens often
brace male or the concerns of the family being a blood bath would also support it although the judge did not and because your job is to affirm the charge but not the reasoning therefore i think you could also say that that was another problem in
don't think would be saying pretty much the exact same story in detail on top of the first story that there is an officer in particularly with you know in a case where there really isn't any cooperation outside  d who box testified she talked down what happened she didn't say the same story and i think there is a difference i'm going to very much differentiate that if she has said the same story well that's not hearsay because she didn't get into exactly what she said it might have some small prejudicial effect and i do believe that it would be relatively small even then because the same story to her might not be the same for some else she's not g details but that's going to happen the records show she said to those people i told them what happened she could have said something entirely inconsistent and there's no reasonable inference from that that the judge consistent with what she testified to but that came after and this is why it's not plain error that came in after box testified and on cross  the prejudice to i mean obviously if the court is already heard that there was a prior statement by her that the defendant because these bruises and by choking her you know whether it's one time or a second time she tries to explain and not herself and with bruises along her neck which was spotted by one of the mandated reporters and immediately she was taken aside and the rest you know progressed with her talking to people through the day  dorothy who saw her later that day he was a caseworker he had some training in the recent c t producing so in that sense he had something to offer in terms of perhaps you with defense's argument that they show yellowing and show something that could not be consistent with a bruise that occurred that very day and we would point out that is mandated reporters the fact that they saw her on this day a day when she reports this occurred that you know it gives a reasonable inference that had it had there been bruising a day before this is something else and she came to work that they would have also noted and taken some st to take care of the issue at that point additional we know from that text message and that text message the actual exhibit was not admitted and was not even moved into admission but from him so it has to be from the defendant that's a reasonable inference from this from this evidence so we know that he's threatening her when the police officer show up at his house he in fact does not answer the that that this has something to do with an addiction that he gave her notice of addiction prior to this date and that she was trying to get back at him for that well he also admits in his testimony that she sense in addition we have a fact that in both closing and opening arguments none of these prior statements and i would call them you know prior statements because it's not necessarily true that they were consistent in terms of on what we know about you know what happened but there was no mention of these in the closing or the opening argument by the state so that's another reason why we
and mr tobin comes in represented was somebody in the hall and i'm not satisfied with the quality of the representation he basically says i want to continue and ledger judge says no you know  which person wanted to hire their retained counsel of their choosing which they would normally do except for the other problems that come in depending on the timing and then have the court  of counsel now importantly he does not say that he feels that mr stroud has retained counsel is unprepared mr toby is complaints some sort of around frequency of that communication with his retained coun l and he did explain why no judge baby you mentioned you know at what point did mr toby realize that he wanted counsel and he actually says on the record that it was only after he got the front of him that included except the factual representation and there was no evidence in front of him that mr strong himself was unprepared and would be unprepared in two days after all he had