MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
debt because they put a mark over and above the amount that they were allowed to give my friends the equity in the home they could reaffirm that that had been wanted to but they did not common sense as a lawyer to realize you know if i don't own something therefore i don't have a minute to go so what is it that he is trying to  on the record there's a letter from your point to someone representing the n c p i guess that relates that he was they were discharge machinations the mental gymnastics that's going on in this letter relative to if there is no there why make this offer or this attempt to transfer which apparently was rejected your honor i wish i could  had with my client mr wilson who was the only party living in the property at the time the joy the foreclosure was in or in june two thousand and fifteen has been a victim pro the problem here simply is you've got a letter head that has some typing out of it that says we send it out well we send out certified mail that two dollars and fifty cents might buy you the result of the plaintiff not following what they were supposed to do as the argument here that the plaintiff to not follow condition precedent by filing foreclosure case if they didn't follow the condition precedent to filing against  with the mortgage or in the handbook but opt for the higher regulations say that the person making the meeting needs to have a story to ensure enter into overpayment by this agent who showed up at the property did not seem to have any i don't know how this could compile the essence of the regulation
the house he didn't mention the garage so we've got other people arrested we have a different location on the underground from the house to the garage why shouldn't this state is sure who you know rules as opposed to a not so to you i risk being facetious to two things here have knowledge of the prosecuting officer and you have to have one act now here there was no knowledge until it is settled just commented we had a fingerprint and this time defendant to marijuana in would have been more someone well they're both ours saved that's correct your honor but i think that there's still a distinction the court in broke house made a very distinguished height and that location is a very important element of the construction think the two setter buildings falls on the side of not having to be in one position but the two separate buildings conceivably were under the control of the the defendant here into it before in other cases and with sexual assaults that occur around the same time and but i think the key point is that the state doesn't have to do that if you don't have the knowledge or if it's not based on the same math which in this simultaneously i'm having a conceptual problem with the idea that if things are not within close proximity to each other that the act of possession is one in the same they may be simultaneous they may occur in the same time for things like that happen before yes you're on what is the basis what's what's the rationale for the courts previously determining child pornography there was no question about that we had knowledge of something that the defendant did in this case we did not it could have been many as opposed to bursary where i would guess that  investigation continues as to because someone murders the victim but new evidence came to lead evidence that we didn't have before which is similar to this case wow it wasn't as a result of an active investigation it was still something that you must knowledge as to who committed a particular crime interest or the defendant is one of several people who are persons of interest or the defendant is the suspect or the defendant is one of several suspects  those four fits this situation in your opinion in my opinion i would say the defendant is among several persons of interest as he said for ever at least two other people that had marijuana in the house people don't necessarily or were charged with because it seems reasonable that they should not have been charged with constructive possession of marijuana in his bed or the proof of constructive possession or to proof of possession of marijuana in the garage would be based upon constructive possession but there is not an issue that he is the only individual who constructively possessed that
an expense on the highway authority that equals everything that is now going to the commonwealth leaving them only with just enough money to run the roads that expense be considered a necessary operating let's start with the statutory main argument account and everything else is just contract well this particular this particular contract it's specifically it's the money into the to the mines held by the fiscal the said that provides that the revenues were pledged if we have to have a proceeding to determine exactly what the scope of that alleged needs we would argue under the terms of this technicalities they serve an important public purpose not just turning quickly to the consensual room argument it was probably because it was the first time it was played in reply it does point to one statement that they made at the june fifth hearing and it has to be balanced against five or six specific statements where they specifically disclaimed any interest in it and it consensual number of cases in our brief it's well established that that is a form of adequate protection thank you
by her father through everything so i don't believe that she's completely credible and i also think that the career and knowledge spent they're going to find her credible and they did find this first credible and they believe that
remain silent and three times he's had his supervision revoked for doing so the first time he was placed back on probation the second time he was to prison for thirty months and the third time which brings us here today he was sent to prison for ten months we believe that clearly violates his fifth amendment right to remain silent the supreme court has most recently looked at this issue in the prison context in  case in the first four justices and then in justice o'connor's concurring opinion was that the compulsion there was no compulsion there because the consequence for not complying with the treatment disclosure obligation was not great enough in that it was just a reduced removal and reduction of prison privileges and therefore there was no compulsion and therefore it wasn't a constitutional violation here we're not talking about prison we're talking about someone living outside and although they are on supervision they are free relatively speaking they go about their lives the way each of us do each day and by remaining silent mariana lopez ended up in prison honor larry in a lot once treatment in fact i keep it without without like being required to go through a polygraph or whatever without being required to incriminate himself by disclosing his prior sexual history on the other hand if can force someone to incriminate themselves and we promise we won't use it against them later they're conceding compulsion they're conceding that he is being compelled so perhaps the court is considering whether  understanding why if we were to agree with you we would go beyond simply saying that this condition is not constitutional and then the district court would figure it out with you  could probably take twenty minutes for us to go through the past history which the court is very familiar with but don't be misled about why it is that mr antelope has been revoked on at least several occasions and it's not just because refusing to follow the conditions of his lawful court order he must refusing to do anything that she wanted to do unless it was on the terms he wanted to do it and that's the problem with this case mr antelope says he wants treatment but we've been up and down this case since october of the year two thousand it'll be four years this fall and mr and local has not been in treatment he has not shown he's really wanted to be in treatment unless it's on the conditions that he sets and the bottom line tell the court i'm not going to do what you tell me to do and you're not going to be able to do anything about it because i'm supposedly invoking my fifth amendment right to remain silent the major problem which is argument now that's even worse than what was the last time we were here on the first three appeals in front of you don't even have an issue to be that argument under minnesota versus murphy because it is clear that the state of montana the federal government did not then use that because we said to him you've got to do it in order to be rehabilitated you've got to talk about it she has for sixty five us bad for twenty repeatedly murphy said that if you remain silent you cannot have your revocation revoked
support in maine would be looked at by the truck or in would not be taken before by a want of twenty twelve when we tried this case in june twenty third team there particular answer pertains to equalizing the amount pursuant to the marital seldom agreement there was approved by the board in may of twenty twelve paragraph three point four fifteen thousand six always seventy six cents instead of the sixteen thousand five when he but what george kelly did sask twenty percent statutory guidelines to that number therefore the respondent is paid twenty percent now prior to the gushing of the two thousand dollars for the man's i do believe that obviously i'm sure the court is aware of the statute has applies in this particular case  then who are assessed a twenty percent desk or a guideline in the mouth in excess of thirty two hundred dollars for mom but they did not take into consideration the other expenses health cetera he also pays fo by memory it is presently set or more i believe one of these sounds something like this but it has not been heard and the reason i was asking that i was warning of that four point was now moot because the if the hearing had actually been held in august we need a proof substantial change in circumstances it's our position that you have not only a substantial change in circumstances but there is a continuing duty for the  case was filed until their judgment were on their property they were also to decision those wages were never divided he received for his own benefit a little more than eight percent of his pay every time he got a check that money was never did that was two thousand and thirteen and that figure was about sixty three hundred dollars and that's in the judge's were i think the court needs to look at what he did with the maintenance in child support or work together together those who work for about fifty three fifty fifty four hundred dollars  less a little bit less than a thousand dollars a month to support an adult child by different relationship so there was sufficient funds available to support the sort of child support guidelines being or in that ceiling i think what he did was kelly specifically stated that there is no basis for deviations and that that being the case and that's our position that we should have a sell off of all these other expenses including but not limited to the amount of main
testimony and recognize that she saw knew it appreciated and understood that is open office the next step in that equation once it's determined is open office the argument was made that the distraction except it exist distracting and there is no evidence that it was she was actually distracted she testified she wasn't he talked about traffic in the parking lot she was asked that very question and again i will read it so it's not slam question as you got out the record that she got out of the car walking across the sidewalk looking in traffic watching for traffic watching her construction all those things exist there the person rejected their history no pushing back and you have to resolve
interruption you can hear me speaking as just one member of the panel making some some compelling arguments that don't seem to be addressed to the jury regarding culpability  argument that you make that she is your basis for for requesting a new trial it essentially is that the pennsylvania law  would not recognize a claim for negligence or a presentation negligent misrepresentation as broad as the one that was submitted in this case to the jury and that did the claim here is broader if the safety standards are not complying with the products that they test the products that they test but specifically with the shooters in this case it's a new needed recurs burberry aton chief engineer told the jury that these things are not and the reason i say that is because in a tech has an entire form of the company that deals with products getting you know but they didn't know it gets pretty responded to them by other people ok and say there's another product out here that doesn't meet the it sort of speaks for itself in order bride bait indicated that they knew that consumers rely upon their safety test results and that's you know to go to the website is that it's that type of representation but that shows their general understanding of that don't you have to show but there were his and they knew that there was a risk of harm to your client specifically for having this particular heater well i think that they i think they knew always that there was a risk upon me i think what is shown here is these people you know use you spin the chamber and which one is not going to test it correctly and we're going to send out a dangerous product out there i mean that that's what this is in this particular case and certainly they knew that if you don't test they need to correct refer all state from customers around the country you're right i actually think that our case is easily distinguishable from state farm because state farm basically took it upon themselves but the council has even admitted they did corrupt portions of their opening statement where they said this case testimony is exactly what happened in this case this case is a microcosm of what happens as a result of what in a tech does they don't they can't ever get their standards correct and they're letting people who have a countries that you know quite frankly ca support of the fact that you know a much higher moral fiber is going to be scrutinized much more closely and certainly that the kind of takeaways that we're in a double digit ratio is really starts to push the boundaries of due process but i mean the fact of the respect t
calculation in my opinion and he was of the actual value of the parcel itself but an appraisal wouldn't be a recalculation appraising would not we were seeking to have additional evidence as to the recalculation of the value  reason mr smart is going to come came in and said basically we paid in certain respects because of past ramifications on the corporation and i also took issue with the fact that his compensation was in my opinion under a of your arguments this afternoon will take the matter under advisement and will issue a written decision this quickly as possible
and prove if there was in the fill your to even attempt to locate or where in this instance it looks like there were several different attempts ever made multiple attempts were to try to find you couldn't find your different people said different things about o arguable or possible neglect the defendant's representation should be sufficient here what we know that the one of the things we know that was not in it and why is this here is who is reluctant to could go on now because she said there were two people there to teach the defendant just gave two names of people he said were definitely the people who were brought in to i don't know and i don't believe the stipulation is in the record no wonder i don't remember i mean this is how i remember it and i don't believe i looked at could not find it i don't believe if we don't know what the stipulation was how can we make any determination there called touchstones or benchmarks usually and that is that you have to compare something against something to make a relativistic determination if we don't have the situation are we supposed to make any determination as to whether or not a one it was relevant to real the fact that people stipulate to things don't necessarily indicate that they're relevant material if it may be under the rules of evidence if they're not miscible but the so possible the length of the case for ineffective assistance of counsel for women when it's a trial strategy decision and one it was well sought out and presented as well you know for them not bringing here then and the same reason why she said she explained that absence of this holly and what's what's really incredible in this case one hundred i don't think i've ever seen this before she said we tried multiple times to look at this woman  trial is over she tried and then to bear and then she said i knew this lady i resented her over the years she also had a very fragile mental state due to the being present when your sister was shot to she didn't identify into the perpetrator but she also said that the defendant wasn't there is what she said and to say that the defendant wasn't there is  unless she says something to the effect i i saw her i couldn't identify him but he wasn't the defendant because this person was wearing a where's waldo outfit and i saw him five minutes prior or whatever it is you know in a heartbeat outfit so we have no indication the hurrying answers the door and get shot at she does not since i do not think she sees the sure but again this
we know with the  hospital or whatever the government or the railroad because it's one of those interviews where a lot of whatever they want on signed by virtue of the status yes or they can put on things and content by more than seventy five percent at most of them are located on busy thoroughfare is so you'll starting about a substantial reduction in the ability to communicate with the desired audience court found the pole sign up under this record remained standing on its continues to display the advertisement bridgie case business so there is no deal as applied to our issue in this case it is in this case involves the itself that was addressed in the hill versus colorado case i would be a great distance from people entering and leaving our medical clinics for hospitals our kids and the courts found that the law was not a substantial in fact accordingly do says that it's common ground the governments may regulate the physical characteristics of science the big difference between the parties here lies in them part of the war test about whether or not what is the degree of proof necessary to show that those governmental purposes are cheap or advanced marilee by the regulations question and what they say is that disproved is something of an expert opinion a matter of bringing in witnesses a address what we suggest here is that that means and so now it is in the war situation that we're applying it to a content neutral time place and manner restrictions that the courts give deference to that are actually footnotes sixty two of the cases the issue is whether or not there are standards in the regulations to guide the discretion and to allow for meaningful use judicial review and we think there are in this case and we rely on everything that i i don't think it contemplated the courts during construction your honor and as a matter of fact that mr smith said about that is compatible with what he said about the application of the design review clause which are the same problem they can be applied various ways by  well i have to go you don't we have facial and as applied claims throughout the complaint unfortunately it's so complex i can't i've been focusing my effort on focusing on the case law and other attributes so i'm i'm not able to answer some of these questions or that specific but there are some other things i would like to point out terms with mr certains that first of all if you could travel time is not where it used to be and it's not what it used to be basis of content if it was pure commercial speech and as far as the status i want to make this point there are standards that specify how large the signs can be so traffic what kind of copy they're supposed to have on them but the city allows planners and other officials to tromp those standards when someone comes in applies for a permit and allows the farming official to reduce the size of the sign change the graphics on it and do whatever he wants to do we have evidence of
the vision issue got a cataract so we know that he indicated that his vision was impacted by july when he drove at night but your position is that that's not found the parties wanted to agree to file that as a supplement with the clerk of the court here today i believe that would be agreeable to the court
witnesses and said in the affirmative
fulfilling satisfying productive journey
because of his membership in his mother's family and the government neither contested going to cross examine him on this point nevertheless the government like the board said this was insufficient because garlic did not provide corroborating the abuse of your client or those triggered by his relationship to his mother's family commitments or the past persecution case was made and i think you know our current did not factor into the agency's decision here so i'm not sure that this court can consider it for the st time on this appeal i think this court has to bet its decision on the basis her testimony should be discarded because she doesn't take the britain a standing at least not at bath time so i've been trying to figure out rai and she real friends perspective is you know his mother refused to testify she wasn't willing to testify and so you know he was not wanting to to try to force her to testify and i think there are different going here and i think beside him including during time periods when their grandfather wasn't around and the only evidence as to the grandmother which is no answer evidence  that and honduras this is part of being a man beating your spells bad made me grab rather worse raised that way as well grandmother who did my mother there's no objective evidence in the record to support that conclusion  grandmother individually  grandmother i'm not aware of any case of that supports that specific proposition but then in his affidavit he does talk about the fact that you know his grandmother often told him that his mother about congress because she did not love him and i just would like to make one related point which is the abuse that our client suffered was not simply the physical abuse but also the emotional abuse of which statements like that are directly relevant and then when the sorrow pointed out
and i think the jury probably looked at all that maybe true it's not appropriate to you know indoctrinating your your young children into that lifestyle and that's really why the evidence was overwhelming because it's just pretty much a