MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
state registration there is critical as opposed to the municipal registration there the village would be entitled to allow to require as well now there is no factual dispute in this to the registration i think that if you were dealing with something with a vehicle liquid now operating at all i think you would but not relative to something which just cover of darkness so it's not see enough means yes anything can happen but the point is if it's not registered it should not be operating on the state or township or local highways correct i fear i agree with the you could get rid of any possible water that would be created yeah technically i guess i suppose it could be violating state law for you know for a few seconds while its power didn't want to the village puts forward the argument that you know keeping on registered vehicles on private property can lead to ice or to an eyesore in the community to roads collecting the other other health risks don't know a lot of people do and i can tell you that my client's perspective on this was these were merely emergency vehicles they were never to be used except under circumstances of emergency so they were never required to be moved so no but here but there are ordinances maybe not in round lake beach but we've seen other word insists that do prevent  registered vehicles from the park over lengthy periods of time there also are ordinances that we have see that prevent licensed registered work vehicles from being at all can be powered on a driveway i think i would have less of an argument there on this my argument basically heat is they have the mere existence of this prohibit my client from doing that no question but we're dealing with the state registration and they are staying off troops because again it's kept within their i thought about that too that's a little bit more difficult to see in all candor from the way people pull the car and they can hide that you can see the license plate and say ninety five percent of the time people just pull a straight  vehicles actually were registered on an annual basis they could be stored there and what's the difference there they're still collecting does there still creep you know there's still water under the bed when your rains there's still and then we have to do small work we're going to have to see if those vehicles are being moved if we're going to try and improve our chase that that difference haven't moved for x amount of times other being still work and i think practically speaking most people that are  he could have said this car there them here essentially this is it is not a type a and ordinance that we want things to look nice within the age of room break beach we want things to see anything that says anything about if the car were register it can be on the property you know for whatever amount of time without a problem without problems i think the parents what the problem is
who's done all these other illegal things for me so he's not likely to tie me up with that doesn't sound to me like your client was in use into committing a crime he would not otherwise have much more like the cases where just district or the public defender indicating that she visited has defended a number of times over and over and over again discussed this deal and at the end of the day the public defender sent me a letter saying he does not want to
cases in some situations the court we painters fiction to allow state court to resolve certain issues and based upon the resolution of these issues they may or may not turn in the outcome of the retained federal crime we've cited a couple of cases in this matter to suggest for the first time two weeks ago that there is in fact review only by writ of mandamus those four cases all depend entirely and are based entirely on the u s supreme court's going to be able to demonstrate clear air when the decision is discretionary well we know from at least one of the cases that the sport decided that that standard  well there are there are three different procedural problems  large extent a pending federal court that was one of the reasons the district court was so concerned this should stay order it's not appropriate to have two different forms litigating still isn't this a race to the courthouse that's why we suggesting that we look only at the remained order in the first appeal i think that's all you can do and not take into account the dismissal i think in the first appeal you cannot it's not on the record well so when we've done that so then we blinders on and then you leave it outside because we put the blinders on wander around the barn get outside now we find out that the reason of language were on is god i push it in the courts concern i do federal the district court steps back and all of those size to avoid needless decisions on state law issues it's supported by the statute under thirteen sixty seventy one the and here are the district court give adequate reasons for why the rematch should occur unlike the attached to the federal claim versus the state claim and by golly we get some sort of advantage by using those federal standards and so they want to keep this claim in federal court in the plan or simply have decided that it's not worth it that whatever
you one prosecutor misconduct and two that insecticide prosecuted misconduct the facts of the case are it was an armed robbery captured on video tape there were two the the general rule is that an attorney only has to be a witness in a case if it's necessary but if you know let me ask you that i agree with that but your opponent says  defense attorney said go ahead and call a little words to that effect and i know you have an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to but there was no objection to her being call right here right and there was nothing specific really about where  a good idea for the prosecutor to testify in a jury trial and then be a part of the closing argument well with the very first part of your question whether it's a good idea from prosecutor to testify of course the court things that that that that the judge can do that it is discretion where he knew exactly right i believe he was doing it on purpose he was he was trying to
contract to the plaintiffs rely upon the they're seeking damages for violation of california and common law i don't see them in both teams any contractual language in connection it i mean they're they're claiming i understand it correctly that right they committed fraud in the andy if you will the amount they showed it as usual and and i think what's important is the full answer to this in iraq a story asking you know what that if i contract supporting right it's obligations included many more contracts with the process is that your two hundred and forty two dollars it wasn't just the become legally enforceable it's legally enforceable because under the california consumer laws right it was obligated not to engage in that deceptive practices and not to misrepresent not to make this represents patients
murphy decision the court decision in which they held that the there was no identity between armed violence predicated on off restraint and the offense of aggravated statement because the defense position is that it is impossible to commit aggravated unlawful restraint without in fact also violating defense of armed violence however what the defendant  looks is that the of the fact that there are there are differences between the words deadly weapon and dangerous weapon and dangerous weapon in the context of our violence actually has a specific statutory definition and that is or dangerous weapon or instrument of my character and so that means that that reference to delhi or dangerous weapon of flight character refers to cutting type instruments so therefore it is murphy was correct explosive chemical biological or nuclear weapons or even perhaps animals all of which could be used employed as a deadly weapon within the common meaning of the words that weapon but not be in fact sets of elements these two compared senses are included in one another however the clemens court assures the state that included offenses are not consider identical for purposes  discharge of a firearm they're not similar enough to be considered identical in fact one if one necessarily commits aggravated unlawful restraint by committing are powerless merely says that seven is only that they are included that his conviction would remain a class x felony subject to a thirty year maximum penalty for purposes of the limitations of penalties applying to juvenile delinquents so therefore would be until age twenty one it wouldn't matter so they can be remedied by for example amending the comparison statute so i do that analysis the states takes the position that the person has held these violation if the respondents correct if they are in fact is a violation in w so it's a different situation of like hostile for example where the legislature had to serve a certain penalty then they knocked a new crime and has the penalty for armed robbery and now that becomes right and they say well now sentence for the first day the statute the law of armed violence in effect prior to the enactment of public act eighty four nine thirty which would be public act eighty dash ten ninety nine effective in one nine hundred seventy eight conviction larry first it's too sharp and sharp refers to christie so with respect to the the greater offense i can find a reference so where
it would do lawyers who are going to argue this case please approach the bench introduce yourself to the court her to intimately fall down the stairs now what is your theory that there's a duty here in this stairway only applies to the second floor and is not necessarily  the amount of it that the defendant reserves control retain control in the stairwell on just that highway the you know the point councilor mentioned structural repairs it the deposition testimony doesn't say
congress has granted a lot of unity to financial institutions from liability for filing suspicious activity reports but that immunity is in no way without limitation the text of the statute reads any language that grants absolute or unconditional matter there's an express qualification it says if stressfully that move there needs to be a possible violation of law that's report now that means that by an objective pass there needs to be determined whether or not a violation of law as reported by the financial institution is possible if it to try to fix problems out that it is  empty all you would tell or be able to infer from that as i understand it is that something was suspicious and it ought to be looked out for the possibility of a literally the action that was attributed to our current was in fact impossible and not only was it impossible objective way but it was no room to be impossible by a draft o and then after that the poor were sent there was an investigation by the f c c against our clients i e i have no doubt that you've got a circumstantial case that some kind of a report was filed but to my knowledge  no way takes away from the fact that organizations there's a myriad of different ways to deal with that issue well one way would be for the judge the district court judge to review the saw or the actual siren tamra which willing fact be confirmed or is it an objective test which looks to a broad range of possibilities on the which may in fact not be shown but which come violation of any regulation created by the department of treasury under section fifty two meeting becomes a violation of section fifty three twenty two the government has in fact profile criminal information is generally being provided to the government and the government honestly you know the initial first filter of what to do with the information and what investigation and advice to conduct on so you could you since we  what to do but the reason something here to the explanation is suppose essentially say that's a device or transactions for you now was telling you why we have a concern about these transactions i guess i'm also trying to figure out it's all suspicious activity
citations being meat for violations of the noise and debris ordinances does not demonstrate that the patterson's were being treated like others when it came to those sorts those who assume this situated to your client that the universe or every other property owner of this wildlife as opposed to other violators i'd like to know what your definition of similar situation is as when you for your  but it's different juries to draw those inferences rather than for the judge to say it's impossible to draw them whom because that's what you're used to all the time it's a lot of circumstantial evidence here and granted it is circumstantial but juries they have there's aren't evidence to tell us that five in the vicinity were not what is the rational basis for having cited them and not the five others and if there is something in the record that would explain that you could at their re right and focusing on the class of one claim which requires a showing that there was without rational basis for the ordinance for the young enforcement act assume for the purposes of this question that there is sufficient evidence to but i think back to what children dell was saying is that there is a disputed fact as to whether that was sad take gather with the fact that we do have in the record the councilman jackson has on he indicated that mistress the pollie repeatedly brought  attention his concerns about how the patterson's were making their property so in mind there are nothing it's a circumstantial evidence in this record that a jury should make the determination as to whether he was the causal connection between why i think we're on the scene here is that the point the point is he reached out for his colleagues who had the authority over the couldn't force or the liaison relationship with the code enforcement personnel and isn't that enough for the jury to one might look at this as of course their neighbors but if you have superceded or intervening causes and take away the the effect of what's triple he did but not if what he has done amounts to either deception or coercion and as clearly there is a lot of evidence in this record of racial animus sometimes you know it's something that you can into it or it might be inferred here there's a lot of direct evidence of racial told that other people have lost their jobs and he might end up the same way he was there i mean three months he was there a lot  fourteen seventy nine that there were fourteen or fifteen other houses that there were pictures of this right there are you could you and your coat your colleague agree on the pictures in the record that relate to the paterson
times that i see you know you go through each of those cases with your own you my opinion a very i think the key terminology here with regards to the distinction between we go malpractise which has been identified in the case law looking at black's law dictionary and what that means regarding the attorneys professional skills his abilities and his knowledge clearly the state legislator who draft the law for after the act itself practice takes what is i argued in front of the trial court on numerous occasions where the act of malpractise occurred on a single specific day rely upon what he says in this in the or the device of these potentially during her at that time she probably never gets a second legal she did not come to my office asking for advice or counsel on advice about how they knew this particular worker's compensation matter i think if she comes to my office and she asks you know i relieved that mr harland may have done something wrong here i believe if you didn't file this claim result you know if it damages aspect of it and i agree with you the fair to them malpractise act itself creates its own set of the images we certainly have to be able to establish that there is a second set of because one thing that i do not identify are my relief as part of the rules governing workers compensation practice whenever an individual attorney files an application for adjustment a claim there has to be a fee remit file offer she didn't give up any particular rights and it's not reliance upon that statement they can establish the necessary reliance for fraud that she once saw additional bodies she was happy with her lawyer as alleged and finally the damages we're talking about are the same damages that are intertwined and related to the original malpractise in the first place she has a claim for legal malpractise she was politically for legal malpractise and would have been to do now alleged because that was a case where the it was alleged that the defendant attorney in that case the city we told an injured worker that her face had not been dismissed misrepresented the status of the case and then one directly to the bennett try to settle under two seconds to dash eleven fifteen the next case which is a third is your face credit which is lighter deals with fraudulent billing and this court took a look at that decision or that activity and said is that really providing providing legal services is can make an allegation that the act of no crackers occurred when the statute of limitations ran when there was a claim on while but that is not to change the fact that he's told them outright this and continued representation or problems with the
behind our back because we don't have the information they do we found as much information as we could at this point in time and i believe that adequate information is set forth in the complaint and is he she didn't know the dat n partly based on the fact that the announced with easily discovered soon after and clearly based on a suspicious retirement
fiction was sufficient and whether it was properly authenticated and what i'd like to do really quickly is to walk through the requirements as i see them in the regulations for establishing those in this particular circumstance they're the regulation is defined in this is that each of our one thousand and three point forty one specific kinds of proof that you need to establish a record of conviction in this four different sections of the first want to start section eight which specify six different you can prove this conviction if you have an abstract of a record of conviction prepared by the court in which the conviction was entered and this is a united kingdom situation here or by a state official or state criminal records of division  immigration that is of your client i thought i read in the record that there was a revocation of his conditional status as a result of a finding that the that he did into a sham marriage what if that happened if that's the case wouldn't he be deportable on that ground as well listen to criminal action situations really quite complex my understanding is that that was not that that subsequently was reserved by the judge you didn't reach that issue because of a mistake i think he was actually reading from one of the fellows to the trial was born on a certain time and he was reading from the first figure of the wrong child and he said well i'm not going to you know address that issue here because of all this problem here was just for a conviction the different uses of a in the uk and there's absence of evidence to the contrary that there is any other national tour of records other than new scotland yard a national identification service and service would be employee but somebody at the u s embassy in london would have to certify that you know m j brown  finding of the decision of the i j a i think that would be correct your honor the remember go back to the v i i i with instructions to allow an application for anyway so that issue i think has not been actually somebody in a final way to say it's a bit of a catch twenty two situation until he can get the drug conviction the issue resolved he's not going to be able to
proceed with the project if we departing as years invested personal time one point five years and money through the three hundred thousand dollars so far and he has taken major steps in that yes from the bowling perspective i think it's useful to look at the other side of the coin in terms of looking at preparedness preparedness to answer the industry which is the critical question  that it was highly improbable and therefore very much appropriate to dismiss this case on summary judgment for lack of standing the proposal by mr lundqvist was a fairly  dramatic redesign of a thirty year old airplane seven to seven two hundred airplane it was to turn the airplane from a three engine aircraft into a two engine aircraft which had an two of which were heavier and much more powerful than the three engines that were being replaced it would require creation of new new the sales design of whom the sounds that is the structure that surrounds idea that somehow all it was needed was an engine contract to assure preparedness to enter this industry just does not square with the complexity of this the complexity of the task here this also those two two additional grounds independent grounds for the summary judgment or by judge gregor's and that is that there was no harm to competition and that there is no way to prove damages here other than by pure speculation no harm to competition because the undisputed facts in the record established that there were alternatives competitive alternatives to this twenty four million dollar device or the engine redesigned project step up and say we will come that and therefore you have a launch customer which is how it's referred to in the industry no single customer stepped up to the plate for mr lundquist not only that with respect to said in that regard there still is the question of what harm would there be to competition as a matter of fact the airlines to solve these problems were in fact buying hush gets which cost three million dollars rather than twenty four million dollars in addition the record is undisputed that there was a much less expensive modification or re engine project which rather than taking the brand or taking the old engines off three at the rear of the have any hope of proving damages in that case he would have had to have gone through many gates other than simply contracted by engines the design stage the retaining people who could achieve this sort of
of the close of the case correct and at least according to what we see as pointed out by justice chapman that's not here that's correct so it would be your position of the defendant has waive