MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
came time for the plea and he actually responded to the court after the state board in a statement of facts basically and he said defendant with you can't discuss the case with the lion and was satisfied with his representation and he said yes that's what why did he say yes didn't have time to think about i think is is generally something that was said or appear i'm paraphrasing right but he didn't plead guilty on that in the four to conference t v it came they came back later in justice what we've heard here is either he's changed his mind or he felt rushed how do one of those two factors constitute a manifest injustice in light of what justice hutchinson aggravated criminal sexual abuse which would be only pled guilty that he was charged with aggravated going to a sexual abuse another or another iteration and predatory criminal sexual assault so off three of those would be right now they are asking for that opportunity is the standard to review the busa discretion yes i handed the reason for my inquiry was because if i was the trial judge and i knew of the admissions or the statements or these text messages plus the allegations are made and that when reporters were reported almost immediately after the  and then i was a trial court judge and adjudicate or deliberating on whether or not i thought that a manifest injustice had been done i would have a hard time coming to the conclusion that as an appellate judge what the trial court did was an abuse of discretion how would you explain you keep talking about these are things that are supposed to come a trial of a trial these are things that are of record to the trial court decide i should say decide what the judge was saying he was aware of what he was giving up and he still wanted to plead guilty so how do we reconcile he wants a trial when he said you know i understand what i'm doing i don't want to tr decision relative to his place so you started answering so for some aspect what the attorney did or didn't do that was defective but i'd like to have you elaborate with at least eighteen i would like to additionally point out the fact that on every single court date after public defender mark lyons pointed out he was not an initial attorney in this case as a st for the st four and a half months to find it was represented initially by the on versus status so in my experience again and and any inadequacies in the record are obviously construed against against the apple was however it is in my experience sometimes if there's a change in her recorder on between the
nearby for the officer to you now say it was clear for them to arrive the officer testified that that was the policy of the ambulance and so he followed that was he when the as if it's criminal in nature to secure the area here we didn't have any call for any disturbance of the peace or al kong person or causing destruction in the drive through  secured which is the court pointed out you know heaven forbid of their loved one manpower to secure the area something happens to an individual well secure in the area and i'm assuming that that means the for the police to go in and make sure that it's safe for the ambulance to come in because often times when and it was a good call some of these things are the stuff going on and they're still happening in and they don't want to get in the why isn't this whole securing the area just a big red herring of was that got to do with anything make it compiles that there's some criminal activity going on but there wasn't well it turns out there was so so so what because i suppose he's going to sue the police or the city or somebody because they delayed the people but that's not what's that got to do with what we're talking about here today because my point not my point is that there was an education criminal activity the only and don't remember the exact point and that's a good point when he took the keys right when you take the keys he had to impart now and morning exactly i can't remember the transcript verbatim but if the car was in park and he took the keys no danger eat there but there was no evidence that he could not have done that himself even though and i got to say to justice when he said that he's passed out or just unconscious and again the person who called didn't know what i know there's a lot of speculation late at night a drive through it doesn't make for the best overall assumptions i mean because it was listed unreasonable for the police before he sends this guy on the way correct my point was not that it was an out of public way it was the summer suspension but not that it's on public weight in the sense that there's a heightened sense of community here to function on the roadway when they're sitting there have some type of criminal activity that he cannot put his finger on is no criminal activity that exists at that point even in his mind and so that's why was i my point was that it elevated prior it was not a tweet here ta take the keys and put his he could have asked them and volunteered to stay as in some of the cases where they did we stay here in the in the let me ask you some questions and go to the empty i think it was more of a command to stay there  step and i we believe that that certainly is the case in this situation but alternatively through reasonable suspicion that something is going on that needs to be investigated by the officer when you find some
to take to get their medications prescriptions doctor's appointments so that that simple fact doesn't occur in the back and the facts surrounding the context in which that occurred demonstrate that it is not in fact an were in disputes with their son and they actually consulted mr core on advice of how to handle their son and the record already has a part about first again implicitly and so on and further once once that event takes place john  construct of notices the should have known what a reasonable person would put on notice the actual notice is when their son comes to them and says this is what's going on for us that you need this second notice is when mr christman says exactly the same being mined in that area and that what he saw being sold from the gold's being mined in that area this particular mine is one of the most significant gold producing mines in that area for special in gold and because he felt imply her starting with that which is it which is very adversely affecting my i'm absolutely she had she had problems with their son and they go back but that doesn't change what we consider it actual knowledge or even in the prong also exists that a reasonable person would have been put on notice at that point with this with all three elements put together now i guess alone not by this alone but this is the cut off date and ninety two is an important cut off date because it cuts off any further damages that she may have once your damages are excluded the amman case state farm versus oman looks back from the date of filing for years if there are no damages from any predicate x from four years before the fi does nothing and there is no evidence that she did anything other then get herself an indemnification agreement in her contract for sale of the mine that's the only thing we know that she does between the time she was told of the alleged conspiracy and the crime the filing of the action and there is no lawsuit after she had reasonable notice or what we consider actual notice then they have blown the statue of limitations on the rico action and his claim that she is receiving ongoing injuries from the failure of the
constructive notice because it's never in the chain of title the supreme judicial court and he she specifically said quote if that provision from judge hellmann said we disagree and why is that important it's important because the supreme judicial court has been consistent to prevent errors and forgeries and the land records in massachusetts and you know back in time to ensure that before something became of record they were requiring a person to appear before an o t notary if there's an issue with that you don't think it was actually acknowledged you could attack it but rather conducting a hearing an evidentiary process to determine whether or not it was knowledge which i believe would be the correct standard the court simply said on  c the first circuit assumed as it had to you that there was a material defect that the failure to put the omission of the mortgagers name was in the defect cause a document incapable of being recorded case the question i believe in that paragraph and reference is the acknowledgment and then in question instead of putting certificate of acknowledgment uses again the phrase acknowledgment so i believe it's clear from that nature but they don't know part of the registered side so a party does through the process has all the protections of the land registration act and ultimately ends up with less rights than those parties in the recorded side we believe that would defy logic and in fact in this case one very final themselves they're the trustee and at that point in time they would say there's a defect here and now they've looked beyond that is a good deal and probably there's no different than if a party had transferred the property three times there are multiple chains of title and at some point should give them more rights you give them less rights and you would also change under ninety three seventy how the certified in massachusetts you were put a look back at two different certificates of title and we believe that that would be in th am not aware that there's a legislative correction to dish iran or what i am aware of is that under section fifty eight of the land registration act which is the way that the trustees have said well all the recording standards apply on the registered side i would say that that's not the reading of section fifty eight section fifty is an affirmative statement because it's in vision that there are documents that could be put on record and since late registration act as an invasion all of those it says that if we accept one of those registration again just to summarize here we have
right you ma all and now this all had no knowledge whatsoever of countries case and the immigration court was never told of the labor certification do you know it's a disgrace to our country that they are even nosed about this the immigration judges know what's going on here you know you can be a disbarred lawyer in practice before the immigration court city challenging actions your honor there was no evidence challenging mr those actions in fact that there is there is no evidence that she acted inappropriately there's no evidence that she knew mr carter to not hav discussion about the possibility of pursuing she ever met and she never met her client before the hearing i believe the evidence in the record suggests that they had a meeting five minutes before the hearing five minutes for the hearing that's a great way to prepare for application that was pending at that time and there's no indication that eighty eight different lawyer would have pursued that given the the tenuous nature of receiving a continuance based on that a petition for labor certification place potter no better position we don't know because he didn't have good representation throughout you know you know was he was he was he was really caught on this there hypers if you think about it you provided an effective representation from the immigration judge and the actions are always those things the client for five minutes before hearing but we don't know exactly what the nature of that relationship was what the agreement was because there was no compliance with lasorda here there was no indication as to your argument correctly this court should simply be any role as an appellate court and become basically a trial court or or a jur permits counsel to represent applicants knowing the structure of how this representation takes place through shouldn't be any problem
that you are shooting a murder of your
whether once we sign it we can get out of it there for that and then there's just the practical argument that if we didn't wire our funds on the st because of the misrepresentation that they them as a businessman to start going down the road of preparing and preparing these courses to be produced because they thought they would be in the time frame given how long takamine takes the question was was it reasonable for them to there was a contract with these people that is that is true of any investment that you have something that you can deliver that this is something enforceable and you were very clearly wrong about that and the question for you this was that re throughout the three year history  committed finding one which start to page twenty nine dollars and which basically begins with the notion here that the representation of the forty million dollars award was not based or misleading there are thirty i call to the court's attention and we have it finding to always time to at the time of the representation with me which was october down he references a november th e mail but he said that's not relevant because the decision to invest had already been made a month
question is does it die or does the star become back to life and rock on team you can tell the story from species to species it's kind of an interesting study in itself we've been looking at a couple of areas out there one is on the southern side around nineteen where you
expedition reached the ship without further difficulty other scientists are enthusiastic over their discoveries and they're very thankful to be back in this country again out of reach of the sc first point of  yes i think you will let you change your mind we'll give you a personal demonstration and unless you follow these instructions the spalpeens men will carry out their threat against me this notice signed by henry carlyle carpi and this country and we were all of a danger to call the police file main this is an emergency carlyle's life is in you have until midnight to get the lens and delivered a note said you must go to the young street bridge alone are you willing to do that for mr carlisle and if you all keep in touch with me by telephone i'll let you know  we'll have another talk mr carlisle come on
and possibly even after state and like that since there are also probable cause proceedings that are completed once the grand jury indicts and it looks like group would say that's not right and of course it wouldn't be right even without corey could you respond to my concern well it's a difficult question of course that would be a potential problem for the court as i can see it but i don't think that that would take away the rights of some of these keep people that do have a right to why wouldn't it i thought that was the whole idea of younger of stashing is first you finish in state court if they have a constitutional lawyer they'll probably correct it and we'll never see we'll never have the comedy issue that the argument then you can choose the problem in the hundred to two hundred trials that have taken place in the state of california with men who are afflicted with pedophilia there's only been one person that's ever had a not true cancel waited almost the full fifteen months before filing in this case he was timely probably by about fourteen days on and so that hasn't been explained why there's a fifteen month old legs where nothing is going on exceptions to the underdark and it would require that there is no access to gravity would be the first hurdle to get across and here i don't see why the remedy is not adequate if there is a finding that he is not sexually violent predator he will feel released for these very dangerous individuals who have a mental defect and a predilection to use to commit violent crimes against adults or sex crimes against right and adequate save remedy all deal with traditional remedies such as double jeopardy or speedy trial we allow pretrial intervention in this type of case it really would open the floodgates to many other types of cases perhaps finally i just like to touch on the issue of this faith creates liberty through all of the case
just second nature wish i believe his son issue will a first impression as far as addressing it head on which is whether or not the first amendment may be bold by a plaintiff weasel claiming retaliation or title five i like to start with that when it's exactly the same complaint that is covered by the administrative structure and comprehensively so why is there any possible first in them and klein i can see on the facts that there would easily be a first amendment claim on matters the public are interested in but what about this case and why should we decide an abstract issue if this case simply were decided on merits they were the first amendment claim was not rejected outright because he could not co exist and as a matter of fact the first time in retaliation cames have co existed with this rumination race under special  been made aware of that she received on their own two thousand and seven from her prior supervisor stating to all employees that they had to electronically punch in when they came in or left the premises and she insisted on to depend on her not giving notice and then you give her reasons for the non renewal of her contract and you don't even mention that although i suppose it could be inherent in the desire to restructure but it's most peculiar and of course that makes the argument your reasons keep shifting quickly addressed that supervisor relies in part for investigating further on two professors who call her who have concerns she's not doing her job ver went to the public interest she was pursuing her private interests that does appear at some point in someone's briefs but i don't i have a hard time understanding why a complaint to the a da that you need a reasonable accommodation falls within the first amendment if we h and we've created a vast body of case law about all sorts of statutory nondiscrimination programs i agree john or this is just a you know we have this is this is a complaint basically stating professor gomis was punishing me because i request your society my right be able to have a lawyer the performance of me says yes there's no constitutional right even if you suffer for not for for a medical condition to be able to come and go to leave on emergency basis there is a notification requirement she's not getting along with her supervisor and we think she has been given an accommodation and if th testimony of course we don't have text messages it's not something that you keep a record of no not i'm looking for an alignment between an occasion in which she complied with the policy and discipline that this is as you heard from counsel from the defendants the position of the p r seems to be that this is a terrible employee yet she gets a notice of nine we want more of that not only does not mention that it doesn't mention her performance at all and all
the summary and conclusion paragraph in my clinical judgment he remains a danger to the community of release that that at this there's no question the statement about us that he is making determined efforts to rehabilitate himself that he has been disciplined free that he has taken five or six hundred hours of substance abuse education the problem the doctor sees is that minimizes the argument in the same problem i was having with your colleague mr borenstein is if that turns the whole definition of discretion on its head it doesn't it's not discretionary anymore now it's mandatory based upon what you claim to be a more protective policy and next year be what discretion to me i'm not sure if we're using the word discretion in the same context and i'm not trying to understanding the board retains discretion in mr on which it would look at is released and look at the whole record and stake will look at your lease tomorrow or we'll look at your lease ten years from now it has that discretion and judge plungers question to mr borenstein i think pointed out that any cooperated in to everest all of the adams exhibits and there are many cases coming up through the state system at the time and they incorporated adams which had lots of the documentation so he was diligent and my only request with
that's that's all the analysis that's all the education and written to the facts of this case the problem here is that the court of appeal focused only on the part of the prosecution's argument that we have not argued constitutes the gri and when the prosecutor says there's no one no one who can contradict send one wasn't there last night those are the cork passages the counsel to the group in violation of the california court of appeal entirely ignore them prosecutor's response was to say it was very nice the defense presented a very nice man mr coleman to testify about his character but where is the alibi evidence that was the prosecutor's mantra throughout away from him has been sitting in court including the entire course of the prosecution that's about as direct as it can be otherwise a prosecutor could say with impunity no one including but not limited to the defendant has and there was also considerable impeachment from perth officers with respect to what the witnesses had previously told this is what the prosecution had presented the real period of time and there was testimony that no witnesses were called no defense of any kind other than an individual with respect to the defendant's personality character under griffin and explained by this court many times a prosecutor may properly comment upon a defendant's failure to present witnesses so long that is not afraid to call attention to the defendant's own failure depends on a comment on the failure of the defense as opposed to the defendant to counter or explain the testimony presented or evidence introduced is not an infringement of the defendant's system and that right in this case the and go the defense offered nothing to rebut the finding that he was at the cap a or participated in the killing or while the victims were killed the prosecutor during closing argument argue that the defense the defendant the defense called as a witness on only a person to to testify about character and there were no friends or family members called provide an alibi inferences from the evidence showed that his guilt and this is what the prosecutor argued all the inferences from the evidence showed his guilt and all the defense consisted of was a witness who could not contradict the prosecution showing  be wrong and then i'm invited to be cynical but then i've seen that kind of art of argument where or somebody plays off an objection and then completely poisons the atmosphere by explaining exactly to the jury how what the signi the jury was told by the prosecution or the defense attorney and by the court not to take into account any feel you might the defense to defend them to testify that he had a right to the side of every participant in