MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
interest it's actually quite simple first of all the court determines with the amount raised three hundred seventy thousand dollars separate the lead is that was being paid to her the scheme and there are many little settlement agreement see gander as a rule to show that the bat mitzvah expenses were definitely contemplated to be shared by the parties and especially the language as i explained in the brief including but not limited to support payments it is a misrepresentation of the bacteria and is very good for alan to make that very clear that he never ever missed any child support payments places him in a false light and out without any
wasn't any specific reference to the fact that the county was in an additional insured exercising its own rights under the insurance  the chorus basis with their view basis for distinguishing between t g r and the county in terms of the ground for disclaiming coverage yes there would be  that's basically the nd area meant that we have and we believe that if the policy is viewed from the viewpoint of you to show it sure because of the language of the policy the auto insurer on the insurance policies and they were issued a insurance certificate showing that they had taken place and therefore the county was a party to the insurance so i think that's what happened here is there was no recognition on the part to ensure that the county actually can't use contractual rights and so when he wrote the letter he's thinking my only insur good morning you know hat i please the court my name is marshall compassionate jacqueline asher of couse hopefully apologies st i'm going to address the application of the exclusion and short order then i'll move over to the letter just to answer the judge chains that question earlier is whether there is a basis for distinguishing coverage with respect to this is critical exclusion on the which coverage was denied under the umbrella policy it applies to insurance equally and in fact the reason why my client would be contacting t d r and addressing coverage for the county was p j r would be in the best position of knowing whether they owned the legal at issue and in fact when you look at the counties tenderly and that's in the record it or eleven through four hundred and twelve it was not sent to my client rather was sent to t d r s broker who then reported to my client there's no threat of a claim against t g r in that letter it's clearly just nothing more than a request for coverage and what we to the indorsement it's the test applies to those autos you all the key it would st to you runs contrary to clear new york law the separation of church provision argument does not apply to preclude application of exclusions when the exclusion does not refer to like the insured referring to one issue with a small one a claim against e g or at that time when you go to the bottom of page one this is this is where their argument that it doesn't address coverage by the county clearly bails it refers to a different policy the reasons why we are not able to provide coverage for this incident are outlined talks about the now covered the incident not for any particular shorts because this exclusion applies to everyone there's just no coverage for this incident and then on page which provides the necessary information for the county to determine whether or not actually the disclaimer has a basis and it discusses again disclaimer in terms of incident as opposed to any single insured when you go to page seven and again mention
if those stay together for a certain period of town then you know if there was a divorce found after the expiration of that time the player attorneys fees if she will you know a little bit less if she's working one hundred percent if she was still in
there is no dispute in this case as the defendants have admitted in requests to admits that the fee charged in this case does not directly go to support or maintain the horses that's a request to admit response by the defendant the responses in the record a copy of the request we need answers under oath are attached in the appendix are really what is also in those requests to admit answers is that not th does not know the sport any of the things that have been historically upheld as surcharges on file fees such as tort automation arbitration dock bail of salaries court salaries those kinds of there is the essential a request to admit response on every that based on session every single reported case we can find out they're requesting the defendants to admit that the fee and so that's technically permissible but only to support and maintain the operation of the court system which further requests to admit answer from the defendant we know it doesn't do the most that the defendant can say in this case most they have said it is that it is this supports ancillary services although they don't really get into what those ancillary services are by the same token abuser further incidents cannot take place by the same token a driver's education surcharge would probably reduce the number of traffic tickets but that doesn't none of that goes to directly support the operation and maintenance of the co to provide general revenue rather than compensation it's attack the fifth district finds that the charge supports the courses from there something we haven't a request to admit answer that is not true here furthermore a supreme court decision is always precedent on the lower course because it conflicts crock that's what i'd like to address as far as mr make pointing out that we admitted that there's no direct you but we believe that these ancillary services having this neutral site exchange it relieves the burden on the  constantly have to get involved in the custody exchanges we have a limited number of judges you know or if we have closed it is a way to do these custody things constantly which will happen without a neutral site then other cases get back appropriate remedy in this i would also note that our supreme court in the rocker made the comment if the domestic violence services are deemed sufficiently education fees me right down the list this is a slippery slope crocker this further no more this case goes further than cro
market in next year well you know i like that i get to do with a lot of different things being tom's assistant you know i kind of have my hand at a lot of different issues i get to meet a lot of different people so it's been  what a countdown my chamber of commerce a was many people are working on romney is doing governor romney is doing what we would all want to do if you're considering running for this office is traveling around the country talking to people see what their needs are and i think you see how he's reacted with this challenge of the big dig coming back to serve massachusetts he knows where his home job is but i think it's very interesting to see was going to develop but i don't think he's made that decision yet will it's interesting people often ask me that because i grew up involved in republican politics in mass in that new york state actually when my father was a selectman for nine years i respect people running for office just so happens we take different ro enjoy politics helping candidates to run for it was but my day job i do work in a state government which i enjoy very much so i can separate the two and i honor those who do run for office is working for a variety of environmental initiatives in town and we're trying to get people to make more environmentally responsible decisions that will help save money and help save energy and save our natural resource  we want a grant from the department of environmental protection recently to luncheon in titling initiative so we were able to get these sites and we're going to be putting up around two primarily in school and business areas just your mind people but it's actually against the law to idle in massachusetts and just send them to turn off their engines when they're not driving is why do i like being on why i work for an environmental organization so i'm very interested in environmental and i think it's a great opportunity miriam while mary trudeau i think age for the conservation commission in belmont the conservation commission implements the well and protection a a bank restoration and planting plan for the clave hit we have lots of projects that we're going
y and i think that a reasonable prudent officer would not allow defendant under those circumstances to get back on the road and dry i think that he has a duty to further pursue this and in the only question asked to believe i think it was pursuing for the happened up until it was the police are determined that he was no longer a suspect i'll focus on that part of the argument i think to understand just first of all you can stand it than fear i think that was up to the trial court and i think that it's rational to the term that that was result of the loaded weapons which is why i didn't make a big deal my grief over the fact the state neglected to put the little bit steps leading up to an arrest you know they can stop somebody and there's two questions or the question is how did the police come in contact with this guy with didn't notice the evidence of intoxication if they come in contact with him because you can go to t but i thought it was important just to point out it wasn't on the traffic tickets just to show it wasn't continue to be detained that he that he that the basis for the staff and at that point that was the purpose the year in the vehicle would have been difficult for him to close the door in his hand but just for the sake of argument let's talk about the two traffic violations the stronger and open package about failure to follow
dollars i'd gladly say that that's partly because i guess my whole intent was to be able to star block have the house on lock ten have the road base up to that point and be able to start the house and then finish the rest of the road as we're building the house just because there's a closing date and time constraints because we got started much later than we anticipated so that was my whole reasoning as i was saying force kind of a moot point because most of the bases in for the entire development therefore everything's been mapped so you want a list drug that's probably yeah i guess and then you have the executive session means a session of the public body from which the public but without members of the public participating you just choose to do it without members of claire's executive session that topic because  do it but for the most of the projects we almost never had anybody visiting the site until we started the liaison idea and that i think getting lazy i don't know how the rest of the board feels has worked out quite well that it's extremely hard to portray right getting everyone together on the site is difficult there usually ended up being like saturday morning which you know well for the nurse please know that's a very good point because according to the psych visit the public can go to the site not in here what i did was i took here all one i took a few different things and came up with this so it may not really work exactly been it's been
end of january two thousand and eight medical negligence and everything before it was consumer fraud when you look at this complaint were sued for allegations in two thousand and two for not doing proper laser treatments or doing improper laser treatments for his diabetic r that issues are being the same transaction or series of transactions and i'll give an example just to show you what would happen if we accepted mr haas in the spirit of what you could do here to try a lot of medical malpractise cases with even procedure you're dealing with any procedure where there is an orthopedic surgery on general surgery or a night procedure there are different illnesses to it the surgeon is required to provide informed consent is required to properly perform the procedure he's required to approved they will approve the final planes and then the city goes and buys it from the bank the same piece of property began susan susan in federal court says look i got a nine hundred eighty three actually you deprive me of my property they said no you don't you throughout i think as a forward to this case just like her there was one injury to him it was you deprive me of the opportunity to develop this property is one injury and we have one injury in this case as well hudson is out there but when i started looking at the policy reason behind hudson it's not so harsh to me and the reason is because when someone filed suit they said the policy reason is not sued some on some of your him read the complaint in the federal it goes through all the allegations of medical negligence in this case it says the guy was treated during this period of time i was negligently treated and was in appropriately period work it all between splitting issue we're also citing to the core of the idea that the court in a firm on any other issue so we want to bring before the court the other issue we raised which is the one refiling rule they violated that they filed multiple suits you don't get to
what if the trial court was wrong and the five percent did apply there's this maxim be careful what you ask for if you call it council was concerned that if you got trial is was there prejudice there was no prejudice here here we had to take confessions is a campus the defendant's own taped confession we have the police officers i don't think the defendant actually stated that while i want to play it differently or i want to play it out if i go in the correct circumstances i don't think that was ever lived in his don't see any prejudice there either he could have actually a lesser sentence so i don't see any prejudice well i think the point is and he never did i don't think you're right i don't think he ever said i would have pled and we know what he's saying if everybody including my attorney and actually known the circumstances of the sentencing situation that it was not consecutive and would not be five percent he might have been able to come to a better  fifty spent you know hundred years and they said it wasn't fantastic it wasn't fanciful it wasn't delusional why shouldn't we find it seems standard to a sense that he might have gotten that would it could have for significantly less after trial i don't you know that i don't have an answer to that i you know between you know doing poorly and doing the trial a good discussion maybe more information came out at the time maybe they tried to the victim there's just so many variables there i just don't know you know shells next to the defendant might have been evidence itself defense in this particular situation the fact remains it was in no record we could see that the supreme court could see that in the record we have to do a whole lot of speculating i think to see what your client might have done if things had been different so how much speculation is just let us
the fact that they everybody knew each other it was a situation where even though they claimed we had met right here he was talking about defend them and when he was saying this as judge they are properly found based on his listening to the testimony and a display that the defendant did not have to establish a foundation i absolutely disagree this was demonstrative evidence and should the trial there is the gatekeeper evidence and and he had to show the relevancy that being actually there and that's where the entire discussion was about that the foundational requirement was that they were it they were there and you say this came up because they said they were present when he said not really and then you have this situation about where this car was rammed and he didn't want to talk about that in then defendant was not in that house and she didn't just say that i see him in the house that day she said been there for several days he hadn't she hadn't seen him in the house and s undermined by officers and area at trial and so based on that you know judge gainers decision on the mission for new trial i meant ground was entirely correct and should be a problem with risk the same thing with respect to the
could you talk about evidence when you don't provide us with a report of the proceedings i say that's right and that testing he was finding i mean but if you're arguing the evidence there's no evidence before us i am not suggesting that prepared and asked the court to sign off on the bystanders report yes that we we which would have been considerable lead to the court if you stayed in your yellow brief in response to this issue about the whether the statute of limitations whether the relation back under six sixteen is on solid footing you are assuming that we agree that it is he may be rough well i'm going to i'm going to with knowledge number one that a five year statute of limitation of plots number two with the time of the technical filing of the amended complaint two mended zero eight more than five years had expired since the cause of action but i will a lack sufficient support in the record and so on and vast subject to the food case of presumptions going in your favor the fact is once we assume two men use it goes back to two thousand and seven while the question is why when she will include unjust enrichment in your amended pleadings at that time why would you wait and have the judge do it for you perhaps he and how you look at it should have been made i don't try to find out what's going on in your minds i always assume that that when the lawyers do or don't do something there is a strategic reason for it and adequate allegations with respect to the core facts were set forth in every pleading the beat the affirmative defense asserted indicated clearly to the trial court that mr selig cowskin his point knew th disregard that eventuality just by looking at the transcript is not going to be something that could be done by us own less you could also show us that from this record we can
the issue of conditioning the four hundred sixty five thousand dollar written offer on esther only three hundred and one thousand dollars of it to be sure payment  there are reasonable relocation expenses were saying that part of those expenses are trying to find comparable properties trying to claim for the relocation trying to get additional benefits them provided by the government agencies they didn't even offer any of that they denied any obligations and in fact they denied any obligation to pay us to relocate a substantial now her who property that we environmental violations property owners or a joint property owners to collect their money what is trying to do is get us the fund that living there is no evidence that we were ever responsible for that environmental violation it's never been charged it was thousand dollars that means we don't have any money in all of her own business of running the relocation in the final property fall upon us that's exactly why the two  raise social issues but there was only one of the dealing with good faith negotiations and then had to do with this relocation costs which i don't discuss  feed and the city for are paid seventy thousand dollars that's documented in an agreement that was signed the city manager approved it that's the new yorker and and and that was was never worries the lack of good faith negotiations for trying to dump them is harder than negotiations was never raised in the trial core it was not raised in a counsel for some reason the left and i have been completely opposite poles on this issue he continues to say there's nothing in the statute that says that i could take pas that a person can file a motion for setting just compensation section twenty days five days pm the core shall fix a date not less than five days after the taken from that order by either party within thirty days after in free of the war now some for some reason the legislature didn't use that or which whilst it said that
the record is really full of them for backup for their effort to get her to come in and they schedule appointments for eleven and then again on three eighteen or the  it some twenty pages about what had happened to the result she came to and so on but he never  only the negligence of persons other than the hospital employees i
you know and i'm following you down the steps involved in the says except as provided in this section and order or action of the local liquor control commission or maybe appeal that this is an ac the state commission and one of the issues you can raise is whether the local liquor control commissioner has proceeded in the manner provided by law yes he they bypassed all the procedural steps here but there was a remedy to appeal to the
he was taken to the police station and the police caught by to your home offices i think it was a mock police but you know what else would pick ok he was then at the station confession that's not in his testimony at trial in trial those five minutes ten minutes something like that so they actually used benefit from their argument not know there's a crime committed this was the third person interviewed by this particular officer at this point time he still does not know a crime that they committed or that the defendant was not as had to be the only committed his testimony at trial tracks is a statement with the exception of how long he was joking guy he he he told  left the room with him with the victim on the bed whether it was awake or not but at some point the victim got up and was leaned over a chair and that's when he was found to be an extreme case i don't think he would have had to from the position of anything i don't think he would have had to get up out of bed in order to be in that position but he just simply rolled out of bed reach that position that  so that all you would have to do was well out of bed and you've been on leave who share is as i understand the testimony and the expert testimony was that this guy other possible causes no the only possible cause of death ministry i want to go back to marina i would twenty one year old granddaughter who is an honor student and experienced crisis counselor own person you know people call up in trouble story he serious i am one hundred percent sure that if she was at that party and they said you need to come down the police station because we have some questions and she wrote to the police station in a police car and was put in a room for an hour she was assumed she would assume she had to stay there and that she had to populace i'm not disputing what the law is i think ninety nine percent of the populace thinks i need to cooperate and i probably need to answer a question i could well i probably need to answer a question well the trial judge in this court
during the years of one rest the fall of the civil war a powerful secret organization called the legion of the black out of the thing up in the western united states members were to be found everywhere defying them all using the law for their own purposes working toward the ultimate goal to
i would also