MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
road and to the north of division street that we have there is a sign that isn't that labels the section that runs along the same bank to the north of this canal road and in order to get to this point where the second happened you have to weave your way through a little subdivision from the north to come in and the road basically goes down about two or three miles and that ends some private property were in the remember correctly the township park district which is parked just the property that state the park district property and for the most part is undeveloped is there's no ball fields or if it is it's floodplain basically that's open in even though we are in the department nation resources owns the property other entities may have responsibilities for doing maintenance and i guess the significance of that case there are some other cases that have destroyed the exclusive jurisdiction for this roadway and that and then fall into the township louise you want but he any evidence that you came up with is in this case that for example any of these that there is actually determined there's a duty whether there's an immunity that applies my main argument that i've always brought in this case is the concept that there is no duty on the behalf of lockhart township and i would also say goes to a state funds park farm under the canal act the it gives the i am now are the ability to sell transfer convey the lands to other agencies to further the purpose of the canal  canal act gives the power to the idea nor to create reservations and acquiring land up buying the canal and that's exactly what happened in this case what we have is the towpath all of that then the  record fall within the ninety foot reserve created specifically under this section forty five ten of the reservation acquisition of land that by the that now the whole portion of this towpath then is created by the specific conceded that the road has not been a dedicated city street and that the fur facts set forth in my greens affidavit we've been with the city for twenty years may or would like to introduce at trial and the possibility of filing the many complaints well there was no request to file an amended complaint was ever made before the trial there was never any news any motion filed by point perfect sense because i feel the need of a private parcel of land anywhere in the state that is served by a code would be in one way or another in most often exclusively road twenty three for example the number of businesses
world wide web posting with a letter to the bottom that says you can't have a full paper check back in the fire and people do but now are i mean our president has been really clear that it's not whether or not printing was in fact bac right action yeah and i suppose people can go thumb through one catalogue dissertations to let libraries i'm sure a lot of students do that and then the end profit from the question though what about the cryptic name of the paper and d s s nine eight dot p s p s meaning postscript here's a postscript printer language to print out a document isn't this this as our presiding judge pointed out you'd expect to see something that might alert people that this is an important paper on a topic instead it's in  something you're not going to know this isn't going to identify what you're looking for it since we're back to the chronon case where the cataloguing if that is there first of all just work laugh and steam that's a dissemination case that's a case where there was a public dissemination in the faces of the people who were equipped to understand and intake information the
patient compensation is filed with the commission within three years after the date of accident were no compensation has been paid for within two years after the date the last being counted section where any has been paid whichever  available mr brown issue i think it is for what is your response to his argument that the notice of this missile provided that unless the petition to reinstate was filed in sixty days us cannot be real absolutely right that's absolutely right that cause could not be real
the motion to reconsider from the record we acknowledge stresses the medical causation paul when you say stresses what do you mean stresses specifically judge fab basically stay here for these money little propositions number one the summary judge was there a locked door that can be changed at any time prior final judgment a successor judge can take a fresh look at it as long as there wasn't a so you're not saying that the facts and circumstances were different and would allow that but that there was something wrong with judge fink hence decision is that right well i mean what which is here is it has to be one of the other to me is this need to take a look at what went on in discovery from basically august of two thousand and six until may of two thousand and seven and it's during that period during the day extensive discovery was we don't have a transcript of this february eighth out that goes with the february eighth order what it transcript reflects what you have just told us i don't know because i'm not aware that there was a transcript  but there has been there is a history in this record of contentious discovery situations and we do have a situation where forty half years passes and they renew the summary judgment motion our brief mentions is that well i believe this waiter appears so well that's a little out of context is that council that he used those words really with something pretty specific he wasn't referring to all incomplete at that point you know he was not being asked specifically about to turn green but he was being asked are plenty of those records complete you know do you have cross referencing to need to make sure that these records are a complaint and
you ma
just chapman indicated has to touch on the allegations in the complaint and as you say in your complaint that the affirmative manner must be apparent on the face of the complaint generate these things all the time but we know what i'm saying is somebody had to notify the dollar general for example that ownership was being changed and perhaps request a letter for they received yesterday received a request  paragraph nineteen it got the same kind of thing going on looks like the same initials and as to photographs it says photographs of building and property broker is getting and i'm assuming this i don't know but i'm assuming that that language is in there at the time this was executed the date of execution being june ninth two twenty fourte media prior argument i thought you said i written down that section sixteen be required them to maintain the property good condition reasonable care and tear except regarding that supplied by the defendant to answer the question in other words there's no affidavit me or anybody that explains where justice chapman just as he said and there's no discovery and  and and
admitted on november fourteenth the importance of these is that those were the documents showing once again a modules inside a laptop computers that were purchased in texas clear evidence of direct in
the injury the line of duty which did which made it impossible for a police officer to return to duty that's what was found by this court in one circuit court in the very first appeal that he had a is that's a catastrophic injur caused oppression fracture in his ba i think the you know you have to excuse me i'm i'm not my thought process is just for we're in right now and i can't think of the of the term that is you get that needs to be used
make a determination whether the state has presented a change be on the reasonable doubt whether there's physical evidence there with it there's a reason why it is not physical it is there they had something there is something for the case itself is not something for what here if you thought about specific incident so you know the sexual evidence medical evidence is is basically not required so they're saying if there is a case where there is no medical evidence with she still be able to a reasonable doubt that there does not have to be medical evidence if a person has been abused so therefore that person is incapable of returning a guilty verdict when the evidence would support it so there for her that person is become qualified to service it sure whether they were dismissed for cause or whether it was by her injury and they didn't make it on the jury and that is a proper result because those persons were prejudiced against state and unqualified contact with a live in boyfriend of the mother and son once goes by and then they reported it to their parents and to investigators and in this circumstance if the medical evidence w and because there have prejudiced against state is not good for the defendant cause to complain when those jurors are removed that maybe they can use conviction somewhat more likely in the sense that if you could have had a better chance of winning the case if those mind that regardless of what the state puts on in terms of medical evidence or whatever they will still have to hold the belief and it will resolve it in at least their votes when it comes back soon for consideration that they will not be persuaded by evidence or argument stitchers and deliberation their mind will not be changed and those people should not be in the on the jury so so here is the legal principle is at least controversial enough to be analogous to f could be an argument yeah there's two girls who are independently coming up with with some same allegations that fit together and then there's the jailhouse informant that is still the case does boil down to the with the words of these witnesses versus the  defendant and there would be some authority to say that that is still a closely balance case so i'm not going to fight that however there still is clear and obvious error and there is something that's lacking here because the boston opinion wasn't even issued at the time what is the basis for them enough for the man they need protecting children ok we're protecting people who are to be vulnerable the point that i'm trying to make the reason why you see there's no rational basis for this if mr mccain had been accused of having sex with a seventeen year
my take on it so what did the estate do to prevent the partnership from being what liquidated on wouldn't wouldn't wouldn't talk to they would read my mouth when we finally did just say give up here's your chance to dissent  in the amended returns as to the reason for filing them in that language was off the mark but a ship with simply should have said was that with the deceit mr webster the spring of two thousand and three and two thousand for about tax time mr ties communicated in some fashion to mr webster who is the any reasonable person would assume that that meant i'm not there in two thousand and seven that mr webster expressed an interest began trying to basically organize a him pain to have the value it was quite what has to be particular parker when he dies and his state and moves into his position in a lot of instances in the absence of some provision to the contrary this partnership agreement had such provisions that it could not be continued without the good of the other people and they didn't want to do that did mr carter webster were turned down at all not at all no the first time we heard that
how they heard it maybe know at that time it was just so hard that we could have stopped silence could change a little bit so i changed between the organ versus a little bit they're copies if you would like to come later and see how it looks in the original manuscript it's very hard to see there's a lot of the ratios it's a lot of
they try to get it from jason stops a shot is  project down to forty five westward with the ball down by forty seconds remaining in the first
your claim basically at least doubled the total universe of on security claims how can that not have an effect on the plan confirmation process well  it's supposed to be done in a way that a lot of work has been done before disclosure statement plan is even even filed and to have to be at the point we're ready to go forward a plank confirmation then all of a sudden this enormous unsecured claim pops up late sure i can i can always pay more you know i mean it's theoretically possible to say what's the number let's just pay more but i mean we're dealing with finite resources and you're taking your theory seems to be they could have paid whatever number i put in there and this was a liquidated claim in any event so you know you're introducing both a big claim and the need to do an estimation process or something that's going to be very complicated because it apparently i'm sorry i don't but you also knew you hadn't filed a claim for months and aren't they entitled to rely on that and plan accordingly which is exactly what they did well the problem is that you your client take payment on a support needed basis and that would extend the plan from two dollars and a half years to five years and i guess my st point is isn't this a five year plan to begin with where just where does the two and a half years come the ok let's let's let's plan says what it says maybe i misstated it we could figure that out but wouldn't it take a lot longer than two and a half years to pay your client six one hundred thousand dollars claim at the roughly three thousand dollars a month to that extent but that's not my point my point is it at three thousand dollars a month which is the monthly plan payment on secured creditors it takes a lot longer than two and a half years to pay the six hundred thousand dollars amount that your client demanded right subordinating a claim in a chapter eleven case because it's filed lat have to ask you about that too because you are now saying that the plan projections are unrealistic but on the other hand you just told us the plan should be extended for a period of five years but how can both of those things impossible all to go forward to confirm a plan if this claim got liquidated in some large amount or is it possible i'm not so i guess i would u you have a question i want to i have two things i just want to say st of all mr fernandez i do appreciate the way that you've taken your responsibility for what happened here that's the right thing to do i do appreciate that and mr goodman i also can't help but notice that it would be probably at mr jacoby's personal interest to have this claim allowed in the corporate case because of the potential non discharge ability of that debt and i this session of the united states bankruptcy appellate panel of the th circuit is now adjourned
important theories or guidelines keep in mind one is that the presumption is that the remailer is for a full research and the other is there to overcome the presumption in this case the government would have to show clear would apply the older version there is no expos back to violation in applying the two thousand and one version of the new money laundering guideline to both  point that you have behind the ortley case there's a recognized exception to that rule which yes if there is an actual fact a problem with the component of the guidelines then you would not apply that component to the defendant keeps arguing that the two thousand and one guidelines were more favorable to him we actually dispute that we are you below that the two thousand and one guidelines created an ex post facto problem because under our calculations which we continue to adhere to his range would actually have been higher guidelines were seventy eight to ninety seven months he never argued still doesn't the guidelines were more favorable to him two thousand and one the ninety eight the two thousand and ninety nine one of them so no he didn't argue that the guidelines were more favorable to him at  and that is used one guideline manual for one count and one guideline manual for another county and if you look at the orange decision and if you actually read the language in it it's very clear that what the district court did which was purely following the prior opinion of this
did not pay any attention to rehabilitation our society and our government have changed they now say that rehabilitation is a fundamental part of why we nursery people restore the citizenship and to the i think it's important to point out that if you're only haggling over whether a sentence is punishment enough that doesn't need as much scrutiny but we're saying we're depriving the person of their liberty and part of the reason we're doing  in other words what that means is he struggles in the world and interact with his we're all in a way that i think many of us have never experienced and how i will understand and those things  design and we decide you know obviously the majority controls but reading the majority opinion we are not required to expanding along with of discretion to the other factors mentioned of the sound what is your position on that you think we can do it i know you say you're going to say we shouldn't do it because the standard is the standard you're were to say no question abuse of discretion is the affable standard but the opinion does not preclude consideration of these other factors and we think that they should i think the defendant claimed that well there was no personal injury involved nobody was hurt and i think that's really shortsighted everybody's heard when they were a victim of a crime just don't know how the defendant can take that position in any case like this whether it's at me i don't think you have to be struck with a weapon or shot or hit with a knife in order to suffer personal harm and one thing that struck me is the defendant didn't seem to get that or maybe his lawyer didn't i don't know but i thought that this judge did take into consideration
there's a right answer when you're talking about manifest weight is one of those there is competent evidence in the record to support the commission's assume we have to form it whether there is contrary evidence or not ration of exposure however that doesn't preclude the commission from hearing expert testimony and the other side better work to the best price not to raise if the case they're allowed to present evidence correct
to their or their threats and i think the jury had learned about his mental impairment that he was a borderline functioning adult who had limited problem solving abilities and he was ability to comprehend intellect and know my talkies that and that's largely what she knew after trial that he was had borderline intellectual functioning and no mental defect based on the information that she had she should have acted and developed that evidence as this court and also the declaration he basically kind of says if i just kind of waiting around i didn't have any help my wife divorced me those are the kinds of things that have been continuously found not to be extraordinary circumstances beyond your control that would pull the statute of facts were taken into consideration so i think there probably were some non trivial decisions were appeal but the question as to my mind why should why should the district court have resolved the question of whether he asked for an appeal if you didn't case struction and acceptance of responsibility there were no other issues the fact that his father was dying and in fact he had died was presented to the courts the court was aware of that particular factor included departed certainly within th
commission for them who has allegedly violated because statute and the enterprise falls they attempted without any amendment to the pleadings to overcome that argument by changing their description of their own case to say that their own independent  instilling of fear and so forth it all boils down to basically charlie saying if you don't comply with the contract we're going to enforce our contractual rights and terminate
actual question which was there was no actual damages proving the world legend plaintiffs complained and the key document here as the court record their flats and the reason why judge shelley found that this motion should be dismissed with prejudice is that because there is correspondence in the file that says that i don't know if she ever said specifically in response to that yes i can make their representation here and he she did authorize it like i said i don't know that i am bad answer to that question i was not personally there the property there can be no basis for the alleged damages that she lost the ability to sell that property because she owns it herself this is not a situation where there is bad news for accounting of the title the title itself was preparing the deed itself was prepared by mr kiss and myspace herself she had that information directly belt to her judge shelly's ruling was probably it was appropriate and it should be affirmed by the school
sister and he stabs her repeatedly how is that a crime of passion and he specifically said he killed the eleven year old because he didn't want any witnesses that's a crime of passion at that point at that point it's a murderer covering up this severe sentence of wife when you kill someone who's under twelve this was a little child who was alive and years old now you can argue that you know certainly there's litigation here but you know to the v m leave earth ah it's really hard to tell now that the legislature doesn't have the power to say this is his formative years these are the kinds of things noone says should be considered in sentencing the youth and you know
officers a good place in a different location we know that none of three things happened here so none of the factors that are have been sort of outlined by mobile in those cases was was present here to sort of stayed off the hook of letting end of the test is not whether my client would be convicted anywhere in some theoretical trial the question is whether the juror that actually sat in this trial was affected by this and whether the state can show beyond a reasonable let's get this in front of the jury and let them see mr hilton my responsibility obviously this is prejudicial you sit in wash law were cops are accusing somebody of that guy's guilty we know this just from television of press the state still maintains that this case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt as of the video st hearing that the video contains no content confession that he killed marcus and it doesn't even contain a confession that he was at the scene of the time however the did not shoot the defendant that he was not at the scene at the time and you also see the behavior of the police officer so you have the defendant who is consistent in his denials you know despite this behavior but we saw sir and  rest of the tape thing come in so we're going about you know at least two hours two and a half hours of interrogation when we're talking about it to what is it in the saying is the issue is that counsel requested those eleven minutes of him  so there was no purpose for that you know the state says well it was helpful to hear his denials yes you in and out of the denials that come after that if that's what you want to get in for a jury there's no reason to hand those in indications and in fact we know that's why is say you got nothing else to say you better come up with something man because that's not why he says i'm through with it he says i'm through with it i don't want to talk to him more this goes on like i said for about seven minutes before they  three separate rooms away before the state went ahead and engaged in this renegotiated conversation so you know it's just not the case from our perspective that all that you have to do
the storm and soul i'm still struggling with doesn't mr hart have to come up with something more to overcome the insurers policy exclusion for inadequate me