MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
is a completely different case with  so that is the context in which morsi said you have a right to a hearing within a reasonable time after you're taken into custody at that in that case that being taken into custody and the allegation of a parole violation happened simultaneously was different than this case where the c that's true but i think it's much harder to get a concurrent sentence from the district court than it is from the court because it doesn't have the power to create you would have to aspirate downward variance from twenty seven months to zero months which this court has said requires extraordinary you do what you're going to do because of the pre war lucian and what we're trying to work we're trying to coordinate the sentence here there's nothing wrong with it there's nothing wrong with that but also the federal court had absolutely no about here is the will side to our federal judge had the right to handle his federal case from start to finish the state court had the right to do the same but the state court cannot dictate to the federal  right to a hearing and because when he wrote not given the hearing did not violate his to process rights and he extends to the extent and this is what it all comes down to the district court here had the ability to craft a sentence that would have given correct but in any event there's no question that in the six admitted speedy trial that's one of the things i look at that is there's no question that that is a factor that should be analyzed in the due process area however this is where movie and caruso are controlling going to the state parole officer and they come in and they grab me it just is that the way the system is supposed to work you're right i think in this case the state the state they were entitled to evaluate and and impose their own judgment they had no right to force a federal judge is considering a different issue you breached my trust you violated this conditional release which you were great for by statute and a judge in that situation should be able to control the sentence spite effect of relief sentencing first and sending it back to the state the judge loses all control over whether that he does not time on the federal sentence and  i believe that our position would have been that we would have asked the court to wait for sentencing so that the court had complete information i can't say for certain with certain that i didn't know about well i wouldn't do that the state court had ever indicated that it was going to run the sentence  it's failed to provide any reason why that was necessary and the other place it's particularly perverse to justify the way on the ground in this case because we know from the state court docket that the state court present self the laying sentencing this are good diminish post conviction the court also said that you should adjust the prejudice analysis to the context of the delay here the delays in the context of a revocation hearing so the rights of a concurrent sentence is the prejudice that the court should recognize
your trailer mr taylor sistering was he and people were in this trailer because he thought that the various people who came and went on the property went out there for sexual relations and he didn't really care where the other he wasn't subject to cross examination indeed defense as not pointed to anything that was not known to the bench from or to the judge during this trial during which did not come out during the evidence or port the infirmities in witness testimony were pointed out by defense counsel to the trial court in opening and closing arguments and lastly when the trial court issued his ruling stated that he was aware of the problems with these witnesses he took them into consideration he weighed the evidence and he still came out determining that substances contain battery which is what they found in the r v and not just it was i think one way with three thousand grams another way another three thousand grams another way similarly more than of the case that again it was personally me making methamphetamine the state's theory was that he was in possession on an accountability theory of liability so he was the  he was the one who told her closure that he had to move the meth lab out of the basement of the property and put it in the article so there's there's all that evidence which  certainly suggests that he was guilty on a theory of accountability and like i said he also he was the one who was in charge of the  property when the cops had a problem with the property they would go to the house that would talk to the defendant mosher brown who were the two cooks they would have to get permission to when they first came to the house to use it to manufacture in th and defendant's own testimony showed that light hearted some point came to him asking for him asked for permission to use the earth now of course he didn't say that he she came to him asking  there is evidence that he was walking around the police station after he was arrested there is evidence that he was downstairs at certain points or is evidence that he worked on his cars at certain points and so he most likely to find it was bad for the majority that we didn't say it was like three hundred forty five pounds or something like that the i'm not i'm not i saw that so much so that in but he might he might have been just a certain he might have been overweight as well respect to the second issue which is whether this council was laboring under a per se conflict of interest defense the defense attorney in this case was not laboring under a per se conflict but the illinois new deal under the new deal he's facing a lesser sentence and but as part of that defense counsel is not permitted to argue probation so there can be no residence with that set of people respectfully
for that statute says that suit must be filed by the state if they are going to seek to recover their costs within six years and i'm quoting after initiation of the physical onsite by the state of california of a remedial action plan can start that statute of limitations running want to know begin with the fact that the statute does not focus on approval hearing process it was subject to  fact that the state of california all looked at other options including do nothing options that were never considered seriously the fact that the state of california as it should have looks to see if this remediation t wells and the treatment was in fact working all of that is fine but to announce a rule that gives the state of california the opportunity to set the beginning of the statute of limitations any time they want that the installation of the three trashing wells certainly initiation of physical on site construction of the remedial action as the statute requires that's what started the statute of limitations running not the not the signing done that just isn't going anywhere ok so they're going to be three different wells or some vastly different solution you would say you have still starts running removal action plan which is what took place and was committed before april of ninety four has been initialized r a p or rapid and the final remedial action plan which happened until may of ninety five after all has the same initial here and that actually gets to the point that opposing counsel has been making about you don't want to give the department that's rushing to do a complete control over the statute of limitations well one of the reasons that apartment does not have the control practicable the government should try to incorporate removal actions into the final remedy and the reason for that one reason for that at least the five cutting costs for the responsible party is that it allows the department or  definitions as much as they have  you start doing physical activities that are the only remediate activities that are ultimately incorporated into the final really ation action plan and in the context of a six years stat limitations in which the state has time to go through this hearing process and to check to see if the remedial actions are doing what they said in that case the commencement of those physical activities such a report specifically said that there was no prior statement of what the medial plan is going to be and the state look instead at the statute should be good running when the parties have sufficient information as to what the final adequate and it had to be substantially replaced and other steps taken and the court still started the statute of limitations running from the day of commencement of installation the fact that unless your court has any other
before this court do you think it abused its discretion issue in two ways that's a pretty strong thing to say that someone abuses their discretion and they constructed the patent and and at one point they even narrower their their charges against your client from me to me on a couch system from the new cal system it seems like it's deferred until after the trial is over the fact that you had some trial strategy in memos that you were trying to protect giving that up after the trial isn't so painful right i mean you're on a balance scale trying to find the right  bernard and i don't see anything here to change my mind and it didn't change the fact mr major testified in those declarations about all of the things that he did and it didn't change iran thank you the trouble i have is that claim constructions a very difficult process with that a multitude of factors that influence it and so with way and then we'd have not hard to find what you need to do mr moran is listen to be end of my question and then respond so let's start over again isn't this just a matter of claim construction doesn't that
nineteen is a resolution adopted by the written consent of the manager of peabody waterside development l l c and ok buddy waterside is saying that they are interested in pursuing a joint ventur who when i was reading in there on delaware corporations that are involved in it would seem to me that the delaware l l siac would be the choice of the law maybe not for joint venture but for the ownership of the things you're talking about done so when you're asking the court to do is just a five very simple illinois joint venture and whether the alamo seems to act under illinois law or delaware log talk parents plain law says any person with a common law that's developed out in the employee says we have a joint and so in order for us to get to joint interest what you're asking us to do is look at the joint the last thing i would say
prejudice but that that may be that may well be good so why with without talking about subject matter jurisdiction i mean obviously the property everything is enforce judgement they talk about this being an issue related to the two disc or two no one petition so you're pulling the mary comments about this isn't related to that having trouble with because that's file a new action under two days fourteen no one did i hear that correctly you agree that they would have the right under the prior excalibur war knowing that it did not oh ok and i'm maybe a court according to ms rather than those proceedings were the dismissal with president according to her motion to dismiss but now her argument isn't about what she said in her motion to dismiss her argument it is
foundation be established by all the facts and circumstances correct besides the identity he's using this person's identity he chooses persons credit card that corroborates the fact that he is may also be responsible money sent to an account that he admits that he's withdrawing funds from illegally that is not a connection that could lead to foundation for a phone call from those who do you consider circumstantial since the state only called while the individuals that this the charges should be reduced to the class one quest to suppose the exit one is is proof of lack of be fictional people just as the five people did just fire real people with their identity still but the fact remains that we have to endure institutions of higher education who are out a fair amount of money they are the real victims here because they are the ones who have to pay money for still we have legitimate victims in planes and they acted upon these applications whether transactions us for the pattern the course of conduct with opposing counsel would say yeah i recognize that but how does to establish that he had anything to do with his illiteracy actually really knew about these other transactions so page i believe she indicated that when you when you look hot the information you put in your social security number so if it was not an actual social security number it would have gone through the federal so this enough to circumstantially prove that there assignments and financial aid documents and exams and correspondence in the names of the various fraudulent students as well so there are three computers in this house all o world at least two months right and so anybody can say legislature this is really harsh you need to look at it and they can say too bad so sad before they can say we're going to do it but the issue today is do i have an
open to meeting and it's the fault of media actually in this case it's a special town meeting specially call for the date of november seventeenth and a lot of people are very distracted with a lot of other things that need to get facing the nation so that when we do presentations and there's discussion it's not like we have to start from very early stage you know who obviously the town has been taking this in stages and had money been you know we have this life that has a picture of brown and you know very rough and no buildings you can say these are i can easily say there's a lot of work it would be so great to have a picture to show history aerials every month know so for anybody who hasn't had the opportunity to see it through their world just doesn't get over that part of town regularly and  feeling they will be a moment in time where something will come up that questions will come up they're more specific to the functionality or is this the right answer for what you need or anything else and i would turn that one that's free for you he answered i think they'll be questions with regard to the tennis court and it's important that we dress those but i also think it's important that we get back to the questions at hand there about public
modifying the decision of arbitrator williams for word of mr grunow some to five percent of my pay and by increasing the work to fifty percent loss of use person i would submit to you today that the employee also check products and lifting products weighing seventy to eighty pounds the tools that he had to use in his job included pliers root drivers air guns in my crop micrometers excuse me or familiar with been doing that now well at the time of the review hearing was two years what four years he's never been reprimanded for performance or productivity that's all on the record but they also concluded that the petitioner and i also think part of it has to do with the fact that it doesn't fit under any of the subsection of section eight eight eighty two talks about it as a result of the ac been disciplined and he hasn't been written case as we contend or complete are the preferred method of compensating people for injuries at work have been for decades beginning in europe all the way to today now i'm sure there's a schedule loss for those remember that are injured and there is no wage loss and also for disfigurement were another type of case if you will you may recall that we here only began with eight d that was the section don't really follow specifics but the preference is to compensate people for the demonstrated wage loss that's why we've got this sort of tortured reading an eighty one that the only amnesty interpretation of which will allow for this for a curving out of that section of any wage loss cases that's clear despite what you see at all despite what the commission or how the commission interpreted to seattle power his let's not be swayed by what he happens to be paid at this point time ok let's not be swayed by well by calling it a bonafide offer  rehab agent not her drastic she stopped at this point he's there he's showing up for work he's getting the same money and whom are so there's no vocal rehab issue there's no earning loss issue well you know that's
that you could have done it earlier you didn't do it earlier i'm not going to let it in if you want to file somewhere else you can file somewhere else but i'm not voting for i think of doing that that's for somebody else it's not but we're only talking about the words that the result and subject matter to restructure they're the same in both the way and through c in all cases and try to interpret that language bounced back between two waiting to see because the same language languages in both and there are cases to tell us that when you have the same language in both case you'd be construed the same way even if there's a third requirement and even the basis for the basis for the jurisdiction i reacted to any particular fact what influenced their decision making and what the three gorges actually did when they received the visit do you agree with it that they disagree with that they modify it none of that information is available to lose absolutely need to get involved in making the ultimate determination and i'm going to assume this is an issue of fact as to whether it's legal or not legal but you can't make up your causation you can't show that as a result of the point five no indication that the money is even paid yet but it was to be paid with sister corp it was put right on the agreement there was no hiding of it it was right there it was right there you can't draw any conclusions from that fact alone at some point in time you've got to be able to say i can't make the jump and we say there's too many too many ounces be able to finally get through to the end result in order for there inference is the make sense they've got it  don't in them in the fast clearly show that three gorges did not have exclusives with anybody they basically wanted to have multiple sources secondary sources which is obviously not an unusual request your  certainly should not be right out of the the analysis of fifty thousand dollars of fifteen million dollar deals with the few very substantial is that your order does not seem to be substantial
we also know that she's large her estimate of one second off that step may not give same as reality but it may have taken a little bit on we don't know if she would end up saying i stepped out to walk on an even pavement rather than walking on grass that's why i took that route i was take i was going to take that route i how could she estimate from where she was at the front of the cab was all the way to the very altar of that car on the right side of the park you didn't have  how do we know where she died and i guess it is an extension to the question asked by just disconnect how do we know was she to say try you may have really great cross examination based on testimony she's
hi i'm david the bruce and today on steal the show we present some more loony tune card tumors and this time by various other directors yes we did chuck smith just great you know we did some of the other these guys they just i don't know they're just so witty and they did so many good things and to do it today when you watch these three very different directing styles from three masters of cartooning you're going to enjoy this and he know how these films ever made it into the public domain i do not know but they did and i'm rather happy for that because could show my on this show steal this show where we feature the best in public domain as you watch today show watch to the side of the screen and i'll give you all the information about the directors and scene opens we find the train little pigs building their respective houses
treated as such that it could be as a matter of was determined that continuing course and negligent treatment theory would not apply is there a case in illinois case that
you know mere fact of the test will be appropriate centric for judicial notice too for the court to take notice of you know test results conducted by a private laboratory they aren't generally known facts they aren't baskerville and his blood alcohol was two point five zero or a bit more trail court right defense counsel or well and good judge with the state has done which is an essential component is to prove that my reasonable argument you could make at that point it's you know the evidence that has been admitted was sufficient to establish his bail before ever he was trying to keep the evidence from coming in and  presented evidence showing that my client had to be a seat on the legal limit that's not in dispute chads and of course there's no question regarding in tax evasion that's not an issue as defense can see how is that an affirmative response to it by defense counsel or the courage and eventually of the testimony just came in when he was able to supply you know really unit of measurement is there a situation where a person said arguments where defense counsel finally realizes he has to make the driver best salute me not the record in this case let's look at the recent across arise defense counsel said the issue at the
but the law in place makes it clear that she can't or a circuit court can do that and now that it is been brought to the attention on this particular clerk she's indicated she will consistently then that action would be appropriate here the public official has said i was wrong and i will not do it again so what is the point of the order she she has acknowledged that follow the law he should follow the prior worker because that's exactly what happened with the prior clark refused to follow you were the supreme court and the step behind the order will not accomplish anything if the party is not willing to follow it right and the united states supreme court talking about ten years and if in tenure is exempted it's as if it never existed in the case to go forward does that affect this particular case no your honor because the state has needed the other people that may have been in the same situation are be discriminated against they who's going to hire an attorney to come in for a fifty dollars refund it is still capable in the public in the public interest he said the gasoline has gone back upstairs to the first district you know if they come we have eighteen different resolution or a more stringent resolution and that would be covering the public court to clarify in the interim if you look at