MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
whether the plaintiffs contend that the contract was was that they were supposed to undertake the activities in blue which is the community driven activities and the foundation was to do the right activities going to provide planning committees one point two five million dollars to allocate to hire consultants to do various activities necessary to create the community plan and their plans for well long carrying out these  the understanding that they would have the money available to them when for unknown reasons the foundation got cold feet and decided to terminate the plan provide no compensation and basically throw away or trustees and that they were the ones that were supposed to direct the expenditure of the funds they were the ones that were going to choose the consultants and hold the meetings and determine how the how the money was to be spent and still they definitely had a had a role there case here these guys are actively involved in the administration of the funds i'd like to reserve the balance  good morning they believe the court i'm thomas camera represents the northwest area foundation i think the most accurate characterization of plants complaint is that the complaint seeks to enforce a charitable trust that the pla of the washington consumer product but those really don't fit what the really trying to do is to enforce the turtle crunch they allege that a large and definite what was the act here well i believe your honor that the the concept of a charitable trust and what that brings with it in terms of house and force is a legal through very that fits philanthropic stimulus we have organizations like the northwest area foundation that are involved in innovative community action programs now one person can the perfect relieve in this case is we want to take that money and the stamp was a trust that we that romero will administer for us for community benefit now that is nothing short of one individual with a lawyer coming in and supplanting the northwest area foundation taking control of its money and directing it to get special interest the attorney general resources of the foundations to litigation and of attorneys to thank you in maryland that's why that's why many times to the workers and put so much time into this because they thought that they were going to be able to create a substantial plan that could bring in resources from all over and that work and requires you know housing like that doing planning for the first time that you know actually have the expectation that something would come from their efforts and with respect to the public policy argument you know i think what the foundation in fact is arguing is that is that they should be talking about here is this breach of a promise
forty minutes later the petitioner was not in the car but he identified was the guy who was in the car earlier who fired the gun and says i know this guy i know him from the neighborhood so this is not a this is not a stranger on stranger we had these declarations the outcome would not have been different when we got to the court of appeal level the court of appeals that one you didn't provide decorations which would be helpful in this case but also the alleged newly discovered evidence reviewed quickly and i don't know if that's the case i don't know if you know from the middle when we could take the other tendernesses didn't know claimed that they knew him from the neighborhood in their decorations and that's another interesting point to mention is that these two other w year after trial in this case and mr hughes said i'm not going to talk to you i didn't see the shooting and anyone else that you tried to talk to was talking to give you any information on this case and then it's interesting to know that a year later mr hughes who had previously interview every witness that is not the standard and here it could have been very bad for trial counsel had he gotten information that petitioner was in fact the shooter because that information could very well end up in the hands of the attorney often investigating officer say hey if the defense ever approaches you with a defense investigator of our approaches you please call us and let us know so there is no saying that this information would not occur in the hands of the district all three or four years of proceedings discovery everything and on the days that for the evidentiary hearing the party showed up and petitioner stated at that point well we let our witnesses go on without the permission of council respondent is urging this court to get some significance to is the declaration that is in our record from appellate counsel with regard to his reported attempt to contact this witness and i see it is in the did not identify my client as the shooter i know that he is hostile and i'm afraid that if i lean on him he's going to go the other way on me and come back and say yeah i know  going on so they're all dealing with each other these five people that's the first reason to say i'm i just come here with this person says you're a no no no no it's not i don't care if i don't want to wake the sleeping
is much like a decision to determine that an individual is illegally in the country for what was a certainly it carolled or determination to revive an individual or two for f thirty nine thirteen and so even though we have previously reported this individual we have found that they were not a citizen there back before suggesting there are legally in the country they now want to once again say i am a citizen you don't have the right to court don't have the right to revoke i am not properly under your supervision therefore when mr taylor was revoked in two thousand and one you had the right to challenge that by saying i am not properly and your supervision you do not have the right to complaining about an administrative decision by the board to take him off of parole when he has yet to be revoked in order to have some type of rational they are adopting the date under which he is in fact revote as the second one administrative review was a few days late and we have presented to the district court the issue that he did file timely after he was given notice that's also in our bluebirds but no six the facts note that there are additional problems with the board's order back in one thousand nine hundred five if you look at the zero eight hours on page one eighty three actually require the board to either discharge mr taylor or to issue a statement of reasons why in the board order at issue here are one and may of one thousand nine hundred five there's no statement there's just a we're not just charging you never give any explanation so there are a variety of problems with the board's order which is a district court was to address these issue
he did so in april of at least one time in april of i believe two thousand and one when he said that there were multiple multiple tender point number one it is not a will abuse burden to prove that a physician has said that she's disabled in this report however to prove that she suffers from a medically determinable impairment that precludes them from returning disability ultimately the burden it's noted in opposing counsel is brief your honor but it's been a longstanding ninth circuit case law that a disability claimant does not have to prove that a physician has said that they are disabled have problems concentrating throughout a work day because of pain now if we look at the record and look at the work she did and engineering aid this is clearly not low stress work she worked in the aerospace industry she was involved with budgets that involved multimillion dollar amounts the administrative law judge and fortune ever made a finding of fact on this so looking at the job as she did it the way i'm reading the record she can do no better than do low stress work with that alone it warrants to remain and i respectfully like to reserve the balance of my time thank you findings or opinion about hand pain or possible limitations and he also said he cannot predict how many times should be absent from work but he did say that you could get ten pounds which is consistent with your past life and work furthermore he did say that she had to shift shift positions which is also consistent with her past relevant work furthermore but and as far as the source being a low stress job that is the burden burden and there was no testimony presented that would indicate at all that it was a stressful job in any way and there's no argument probably just required either and furthermore she was working in the shop for fifteen years and there's no complaints about it that's also in the testimony and that considered there's no evidence that it was a stressful job and and that's not to take away from the fact that it was  not examining and treating none of them so that you can take their limitations none of those would wouldn't anyway show that she can do that past relevant work work that's highly probative as well as the fact that the o t also looked at her activities including her her patient to europe i think it was fourteen countries all these together just supporting his finding that she could still computer and follow very detailed step by step instructions this is clearly not a low stress job secondly in response to judge ransom's earlier question about whether it's a claimant has to prove very large part he rejected dr abel's report because he thought that will be walked in and basically said i have fibromyalgia i know it that's what i want you to write down and clearly no physician is going to do that
i don't think i would think it would be a day no state or review to see whether or not i'm sorry honey back to the abuse of discretion would be the stated i believe and i don't think the players would fall into this just because my client was not in a position to be able to conviction in fashioning between your sentence it's our position that the twenty one year sentence because it's within the statutory limitations on using a presumption that the senses proper it does not vary greatly from the purpose in the spirit of the law and it's not arbitrary it's full are reasonable in looking at that one could look at the facts underlying the the defendant's offense in that he and accomplice broke into mr riggs and mr bennett's residence with a gun and wearing masks so they were concealed and then proceeded to hit them over the head and then in defending itself m had his hand practically cut off not just like a little scratch but it was cut off to where it was hanging on by a little bit of skin and he had to be taken to keep drawer to have staples in his head and then he had been taken to st louis to be to have  crime while he was on probation i think that's what the court meant when you referred to he had an ability to abide by orders also he was on m s r when he committed this crime which is another indication i i do agree with that your honor however it's our contention that when a horse was talking about that it was a chance in regards to that conviction it was in regards to a continual pattern of not abiding by court orders opportunities to be on probation and he was able to abide by the terms of probation and also the sentence at the end of the day was in the statutory limits it was four years and he got twenty nine years
order hilltop a community into coma was notorious for drug activity and the police had their hands full on the other hand there were law abiding citizens mostly black like drugs or a fellow judge brian vie for getting the crowd was going to let the issue of negligent retention by the city of officer baker go to the jury of course plaintiffs were prevented from showing any evidence of attorneys fees at least at least with respect to the one player who hit the nail right on the head and then explain what ok you're right let me let me give you a little background about what we're faced saved a lot of people's lives and you know it's difficult to argue about that i don't want to make an excuse i was looking for reasons why there were not more favorable results because i compare it all of that goes to the district court about whether the other way than with you didn't prevail were sufficiently tangled with the one with you that some of that right birth to prepare those causes case this poor woman and they found that it was frivolous what the court there said in using entitled we did not intend to require the district court to grant  of these kinds of cases that allow people to test the i believe that their rights have been infringed upon by the people in north already and that's clearly what has been exercised here one of the things that has been exercised here is not a second hurdle to deciding whether they're prevailing plaintiffs in this case cory thomas is a prevailing plaintiffs on one claim that is unquestionable what the court has to decide though is whether he was entitle to an those federal civil rights claims mr thomas i believe has ten out of those fifteen incidents so right there you have twenty claims that mr thomas was so dead which were barred as a matter of law before he ever filed the lawsuit  would be evidence on your behalf as to whether you're entitled to fees because of the frivolous mater of his hopes were put to one side is your idea that if he's got fifty claims and he brings fifty claims but it prevails only on would render an award manifestly unjust this is one of those special circumstances you do look at the other forty nine claims to decide whether the prevailing claim in titles or justifies an award  hundred and sixty nine claims it was a legal one thomas claims homily claims thomas i apologize to the court i could not put a specific number on it i can tell you that over fifty percent of those claims were mr thomas as i did so mr thomas out of the claims that went to the jury one was dismissed on a directed verdict after the plane just closed and evidence on a particular instance of thirty three claims went to the jury thirty two the jury found for the defendants the jury found for mr thomas on one and the specific number of claims that mr thomas asserted at trial can be found in the pretrial order there is a chart which specifically delineates by incident and by party what claims are being asserted
remarkably continued working during this period in february of ninety eight at on the advice of dr carl she cut her hours back to half time he paints doesn't go away she was in another motor vehicle excerpts of record he talks about fibromyalgia kind of generally and the limitations it can cause and the implication which applies to this case is that people who have fibromyalgia are disabled that doesn't necessarily need to be true past relevant words even if that works part time here she had a part time house relevant work there's screaming requirements for press relevant work one is a form within the past job long enough to learn how to do it she meant that as well not only has she performed a part time for most of nine hundred ninety eight but she had a form with full time for two years before that and the third and final requirement for past relevant work is that long as one or more of males is recent support credibility finding it is harmless or that one might not hold out but here i think he actually has been living in the child care still holds even though the l j inadvertently doubled the size of her part time job if the district court affirmed soley on the part time and that's all you're arguing that suggests sufficient and even though she had a great deal of health caring for her child she testified that she worked part time three days a week four hours a day it just so happens that even taking the minimum of that two days a week four hours a day eight hours a week at her salary that she earns at the state that qualifies as substantial gain elective ities eight hours a week and even if she gets a good deal of help caring for her child unable to return to her previous part time job working as little as eight hours a week she didn't show that not only with the evidence regarding her taking her care of her child at least some of the time  she litigation settlement from those two admitted we minor item would be a last advance fact the second one that was less than five five miles per hour generated settlement of twenty five thousand dollars as of page one twenty three of the record you allow that that would still leave a capable of performing her previous partner and job two days a week four hours a day which is announced i mean at step four it is kind of unusual unusual  working she gave her she had her hours to half time and took the cake had her employer provided accommodations for her she worked at home with her testimony she worked at home some days she she came in at different hours she did applied for social security disability or l n i benefit or anything so it's home without expecting to get some amount of gain from it that's why you apply for a program the secondary gain
section it doesn't say for example an action are rising under this section it doesn't say an action brought by the property holder under this section it just  that our complaint doesn't invoke section thirty three forty four is also wrong because it expressly describes the product in exactly the words of thirty three forty four point one eighty two not only that it mentions thirty three forty four requiring interpretation of the copyright act is not an action pondering suggestion was made several times that electronic arts was anxious to so you bring university a university in jerusalem
can answer by way of an analogy i was reading recently about a study from a professor at loyola law school who demonstrated significant racial disparities in plea deals between white and black people for misdemeanors in the state of wisconsin police brief morning asked why did you not follow the guidelines for american home and type he had said well there were certain aggravating factors that were in place they were really bad actor they had a lot of violations they did have that in this case when you look at the expert is that you know in certain cases out of state companies are treated less favorably now what's interesting about this case here i think the district court be like that old economics experiment where you say well instead of just having traffic tickets the fifteen dollars every parking violation and you just impose one one million dollars fine on one person over the course of the year on average of the outcome of these might be the same but you'd have judge bork refused correction excluding the last expert opinion as your honor noted the focus of the and the only focus of the last opinion was on taking disparities from high or low and didn't offer any probative evidence of whether there's actually discriminatory differential treatment negative to the out of state and d s in fact when you look at the numbers of the guidelines rather than any other law so that the expert didn't take account of any other variables that the average rank when you look at in state out of state conducted by a standard statistical process shows them to be the same  correctly determined that it would not the couple of the points of the counsel made in terms of the guidelines there are certain that the guidelines for were not fold here and they point to for instance that eight percent interest was added to the payments that's the indiana statutory interest rate that is properly applied the guidelines don't we don't deal with that law deals with that statute deals with that there's an assertion that well the guidelines don't speak revocations that's give us a break we will go out of business we won't pay any of the fines will go bankrupt and the examiner is actually sympathetic to their employees and ultimately said made the comment that well the business was going to get written in indiana doesn't get anything further mr engle
produced indicate that he was convicted of a stony and sentenced to state state penitentiary now we have to give facing credit for that conviction and this is not the proper action for mr beam to but individuals who were convicted minors who are convicted of this offense in california have to register just as mr bean who was a minor and convicted of the sentence in another state has to register there's no equal protection problem provided there was actually a training school in arkansas that juveniles could be censored by the courts mr bean was not sent to a training school he was sent to the institution that was part of the state penitentiary so
you got to give your opposing side notice and he's asking him about the noticed in the defense saying well i don't want to talk about this stuff now to into the core in addressing the amendment issue that comes to court by way of your client not be happy with the fact there's not a new calculations so this loop because we're going to give this case this day it's gone on for eight months now we've got all these other three trials this is the day and what you're saying is that because
finance it seems to me if i do escape the obvious interpretation that these words are meant to describe the constitutional challenge such as that right in the river because you can you can tell me that it should be different but how can you
within the same timeframe or approximate time frame if the bank were fine they got the money back and then they used that refund in effect then amount to make a quarterly you know advance payment would you think that  no right left for the debtor the i r s controls the money at that point can apply that money to any outstanding that debtor has for the taxpayer has there's a nest of the taxpayer can even earmark that money for the sixteen years circuit court in the united states ruled on this particular issue i i don't i think there's a district court ruling that matter to district or i have an answer for that i'm aware of so there isn't any circuit this taken this particular issue won so we're going to do it for the first time now what i'd like you i understand that the that the finest case is different from this case but it is our circus case and it has some reasoning in there that vick cuts to this case it's a much broader case now having had that case already in our circuit on what basis would you distinguish filers i understand is different but the reasoning is there and it's the only thing that's even close that we've found in any circuit so i i'd like to get your view of how we distinguish ri here is that the debtor has no interest on the date of filing so under bankruptcy code five forty one there wouldn't be the interest that goes into the bankruptcy estate if you give full effect to the tax box on your tax return and then they keep hearing over again and it turns out that year your tax liability didn't rise to the level of over and then you can get a refund afterwards not that's case the same thing happened the debtors had fourteen thousand nine hundred dollars that they applied forward and the following year they got they didn't need the money for their tax obligation they got the fourteen thousand one hundred back and that was the state scenario that the trustee would be stuck with the debtors option to apply or not apply these net operating losses and that only because he had his avoidance power that's what given the the the trump request a turnover our position was that he should request of the turnover from the i r s and you know this is a novel position i've never heard the trustee from certain about the bidders before