MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
the policy question sure's cardinal make the policy and that particular terms of the policy that i am going to discuss and  did not involve you struggle when i was preparing for this argument today it appears to me that there is a couple of things that i need to address the first and one is that i need to  as to exactly what the issues were that were being raised on appeal other than it was claimed that this phrase was in b o s when you go back to the appellate court decision in northbrook it is and corals is that we look at language in the church policies we just don't look at it from our experience as a practicing attorney or judges we need to look at it from the view of that i must say that it is difficult for us to do then because when i read the insurance policy i have been infused with language from the insurance companies as to what these things ended up finding for me so i have now him that just doesn't rule but and so i also take language to my mind i do not claim my wife is average please understand that she is above average and the fact that it would read their way up states that they should be liable under this policy of insurance i know i know i know this is a c g i dolls and a lot of times we look at the height of the policies rather than the language and over the years i know that this planet not in our ambiguity i'm just saying that that's the way it should read if there are is more than one way to interpret it obviously example us and i still  that caused the end of the circuit court so how would you please facts that would be consistent with your interpretation yarns the lord work here correctly rejected the interpretation offered by pointing to the following three reasons first the only supreme court in northbrook evaluated the identical exclusion issue in th case and found it on you asli apply it to an insurance use of an auto secondly the implications of plaintiff's interpretation would lead to the logical coverage language from parts of the policy and place it in other portions and in that case it was the heading of the policy that they were tempting to are you should apply to each sub heading in that case of the vehicle and still would fall within the exclusion and then the same would be sure a cardinal said you have to get eight hours sleep in the employee and he used to follow that instruction yes and that your honour's touching on exactly what was at issue in the report case which was in that case on the shirt or attempting to argue that the exclusion didn't apply with regard to use because they argued that  independent of the negligent operation right then you may not have been right and there have been no allegations that are wholly independent of the allegation that's true severus so there has been a claim in this case where my opinion based upon my education experience the sentence should be read and then goes on to offer an interpretation in that case only a legal being offered there are no backs of evidence that are being offered stated that used to others does not make sense i'm sorry but to me used to others is a phrase that i i understand and it means that if the vehicles
mister it it appears to me is that we may be talking about different corporations and i would very much appreciate it if you could explain to me which corporation was reinstated because  history means their efforts to incorporate as in all things that corporations and a nonprofit corporation and the district court thought that what you thinking that what you did was sort of the slightest thing and to reinstate a different corporation in order to take advantage of the alaska retroactive instead and you understand my question i think know which is the nonprofit two of which are for profits and that's where i get confused because it seems to me and i'm no corporate lawyer that there is a distinction in corporate law between for ok but to get back to to my confusion with the litigation at the time  was terminated in the name of the nonprofit mentioned meaning natives common any and that occurred in april two thousand and five and that's the party that is listed as the appellant before our court villages listed in sixteen times and a village shall not be eligible for land benefits if it has less than twenty five natives on the critical date nine hundred seventy and there's no dispute that they had less than twenty five
fourteenth two thousand and fifteen there is this note referring to the feat and then in your response to march two thousand and eight he presumed the train was in storage with your pay during that period they hadn't taken any action in those three years or five years to enforce a story so why would that be i guess let me just make
district court there are actually been an effort to substitute argued that jurisdiction would be lost if in fact it was transferred under rule twenty five c and it was a very large issue that was being raised to try to gain some sort of substantive advantage for the documents there's never been any question whatsoever about who the real party in interest is i think it's actually an attempt to retain a nonexistent eja claim against the receiver and so that's why i that represent that to you right at this moment but when we filed it there's no dispute that it was in fact transferred it would not be a problem at all to go ahead and substitute that if that would be of any assistance excusing so i elsie my answer would be that the i was problem my next problem is even if we were to substitute kadal rockers this deep into the entire argument section of your brief is basically copied and pasted vs federal deposit insurance corporation on page thirty one stating that a second purpose of eight hundred twenty seven is for acquirement the agreement not the where do you make the argument that the district court heard this require the f t c to prove that the release had been prepared by fraud by factual findings that should have been determined by a jury by judging the credibility of witnesses and by improperly excluding relevant element evidence the court dismissed the f who's with us today against reckless and scarlett's accusations and to have the f b i see wash its hands of that having propagated proceeded force this issue forces to trial having told the trial court that  that that there was such an agreement and that's what it's correct there are and we aren't over when the court yeah right i don't judge the court consider before anything else on the mayor if you think they preserved any argument i mean i'm looking at the brute blue that would be directed to the district court not to us record was not certified in under the rule i think under the rule what it says is that your brief is due within thirty forty days i believe from the day that the regular certified and it says if the clerk sends you a letter and the alert is incorrect you cannot rely on the record i mean you cannot rely on the clerk's clerk's notice you have to rely on the fact forty days fro september thirtieth that's written in our reply brief i believe this is a date i don't want to represent and if it's not correct it was about two weeks before the briefing deadline but he contradicted with the record being certified and an oral agreement was steve townson a c e o to purportedly to release harry brown sr six hundred thousand dollars guarantee this was not recorded in that in the record is there evidence to suggest that appealed which the defendant's right i couldn't find it in your brief that you even responded to that so are you conceding that the statute of limitations does all of your issues
unlike justice carter i was a track but judge but i marry a right near the area criminal law so i knew that my question made be stupid but let me ask you this the surgical
to have arbitration provisions and the arbitration provisions will require arbitration to be before finra previously known as the ne s t v and here it was no different and if occasion i acknowledge that i understand and received a copy of the account terms of service which in section thirteen and fourteen require arbitration to resolve dispute tracing provisions appeared and this is the word technology used in writing that she understood the terms of service so the language and the knowledge and and the accompanying terms of service which plan a separate god and then their employer head published because she said she never got a copy of the plan the same way that signed an acknowledgment by the knowledge receiving the plan the document in bold font that clear lines quote agrees to open and maintain one or more investment accounts who are you and then it goes on to say in exchange you agreed to the conclusion the queer hell broke that clear chance of the parties to this purported agreement evidence is a contemplation that the women for investment in brokerage services would not and could not be completed within one year but that's not the law in kentucky can take off that makes clear that expectations of the parties as to the probabilities of their contract can be performed within a five months so clearly it was not a situation where it was factually impossible to be performed and under under kentucky off a contract term of the will and which may be performed within one year is not precise terms specific words in order to include rape by reference in kentucky law has the word on a specific words you have to use in order to court incorporate by reference you don't have to say arbitration agreement isn't forcible under the federal arbitration clause and not under kentucky's arbitration act the the supreme court of the united states in a case called shearson american express first me and which we cited in our brief back in nineteen eighty seven held that the contacts in the securities industry on involved interstate commerce and are therefore subject to the f a a the federal on page four of its opinion this court is in line to the guidance of the united states supreme court but the courage to strictly construe a contract against the interests of the party that drafted it and then decided to mansker  had in fact manifested her assent by not only signing being knowledge mentioned on the application but also by accepting the door opening and meet the need and account to t
story now what about there was testimony that charts that the pay the equivalent of what she made in quincy that they were not available and that she would only be eligible for in truth i will positions through ok i understand happen want to make sure you're not suggesting that the doctor has any responsibility to take care of miss company or her husband right would he still have the discretion to deviate upward because he was giving her credit for trying to start or are making an effort to have a business that would succeed that would protect necessary to maintain the standard of living that the children had at the time of the myriads years it was i'd like for my daughter to graduate without any debt and still have this nest and reasonable to use the dollars that the family apparently decided to set aside for educational purposes to the sister of daughter so that she still graduates without debt but there may not be as much
discrimination case issue in this case the issue in this case is why wasn't the risk participated in body other employees your job was affected as well as my client  social circle she didn't that she was not part of the off work social circle that the same supervisor had with other employees especially the employee who was favored by the torturing of the personnel systems for now  to the cour rejected from the very beginning
obviously removing herself and removing the children from an abusive situation and subjecting them to the continued treatment that initiated  watch those people in that same visit in the d c office worker ask her how can i get a hold of i she said i don't know and then all of a sudden the next day i contest the worker it's a small community she's been together required her was reasonable and feasible but yet she still did and she failed tremendously failed to make reasonable progress towards the return of the children nine months following the education of abuse and neglect and lastly that she failed to maintain reasonable interest concern how on one foot long entered into care he grew six inches in gain thirteen pounds in a few months upon entering the care of foster care whereas when he was corrected the conditions that are the basis for their removal and in fact the law think that where a parent does not emit to abuse that had not corrected the conditions that provide the basis for the chill in the school is that she minimize and deny the visible abuse that she and i committed further evidence that she did not correct the conditions are that she did not regret her failure to protect her children i drew out the case she continued to expose her children to the children's welfare again the mother's ability to admit the abuse in the glass her exposure of the children of the children to isaac dropping the order protection  her failure to comply with the service plan that it all ample and sufficient evidence that she did not make did not happen take
is going to result in a reversal on appeal and as a indicated perfect when the defendant claims ineffective assistance of counsel because of a conflict it is a per se contact it's an automatic reversal and that would have been fair to the defendant either in this case he was paying was as you said the reason why he was a target in this case because he was a snitch and the tracker may not have been aware of that fact when she made the decision to disparage by him but this crocus to look at the record as a hit and run we can't know for sure it's impossible to know for sure  i think it's important to face that question as to where we are in the proceedings and i think that the proper question at this point is whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that co counsel was not an appropriate remedy because the traffic didn't consider that as an option she didn't ignore it she didn't push it aside she she listened to everything at the hearing and considered that as an option but she knew that defense counsel was still going to city council take that throughout the cross examination was still going to handle everything a trial an issue could be a conflict and those decisions are entitled to a roach degree of deference on appeal and there's nothing here that indicates what the trial court did was an abuse of that discretion should really fairly determine that it was a serious potential for supreme court recognized that the trial court judges are in the better position to really there's there's or take the factors as they're presented at the trial court rabble that this was this case with a little different than maybe you can and
experienced immediate pain that worsens following the accident claim to work full duty for seventy days before he sought medical claimant and he would have to lift up to fifty pounds for have today instead of ninety percent of the day the testify he saw nothing and he was capable of seeing this region for all the ten percent of the time chandra shares these are nothing gender justifies and someone else justifies this guy works for
and we have to presume under the case law this year for a case is that there was a fair trial strategy and i know you can disagree with it and you can say that it was too convoluted too complicated but we're issue an opinion shortly
pass it on to the second stage let's say the allegation is there somebody who could give me an alibi i wasn't there can't say that fred was soft a bad pass at the second stage couns that was the argument occurred and so the supreme court in greer said no you understand supply and postmen conviction proceedings and counsel can seek to withdraw your view is now out there at the second stage a claim that the defendant makes that console is unable to substantiate makes the path of an effect assess to say council was required to withdraw and because council didn't withdraw we need to reverse this case and send it back for what  only mess up his case make it even worse if the attorney has to say to the judge oh and by the way those two witnesses are horrible and we don't want to call them and they have this dependent his his client these are in danger that that's it's the only option that training i all right thank you very much think you for your arguments here today and your briefs we will take the ma
allowing you to admit and therefore my question is if you indicated that that's a country your attention that caused you to want to hear why didn't you just do it you know i didn't do these i was the one who started these are the covered entities it was every single public corporation or the commonwealth of puerto rico they exercise control i can tell you an exit only that they send consultants every wednesday to the phone though to look over the phone those books to make sure that the money is being spent in the way that the board feels is appropriate but the situation my brother mentioned a couple other cases that are at odds with george that this was the solution but those cases were from twenty eleven and twenty twelve the situation changed drastically from the moment the territorial law was passed in twenty fourteen that law essentially said puerto rico is in a crisis and all government agencies and entities are going to be under the control of the secretary of the pressure and we can do with your money as we see fit pro message came as a result of the financial failure of the commonwealth and the board exercises tremendous control you're going to hear later on today about prom far more detail but the reality is that the board controls the government of puerto rico as one entity it doesn't separate out public or peroration more importantly additionally i should say when the new government came in they passed three laws in quick succession act three act eight and act twenty six and act three in particular states that that have been manifesting for many years and so in some cases really decades and what that law that it placed everybody every government instrumentality corporation under same in the same boat act eight is call them the or the treasury to used to be uses as as as they see fit so when you look at all these laws the four territorial laws plus professor or comes out is that the government of puerto rico is being treated as a whole but in particular the us in the and what that means is in fact that law also states that any extra judicial settlement has to be approved by the secretary or justice that sounds like arm of the state type stuff let me ask my question again has the commonwealth undertaken the obligation to pay the debts of the fund should there be that's that's the question that i'm asking because i think that's important under for centuries and my answer sir is by virtue of the
allow for you know and a medical expert to come in and say at this level there's no impairment that this level of the teenage c there you're impaired and are unable to drive just the is that is exactly what the defendants arguing that at the time that these cases were decided the science didn't allow for the differentiation so it met the rational basis but now that we can do that it's no longer rational to lump everyone together when we can differentiate what level of t h c impairs  alternative
where there is an additional risk because he was probably frequent passenger big if he lived in the same household i think the only application belies that argument because the application only asked for the names of residents fifteen years do you agree with his minutes that really you have that you don't need your family dash and you don't need to file anything the arbitration you being the insurance company in order to come in after the
a change from the prior standard sat under a casa which required only an immutable characteristic and a b i had not provided a recent explanation for that change and in providing that was an explanation provided applicants clarity on what would standard such as matter of consent which was on women who opposing our gender mutilation and who have not experienced it this court found based on that record that there is no evidence that that could go socially distinct in any way  now this is also affected by this wrongful characterization of his particular social group but it's also counter to the vast array of the evidence that was seen in the record in fact the i j a found that the there was significant evidence for that all these were reported on the census reported to police with nothing happening that him and his family were threatened that if they went to the police there would be significant retaliation which they believed and then of a different kind then this other requirements for instance matter of say the b s a recognize the perfect about religion of a young woman who had more progressive muslim beliefs than her father which is in no way socially distinct and similarly are that the attorney general's they it is fine i think this court should fall in line with i believe there's eight other circuits that state specifically that of immigration judge hearings there's a lot of room for a lot of cases and this is a situation which we have really a situation where why did you not bring i have a letter with more testimony from your mother says on the record with regard to corroboration smith's we and this is assuming we get to corroboration for purposes of this decision but specifically with regard to the mother and they have no there being no letters and there being no evidence and i think it's  they should know what the standard is so that they can develop the record accordingly to me that leslie crocker ration was discussed and i would like to know that i think one of the biggest problems with the cooperation analysis progress on