MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
more hints will now there's an allegation that they can't work together because this week their systems are compatible with caltrans or something of that nature but we're i mean the issue is this is a duty to defend case correct so we're in those please does it say that order or is it only if the district knew that the individuals in the commercial properties who have private companies contracting keep talking about unintentional cool or unexpected to the policies an extent unintentional and correct this very different than what's your argument it's just sheen talked about the intentional aspect conduct which caused the expected and intentional damage your well they're different unexpected and unintentional are very different according to our supreme court in a state insurance company versus wilson there are different issues and it's harder to prove coverage that by two different circumstances one is a general liability coverage which indicates that personal injury property damage that results from the current senate occurrence is defined as an accident an all of the various principles liberal construction and resolving all doubts in favor of the insured you look at the purpose and that type of insurance bed is being purpose ok that i did this and what's the difference between on purpose and expecting something well i think that if it has to be unintended it has to be intentional and the district didn't there's no question that the district could not have anticipated that that because it did because prior virtually the ordinance of said that we were looking for a higher standard of protection and that's what that's what the that's what the intent was and that's what the expectation was and the fact that someone took exception to that and said that you intended to harm rossum to create damages stuff were tied to the defense to that were tied to the defen under the class and on constitutional claims that says that you have to eliminate all other altruistic purposes before before you can have a class of one constitutional claim worth one title to that defense one title to the said for the alternative to the theory of a joint venture the allegations of the underlying complain basically support the theory that chicago metro area district there to do with joint venture for the district to become the exclusive firearm monitoring provider would allow chicago metropolitan to be found playing this along with the over the course of the joint venture and still be liable for the acts of the district that weren't even argued in in the appellants pretty face focused only on concert liability liability on the part chicago metro if the allegations are proven and under decisions such as a solo call first instead general insurance company where there can  we have to be careful in deciding this particular case that we do not decide the ultimate issues in the federal case or you will not do so well there are lots of them but we can't even go in that direction so how can we decide if it have to be blind just because it doesn't cover the additional insured for its
now the question is whether or not on the planet sustain thirty five thousand dollars in damages because while this court ruled there was a conversion this court did not little and specifically said case back to the trial they never did those trials are still sit down there it california the question are on the issue of whether or not the attorneys fees which are now over five times the actual damages  the truck and both of them said that they trust in the car appeared to be in good condition and that the trucks were suitable for transport of the railroad car they were dead wrong about that and those of us at the severely damaged  court during the trial proceedings we presented evidence or compensatory she is on the basis of what the have a what damages would be for conversion because as is pretty obvious that i don't think there's any contest but the damages for conversion is the value of the property at the time of the conversion plus statutory  the idea that there's the trucks are still on the car it would understand that or how that got in is evidence of the letter that is still on the car that it's still on the car you say they're not on the car no no he replaced there's party is a party that wins and you don't have to win on every single issue to be a prevail or so he was absolutely correct in his ruling on the him on on  the contract contractual provisions allowing attorney's fees and expenses the other issue that i think that they brought up of lease they did during the trial was that that will since it's a that was on hey that involve a real estate contract and they didn't sue on the real estate contract but headpiece be shifting provision they sued sure strictly on roff and the korean government bush said that that's so in in doing what it did on the original appeal that there was no discussion of a the fact that there was no judgment on the contract apple's it came up there was that you know there was nothing on those trucks that are sitting california are from his one unit has been in this business a long time identical to the california separate trucks that were manufactured for that car when it was ridglea manufactured there sit in california there's nothing wrong
emergency motion for leave to supplement i'm not going to take any time with that right now i will take that matter with the case i guess i don't quite rightly understand what is still in the bottle and it is when he ruled on the supreme court ruled on thirty seven sanctions bill that beat on the way has since obviously two months ago since last two months was sitting in escrow for here here's just recently been released to over the bill of rights right it can ask itself just so that they were actually involved in the overall transaction though not necessarily in this case so they are not total strangers to  doesn't this sort of put it if your argument that this is an appropriate factor in consideration of sanctions is correct doesn't that somewhat put a damper on efforts to settle in a complicated case when obviously our jurisprudence says that if parties can settle and take some hold over their own future in litigation or potential and nothing else if you think you know you think something else is appropriate i would suggest do you think is appropriate for me just that if you think something else is appropriate
codicil procedure in so far as it relates to the judge and a limited liability company and the question should be answered in the negative based  now in this case each statute applies to this procedural basis of the case there's no reason to believe that the legislature by do anything other than make sure that the interest is health subject to entry of a violent god so that the status quo is reserved and tell those who get it and wish time the predator a charging were created specifically for the purpose so how can an attachment order have priority i guess now i'll see when a crook charging order was created interest as opposed to some other protect and preserve the asset from any subsequently in the event that the judgment creditor actually does succeed in them in obtaining a judgment american so found it was an error so for those reasons your honour's we ask the court reversed on the issue of priority or of the alternative repayment for further proceeding with respect to the relationship to other remedies
confession the facts are fairly straightforward the defendant stole a gun from someone shortly before the shooting  the shooting and request that he be given a ride the husband is home his wife doesn't trust what's going on and so she follows them canopus sitting in the passenger seat anything other than attempted murder which requires a specific intent has noted that the girl off at the previous scene which was confession to a state trooper i think why to hurt anyone i didn't mean to hurt and he did i want to fi facts and circumstance now we can then we can divine a defendant's intent from direct and circumstantial evidence but frankly it just does not  based on facts but i believe that one case that's particularly apropos here is the case of people versus jones that's eighty one l i second may result in death or great bodily injury is not enough specific intent to kill is required i think no one introduce evidence of a crime that occurred the night before the shooting took place late in the afternoon the following day and clearly and another man were walking about twelve thirty in the evening c case by the supreme court where people were beating on someone almost to the back and the supreme court said we can't hold him accountable for attempted murder great path of where you were standing when the fifth brought the gunman gun up which he was hiding behind this way which shows some intent to do some harm waiting waiting for the policeman to get close or when bush what was necessary to explain to the jury to see those charges again if we didn't have this we would it would start with him breaking into james walk away and he was accused of trying to kill somebody and i would assume the police would have been patrolling the area because of the earlier gun shot was fired in the confrontation with two women again i don't think prosecutors in the future would take that chance especially in more closely balance cases i don't think they would take the chance that a conviction would be overturned based on other crimes evidence officers allowed to relate historical aspects of the case this is why we are acting the way we did the need for the evidence is slight the likelihood of misuse is great so twenty two years later we still have the same issue coming repeatedly again i think that even if the trial court behaviors discretion here there was not ok assuming that the other crimes evidence was inadmissible again this was defendant stealing a cell phone from a minor in the early morning hours of the  the standoff took place as i stated as well settle that specific intent to kill can be proven just by someone firing a handgun or a gun toward someone else girls him being in a standoff hiding a gun from a policeman till he gets close to shooting towards him i think that hitting and stealing a had shooting we shot out the window where there was no person there the state could not prove specific inten exactly say as to this issue when it came up bush
and ah they say oh oh le oh yeah it's a pleasure to be here today to benefit the benefit of the belmont food kitchen and pantry we sing cowboy music and it's folk music about the old west and one of the principles of the cowboy way says something that's i think very have what you think should they be calling in and donating money and donating food food lots of cereal and cereal volunteer them out this weekend stuff that stuff is awful for you now the good stuff
know now another major point that i want to talk about is the standard and this is a big issue that i think goes to the heart of this dispute court now i mean in your opinion yet on whatever yes happens of this case absolutely i believe they are i believe that this court certainly must follow the directions o all revolves around the testimony of this one individual and i don't know that to be the case how could that be different regardless of who the plaintiffs are well because you know there if it does revolve around the fact that was the fact at the same time that their case rose all the facts that were the basis of their case back here  supervisory order but  i say when we go back into a different kind where you have someone lost the supreme court has said we count from the date you lost
year old sexual poses she said in the complaint and in reality these statements are absolutely false there was never any allegation of child pornography mar murderer or rapist when i've never heard any the allegations i think it still doesn't mean you're still putting it out there to the apollo they really you choose a child pornographer and if you look at the two in case you think about that two case they and when you look at your honor yes i am a little lucinda with taking the fifth amendment fourteen times a commission in effect finding batting could find it which is explanation that with a lot on the truth is not acceptable or the commission could conclude that's that's not acceptable when you put the hand up and say you're going to tell the truth you tell the truth and here number two is see the first one to me april deposition may well six ok is to be believed we're talking less than a year as to all the facts a reasonable fact finding by could find that this man lied under oath about about what movie was doing with with the internet and computers i would respectfully submit that it doesn't matter because why in the world is lying under oath on acceptable s what might be the hot button crimes of the day in terms of defamation per se but in terms of the judge we really have a reasonable construction what what she indicated was that this the word this as the chap pornography so when you look at it in context i think it's a reasonable interpretation is if she did say i've got all the wrong i'm trying to fire there's these lawsuits going on think the i think the we're playing this argument falls on this point is there the the alley the allegation underlying sheens comment was think of it i think that given given the nature of the news article although swirling around a reference to a third party with the absence of allegations challenging  as forty four to fifty two of the complaint and it is a reasonable interpretation of that article that the chief was just saying this thing came out it came out of the officers are charged with this qana there's you know i received the allegation that a police officer was engaging a drunken driving accident i'm not here that you know my one of my officers was accused of this huge the day i'm going to to stand on the previously dismissed count three or if that's the case then i would ask this court to dismiss this appeal on the basis that there is no finality as to the entire case and
condemnation stanfield and a receipt from the clinton county presidents back in eighty two so the issues are piling up but if you go a little further and look at the two or three hundred  is irrelevant because if i'm looking california for example and comparing it to the england which is nine states it doesn't matter you're still looking at the same number of documents you're trying to analyze who owns it and how they own it or if they  it will demonstrate to the judge and to the jury they knew what they were doing they knew give him the right to do it they knew they had to do it because they couldn't compete in this market in this industry unless they got this network in the ground and started
or or or or or or or legs good night night and this is where he put me here in the washington post and it's fashioned after a two step dance and it became so wildly popular instantly that we were in europe they began to just use those two terms and honestly every two step was called it washington post so here we go i hope you enjoy the washington post arch
deposition with wasn't it for the record here that she was upset with him for some from but certainly not for anything to do with her or him trying to get money out of her pocket he was worried for his final who would harm we wouldn't be here by occupants as well place accept i mean you're telling us at this point she wasn't aware the bid that's a factual issue for purposes a summary judgment or trial this is a motion to dismiss don't we have to accept that ever agent knows the details of it that it's assumes he does
know we've got you well we don't know oh
it certainly wasn't clear but i think he just didn't hear it honestly i mean i think that what he would have been upset clear of it was a direct violation in this case
for the argument that the judge denied the defense counsel a trial the ability to play video tapes of witnesses voters and those rights prior inconsistent statements of page five of of the substance of those videotapes made it into evidence in a criminal like the jury was instructed that it could consider these prior inconsistent statements substantively i want to stress that the defense attorney at trial accomplished the very thing that the defendant says that he did not in the library does not respond to this argument instead of leaving over it and arguing that an era of constitutional dimension occurred that harmless if there if there had than an attempt to to offer these videotapes into the record then that would be of use would have been part of the record and then we have something to argue about so i'm i'm i'm sort of i'm i'm  so presumably there are they're paying her public councils representation absolute refuse if you will of each piece of property that they all and in fact you don't think that you're in these in these declarations and so it's not in your view and to set this argument that a homeowner's association that had a subdivision has a homeowner
you have a right to testify on your own behalf now factually in this case he did that but pretrial in this case and look my advice to you is not to invoke that right don't testify your defense is already out there at the time of your arrest you already explained that you thought this was role play government is to jane that no we don't have to do that even though the district court we all agree used the wrong standard of it's harmless and so that this court can decide the most are the correct standard if the court decides to do that then you're left judge cross examine to ask agent higher about this disciplinary background in the reason why i think it's relevant the reason why i would suggest that it's for a one for two and doesn't invade the province of four is that under six o seven i as look this is role play this is fantasy if you don't believe that then you are free and allowed to find him guilty if you will if you are convinced that the government is pretty reasonable doubt abreast of all of this i would suggest what rule she i policy violations and opening up independent at home child pornography offenses for which a separate federal agency actually investigated you for child porn offense now in terms of actually grabbing what i can for something they didn't ask for in other instances in the in the correspondence that we include that's in the record they they ask for the underlying file and one of the going to change and if they'd can't articulate and they haven't are to a basis for admission of this evidence then it's not going to change the result you he wouldn't just be able to come in there and ask he even can he started spinning this whole thing with regard to whether or not this was a woman because he admitted that he thought that he was walking into a sting operations got to say something so he admitted that he thought it was a sting operation he admitted that he came anyway he spun this story about this adult woman but then when sorry when they don't hire challenge him on that he said that we're only talking and admits all of those things he comes to the place where he said he comes at the time he's supposed to be there he comes in the vehicle he told them that he was going to be in he's wearing a is my theory i was just talking to an agent higher i thought what i was going to do is act out a fantasy with a grown man and a woman pretending i be testified at trial and explained that this was all role playing and he subjected himself across and acted himself to having his testimony allowed as subjective evidence of his guilt here in this instance we have a
song is one that was popular when i was dinosaurs much for having me maybe this will be a big time to introduce the members of the ban do one of our own songs for you before we call it a night it's dark
let's see alexand and you can do whatever you like about i wouldn't care for the thought about him i dreamed about you know i love you now if you lose all you've lost of the ground you should call it a lucky escape forget who i am i'm quite by accident it's a matter of fact you don't know me from adam all i care about is the grand you and that's entirely different it's a terribly difficult case nobody can help him nobody can advise you and you have to you want to divorce your wife i don't know right and you want to divorce your husband dog by the way who was the first first what first love mine yes yours because i was an idiot take a brooch into my hand and close my ears she's laughing at me peter she can hardly stand you very bad gregory better than good it it's cold outside right clear the way for day if it needs an entrance here that's all right gregory she will die good and why  little below and whose intelligence is far below the average a chance a lot of the statesmanship and glory so it's easy to understand if one loves russia we already have russia and we understand you wherever you like catherine no no no no i love dmca and i don't want to be anything but his wife you were please go and tell i majesty that our presence here is indispensable to my happiness and if you come back without i'll send you one another and you quite understand woman can sit at the end of the table and still be the head of it and then other can sit at the head of the table and leave the last four women in to hear what you s anyone else not feeling well only the two of us just an intimate little dinner just like old t no sunshine no kisses just bread water  long she lives we can't wait another minute we have to fight or die are always thinking of what was it like i wanted i like your market and your death must be something like this well my friend e don't be afraid to lenient and he's very tired and very glad to go on this journey the ca the one part of my life
thank so much that's danny harrington of the baritone sax all the way from new report one of my fellow colleagues at berklee college of music dan and i have been teaching at berkeley for over thirty years almost forty one forty years thirty seven hundred thirty six so he's here ahead of me that means he will always be older than me he would have worked here but the bass is a little bit big and on drums from waltham just down the street and and and night today's his ninetieth birthday and all the guys in the band are new england guys by the way those are a bunch of our buddies and that really really great to see them out there anyway going from she likes that's lyricist in the united states and his name is john these pride green staycation passports are all about we encourage residents of all ages to check out the belmont citizens for our website and facebook page to share all sorts of fun things to do in belmont we're doing this to build community and to help all of us agree that the cost and the environmental damage of long distance vacation travel we also have a staycation picnic coming up saturday august thirteenth at wellington station john beforehand and all the time he has to offer thank you very much joanna she said she lists various things to do in belmont any rate i wanted to introduce you to cause i care and ernest from east cambridge savings bank they are the co sponsors playing back at me in kindergarten soccer here and of course none of this could happen if tommy wasn't running the whole program all summer long for the past how many years tommy twenty six years this is the basie in the band recorded it again only this time with joe williams and we'd like to do it for you and our friends over there for chicago there frank was a little down they asked him why and he said well because i left my little girl nancy was just about maybe two years three years old so why are so selfish as lyrics to a song each time i've got a terrible