MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
like it's every backs and do and it's not really represent generally what's happened when someone gets injured is you let the the trying to take care of them and a team gets together for a chat about what's going right what's gone wrong play and went out there and stay out of the line throwing would be to the opposition ok the referee saw something and it wasn't quite right it's kinda a little bit of coaching out there and i could probably attack from here but there's no one back there  another kick maybe in order and see what happens touch this is a good attack in spot for belmont the opposition need to be back ten metres so it gives the backs some room to work  that is but i think it's a lincoln said we play yet as number five right back on the forty five they expect in and sure if it is kicked they will field it a try and run it straight back down the could be an additional two points tough kicked out of the side goes great distance just a little bit off to the left the great if so after i think it's been about twenty two minutes that ok the ball went out i think we did and it was the infield which means to twenty to drop out to belmont that stuff scrum seems to be operating well and the big wind down the other end against the heat which led to the tribe or georgia a little bit of discipline to the ruck they need to be interesting from behind the players that are on the ground you can't come in at an angle on the side it's so let's see if lincoln sudbury contests this line out which means they would send up a player to jump as well they did so with the number eight good stuff and it's same thing again here slicing back against the direction of play very effective so i think because you'd be very happy with the way they have ended up  d have because little drink and have a chat with each other and then cultural chat about a couple of things that they should work on she s looks like he's talking about perhaps not releasing the tackled player on the ground someone's going to get penalized here and it has got a touch yet and oh gosh when this touch all the way down there was a very good kick touch here and once again i've got it all the way down the field and where is it going looks like it's not going to go well he's going to have to run us a long way back now not oh that's bad right maybe not so it's a twenty two so it's still five five perhaps ten minutes gone that was the two from the can separate pretty quick call good to me but they can put the tech together here players you know the they're going to kick for touch yeah i think from that lineup that bowl  and the bulls the be very much time l
we're getting the seed number eleven isabella jack you know he's so s beautiful beautiful wrap around  taken a while shot with one second left on the clock and it's kind of falling apart here a little bit and midway is a command say with westwood for a while but right now it's forty eight twenty seven minutes to go in the christina at this point really you know it doesn't really much matter to seventeen now
did sweet said he says this court understands that the petition to free the minor children from the custody and trouble of gabriel will be decided decided in accordance with the laws of california he doesn't say really i find that what they were getting them just to go along with my question here about this issue of california law and even if the court throughout this entire proceeding applied the wrong state's law do we have
them say so if you lose an i'm sorry but let's make than everything else is for the best and the best of all possible worlds maybe she can join you later as you do what's best for those two preparing to return to paris now just checking to see the cap marshall was comparable now now that you've got a rest you're no condition to move melt the anchor down beside a week honors at that time would be spent building the go down beside his crew shorthanded we've got about now we can intercept what do you think based on washington's been burned by the british we need that go desperately what we've got to lose
well what we're going to do we're not you can argue what how you describe them in the law ok which is fairly descriptive and then if you wish to file a motion asking that we inspect them in camera and see if we get  declaratory judgment what he was going to do in a workman's comp case i mean i just step i don't how the work product in the workman's comp case can affect the declaratory judgment the case he does he ever represent the insurance company in the declaratory judgment parallel to the workman's comp a declaratory judgment they did and there were separate counsel for your client or the declaratory judgment bear you see what i'm trying to ask out how can you transfer this rock work product over to
it's not going to rain but as the parade is only a hundred yards down the street now we see the red lights but i was sudden it's gotten darker wetter and seemingly a little more challenging see here and you couldn't answer that i mean it's a little chilly but it's also just it's not raining there that we can see it's just a wonderful setting in that to go to wendy and i become too wham across lake michigan is ram across to this past year near the straits and he's going to have a code blue under the bridge this summer but wherever this remains a challenge he has done that with we've read the while i missed a year there and then we have here they receive a donation for me every year  this i think is a first time gober is a been recognized here in the the michigan volunteer infantry company civil war and that organization and that is a very popular thing to be involved in the beautiful things and holland makes very good news for them when they very good private school that takes place in grand rapids if i'm not mistaken sounds like there would be a fun thing to a wow some of these kids are very good answer absolutely opinion your job yet that's going to be close to my house like i know me a lot of the traffic there i don't come back again
reviewing your cases i did you find getting worse they're similar type documents and what's the what's the binding effect of the preamble if they're considered a preamble as covenants as it relates to paragraphs one through a team prayer and yet the document itself says that you're going to hear by place upon such tracks of land
this the runs out of this arose out of the employment because it's a dental two is his lunch hour he was playing basketball he didn't jump shot and as we all know just the mere act of doing a jump shot can be dangerous we've seen n a situation where someone had been ordered or mandated to participate in this basketball game you can go out for a jump shot come down with your knee i mean that there would arise i would love the point that under the the the course thinking here case that says a personal comfort doctrine doesn't apply i think this one will we because they're trying to comply with the employer's directives ok that makes sense then the employer is on the roll but now they're seeing but even where they don't mandate oversight if they're going to be employed either way correct according to the person factor in requires the employer to be liable for voluntary recreational activities they have employers no malinche off and they're also liable if they sign up correctly so what's the point again of section eleven of the employers been responsible under any this this is a situation where there just happened to be a basketball court and so forth here they actually sued the employees here's something you can use but before we use it you have to sign this week correct and so on so on i mean think that in this case the employer made that very after to try to establish this of as a voluntary recreational program short of actually citing this action lead in their liability waiver indicating that this was a voluntary recreational program and they made every effort to try to particular issues here in regards to the amendment to section eleven i am i willing to do the shows are able to find it short of going to springfield and going through the paper documents rosano find anything by looking at some of the transcripts that are available on line of  legislative proceedings but we think that just based on the plain language of the statutory provisions and the sponsor of excuse me a pelleas exhibit number one that the employer was clearly trying to establish a voluntary record no program was an athletic events if we look at the definition of event it's something that happens i mean he was involved in a clear recreational activities contemplate under section eleven in the record it's clear that none of the exceptions  the signing of the waiver we limit the rights of the workers compensation and the documents call the waiver of liability no it's your call he doesn't care what it's called he just says the signing of it and what's in it
the never refused an offer of suitable employment that paid in excess of his current his capacity reflected by the wages for his two jobs now in regard to the further proof we maintain that when you look at the essential facts for this court to consider the twelve and it's also agreed that he doing a job placement assistance in two thousand and twelve and was never on for it is agreed that he got a second shot on his own in not november twenty ninth twelve working for the locking arms daycare center twelve changed it to what his own belief was i think that's was borne out of the record i think that's what the commission found these are factual issues that the commission is free to make these are terminations there is ample support in the record for these findings it's not an issue of there's no evidence there certainly is basement and made nearly a thousand dollars doing better i believe a day's work there was evidence that he framed a skylight and received three hundred twenty dollars an hour for eight hours of work once again there's another job conceivably do you earn forty dollars an hour he's able to  are ever eventually adopted by the commission the committee you say adopted by the commission the commission doesn't back medical restrictions you might want to say the commission didn't recognize that was but it didn't happen that apologises her as those as his restrictions and recognize
then the first finding workers explicit about a mental disorder which is fine the second comment was when he was talking to mr ashby explain what he perceived to be the find that you fall under this section of the statute and this was as people point out the answer brief made after an unambiguous explicit finding that respondent did have a mental disorder and find that the judge did make a ruling that there did make a finding of fact that there was a mental disorder and and further that there was evidence sufficient from which the court it lacking in that respect and so on any consideration about the sufficiency of the evidence would be premature at this point but our especially when it was amended didn't include the language substantially persons act interviews on her resume was that she'd have spent twenty one of her twenty five years of practice in ohio where clearly she'd not had the occasion to offer to consider the respondents argument that the judge was required to recite the definition of mental disorder when making his factual findings this was an argument that the responder had made in the opening brief that the people responded to in the answer brief and that it's not  theme that there was no response to the people's dealing with that in the in the answer agree that people stand on their own their argument under carter and came that there is no
the limit of insurance wish in this particular case the the policy provides that they will not pay of the american home policy says we will not pay the insurer or any homes of was being paid for compensation we say don't pay us for those we accept the fact that the policy says problem for have not been paid by workers compensation so why don't do the does american home claim that it's allowed to set off the a mouse for elements that it has specifically said they are not going to play with out any clear set off when in all the other cases home and scraper that this report looked at the public but this guillen said you don't need to get into the public policy without looking at the language of the of the insurance contract and seeing whether there's some ambiguity or one of the parties is claiming that because of the ambiguity the the you know because that's what the policy but quite simply here really policy on its face and you'll see that the there is no set off there is no that element they're not going to address that in their house and that's just the plain reading of the policy and it would if you look at it at nearer home they talk about making case that you know assured of receiving the total hundred thousand dollars don't insure but only have receiving a portion of one hundred thousand which is not recovered from third party section one forty three a for governing uninsured motorist coverage  noble for all the images resulting from any one accident is that the myths of insurance for uninsured motorist insurance sun shone schedule or decoration and both in this instance that figure is forty thousand for still exist they still are the compensation his client has received and are there or set off against that limit there is no other way to read the policy otherwise than the limit of twenty thousand is to hold a arbitration to board another song with it on get us in dollars or pain and suffering well then that in effect means that policy is increased by provision of the pension fund was similar to a worker's compensation structure similar off as workers compensation for this instance is we're talking about workers compensation there is no s boss if a person is intitled to receive payment for the same level of was under worker's compensation ok so this policy doesn't cook medical it doesn't cover t v we can see that but they say oh  convoluted we have to look at this part of the policy they're trying to reform the policy they're coming up with the turn around the of the the policy provisions and the amount of the policy that that is that something that is clearly the policy the express provisions of the policy the leaders there in essence get all the set off provision here doesn't exist in get on the set offer a vision wasn't expressed their forth didn't apply
the rest of your life so i don't understand helen how are you going to influence those people would you mind telling me where i am  there's nothing wrong with me oh i'm sorry i didn't know you were fishing but if you think i was doing to his country place why the whole thing was nothing but a big fire department get me up there i'll run away that's what i want to skate you said you couldn't escape no i didn't said you couldn't didn't say i couldn't if i had enough money to finance the roman days you oh you come right out of there young lady or i want to come up with iran off anything on my show who said i was paying off anything on the show i mean i want to buy the photographic concessions in the kernel you mean you want to pay a hundred and twenty bucks who can use that bloomin days around and that's right well let me tell you mr it ain't worth it worth a lot more than that to me now good bye miss more like you very much say just a minute what's on your mind how would you like to be the head man of the best carnival in the world who wouldn't fall much would it cost about two hundred grand like any take one up for me would you like a nice new electric train set to you no wait a minute you don't understand here i believe i'll show you something that you are going to be very happy about  us i think you ought to know that what the colonel said don't blame him i'm happy to know that you're one of us certainly do want to be one of us there's something i want you to have belonged to my dad he was  gone i've got a better idea
suspecting that there was an occupational exposure and that knows the condition as a sarcoidosis because he did not have evidence for actual knowledge of what the offending material was  occupational medicine investigated in the book more detail of the petitioners exposures he concluded that the petitioner had some damage to his lung she did not know whether it was it was his opinion based upon this the silica the evidence of the silica that he could find that there was silica cause sarcoid type factors that silicosis and there's never been a diagnosis by any tre decided that he was going to have his own biopsies on films done by a doctor bill pound dr bill badly did a different type of examination under a different type of test but she even i believe  pretrial conference held with the judge where these discussions with dr everett for the objections and i believe that dr there was some suggestion about at some point  testimony it is a known genetic predisposition so it's not like occasional disease no it's not right about that it's one doctor the argument is the degree of medical certainty the object is to obtain opinion based upon medical training experience and in general medical knowledge is that when he was asked a basis opinion i believe it was initial biopsy reports he found nothing we have nothing that was a whole lot and i can't stop and question that doctor i can't find out what
but you have very bad manner don't tell me he's but you've always been another one and your name please ok i beg your pardon actually thank you very much i guess it is a good for either one of us to be seen together right or wrong you know people like to talk to be the boss what's the matter afraid of you oh for sure on the same ship you have a days you know you can take nice we read it spread out something makes you feel not going to die i have to start saving my money tell you something we get in the morning we have to tell you take the elevator until we meet again take care of yourself we have to say well i don't know at the moment i'll have to call back to let you know i think that's right and i'll talk to no no no no no no no no no  a few days i hope you're not angry but when you have as many youngsters on your hands you have a problem oh  first time you're able to get out  look at me i live in the heart of the sixth street and they won't let me on the subway share come on let's hear it to really want to go on the stage and i can do what you do you go right along with the rest of them and you you pretend to sing you know make believe i think i'll ever know the difference  and then what did you  thank you you took a little one for about a month thank you blame me i should say not least i could have done was to send you a note thought maybe when you thought about it you didn't know  you want to change the subject  i would have sent it to you and you know you had
say and the petitioner were married for twenty seven years and they had one child court when they were divorced the judge gave custody to petition are over forty due to that she get the house to petitioner in his thereafter sandra heritage about two hundred fifty thousand dollars from her parents she also married richard the barbara who hand and never made less than one hundred thousand dollars never lets an eighty thousand dollars gap right my contention is that right there is no me or finding an discretion where once foster more than sixty percent in the non income should be imputed however that case involved parties where they had a cash business and it was impossible for the court to divide yes in addition i would  dollars five thirteen paragraph he specifically mentions the financial resources of the child should be taken into consideration when finding  was in consideration for forty five thousand dollars which is in the original judgment order of this and the twenty five thousand dollars is based on that first however there was a bedroom for the asleep of bikes and that is why she gifted that house over and i think this situation here in this specially the sixty thousand dollars would have been enough to cover ortiz a great deal of lease for his college expenses and i think this mirrors westerberg first sievers where the second district i can imagine cases come for court with numbers such as i s secondly with regard to that the court indicated a showing of it because there was no explicit findings required to section five of by for a deviation of the child support guideline amounts at that time guidelines there truck or shall mandatory shall basically make those findings it did not make those fines so i believe therefore to address the second question and also indicate with regard to why i think the arguments for at the beginning if that were the only factor to consider that we have a much better idea but i indicate is i try to say property distribution that she has she has property probably that could be used to actually attain credit in order to pay for these things if you were just going to take a look at  was going through mine who knows at this point who knows but with regard to westerberg i would point out to the court that in westerberg we're talking about an issue in which basically the child may ten in should consider the property and resources of the mother including the an income of the second spouse which is not something that would be appropriate you consider any sport is that this time those distinctions are into significant because absent those factors the times as it were from estimates actual experiences to show that expenses were as compared to the initial estimates there were done in june before she started school if they know what they were yes and i would note as my argument in the brief
where we need treatment and we need supplies and we need coaches frowns on those things that we otherwise couldn't have so off it's what really makes our music program special and that is due to your support so if you made your thirty dollars never shipped donation last year  got an email from one of your teachers today outlining all the things that promise upon us at thomas of last year over twenty five thousand dollars worth of stuff in the back and work we as long as there is cons there are teachers giving them lists of things that we need so we'd like to buy oh and the
individual actions and if you look at the testimony and this is also in our pending you'll see that mr emery testified that they planned to give the land back to fred so of course he planned to give the land back to fred i taxes on one of the properties in st louis that they got out as part of this bundle of what they were doing here so here they are getting all of gas prouty and some private property and and they give it to themselves they don't you were a trial it was the end manager of the new corporation just like he was the lead manager for his dad's corporation that so i think clearly they have representation because the lease holder the owner so i can't even get parachutist levees removed which are the first ones to get hit in damages first because we're tied up in his appeal more to lag so here we are you know we really  track they absolutely know what they're doing and once again they have concealed information harm someone unfortunately in our case this is not the divorce between people fighting over all their money this is a small tax industr