MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
for each of them at ten minutes to each of you and you can come back because you're going to start and that's why we didn't know in the car so this set me yesterday which maybe in material fact as it existed at that time and reckon it's clear that it was a lie because they found that the baby food this family was getting welfare benefits they knew they had a lead then of information that should come into  behavior on the part of a social worker just ignoring her duty to risk that child in the face of obvious signs of danger and yet the court said that's not the court's job it's not something it's brisket rescue from private danger is not something that's a action and changed what they did and did in fact time children when they went back and reexamine case that i'm going to go back to constitutional issues i'm going to start with the state and just touch for a minute i'm disappointed billy because that's an issue that we should have been on that is that there was a problem and taken action to fix that and such it could be inferred that we condemn what mr raydon did and there's no evidence of that in the record in the district court at pages twenty eight to thirty one and the record this time i'll m in a couple of contention citrin to refute our municipal i'll be liability argument she pointed out the army will doesn't specifically require social workers to ensure that the supervisors who ensure that this particular deadline is met but my answer to that would be that upon the point of speculating that it's completely speculative to the decision that the child advocate would have been the private source of rescue here and that's something that is essential to their case because it's the only thing that would distinguish th a new database of new search procedures and and resume two cases where children are missing from a period she read two thousand to september two thousand and three and they had social workers go out and redo the searches and they it covers the long period it's one hundred fifty two cases through january two thousand to september two thousand and three i submit that that doesn't establish that as a april two thousand we're on evidence that we had an acceptable number of children who really got this thing that we could have found
you know what time does that sun go behind the mountains much i don't know if any one of you out there heard or saw me laughing during the last chorus and what i was laughing at really wasn't even that funny but i just noticed that this particular microphone cable here that's connected the big vocal might be got here there's a word written on here and it's crossed out that says sitar to me i was just funny anyway we're going to do another song that my i wrote here for you now it's warmer put well thanks that's a song we we were asked to learn a song that woody guthrie did and there's a whole lot of them to choose from really more than we even really know i suppose but that's the one we picked would like to do another new song we have two records for sale with us here today we've been doing some stuff off of both of those and that last one was from our first full length record the economist's selection a and an i'm sleeping in his house tonight thanks  just for the first time as a band and i was telling these guys all about it and then we got there and they believe me the great city least the statically you know i was only there for  appalachia they have some really nice looking mountains too and that's where a lot of the music that inspires what we do comes from and i learned one day that you can tell if someone's really from appalachia if you ask them the question of where they'll be buried and they know the answer and for them it's not just about the people who are already there but it's as much about the actual land that's pretty inspired by the power that connection between people and and earth and i wrote this next song for ralph stanley and his brother carter who are the stanley brothers carters buried a long time ago in the clinch mounds of virginia where those guys are from and around been playing music what he was doing there selling records and so this song is his for all the record shops that are still there it's called best medicine you folks we're going to play one more for you guys we'd like to thank you all for being such wonderful listeners and also let you know that we have some c d s over here for sale if you're interested we're going to leave you with one more  i wrote this song a really long way from here i started it in guatemala and then i finished it up in memphis tennessee when i happened upon the lorraine motel all thank you so much we are this train birds from pennsylvania thank you very much and the story is she wrote about one of her former roommates thank you very much thank you so much will be standing over there if you want to come say hi
when your client had sufficient knowledge of relevant finance to stir the two year statute of limitations running what is there in the record if anything there would arguments they were making the reverse of the shorter one and that for our right to have knowledge in this situation is very strange parties have different relationships and in the definition what analogy is that a state of mind where there's no substantial doubt about the existence of a fact and and this situation where there's been sexual relations with three people in a  what her husband was at the time and still although there may have been a possibility and there was discussions about well what if the child though i was this other guy there was nothing to establish that that point in time so you can agree with mr suber that the discovery rule should apply in terms of the definition of knowledge that there would be a point in time where she knew enough where she had the  minds we have to impose it on our client would have also put her in danger of rolling thirty seven sanctions at that point she has no knowledge of who the father is and yet they're saying that she should have had a file against all of them while she doesn't know or i mean how can you name three different people when you don't know who the father is and at that point time can make a scientific determination by d n a and you can't make any determination based on what the travel is like because you haven't seen this situation is also entitled to bring a petition to this establish he knew she had had sexual intercourse with other individuals showing saying that for him if it was reversed and he had filed the action that he should have filed a petition and as soon as he found out his wife was pregnant because there was a question it creates example pole position for practitioners i mean we look at a position where if we have a client comes in to talk to us and they asked us well when do i have to father under a one or a two a section five has been rebutted paternity of the child by another man may be determined to be in the same action if he has been made of hard yes that's what you were referring to the was aware of things and how they come about where is and this situation everybody's on the same playing field everybody knew what had happened knew about it differently ships that have been so based on
period of time when she's living with her father mother is working many many nights overtime his job offer begins his job home work long periods of time with this brief time that he has a child because they're doing says he wants to make the opinion about what's going on in this particular case he said in his opinion that the respect for mrs bunce it was not there he her with what the guardian and i can say that there would not  was that i was sleeping is that our that i don't think he has any right to be coasters in our bedroom area and he's looking around seeing what's going on that's our private home get her father said it was an isolated incident he said there was one time when he'd come home and she had the fire my isolated incident he an accident she was very hands on with regard to the relationship with her daughter bit he and this is where i say i don't know where the same just money they said the parents are good people we have two very good parents this gets down to the balancing act and they were down in the again the batting at his favorite mine who had been a stay at home mom who had been very close she was not impressed at all the last year and a half this case and everything pointed to her being the person that was the facilitator relationship she in fact had and then she was going to be one of two new doing that client decided to do in the end it was determined he overreacted much ado about nothing and in fact was in many things to do in this case he jumped at whatever piece of
the court goes on to talk about the difficulty in selling a cabin by way of taxi because it has no legal description you can't transfer a cab and it talks about the code which is what we're here today talking about that it says that it's one hands and lots that are dealt with under the tax code then because there is no way that we can go into a legal description for this hutchens and basically said those are fixtures to be taxed as a whole part of the land you go on the next case after they left is in the sprin property tax appeal board forty four illinois second for twenty eight lease holder stated on not example and may not be taxed separately but that's what we've got here and i had written down that if the trial who are should not have ordered to d for the leasehold were for this tower because it has no authority it is equally as true that the trial court cannot were a tax deed to the underlining property when the parcel number associated with the land itself the ground has been paid and it was never sold a tax sale that pin number never was sold and the other this was very clear that put it in the will see it always paid its taxes ground in the trial court properly said i'm not going to give that to you because that hit number has always been paid and that would be unfair and unjust but it comes down to the fact for and i think that the trial court will will grant that motion we're not going to come back here because he's going to get what he asked for and that's sitting there so once again we're looking from a just the standpoint will what do we want we want him to be made made earlier the record reflective based just on the document itself in the sense expires in twenty five year lease they did not renew that's not part of the court record but if you read i mean what is part of the record is the fact that the leases were put in the evidence and it's
this is the low point of those fires and so this is what the condition was looking at and credited that testimony yet it was a reasonable judge if there's evidence in the record on that side he credited that estim material i would submit your r s and it's a question to grit some levels of question degree this material is wholly different from the material you see it forty eight twenty
in the board found that were found that they didn't have dated a responsibility and that's why they got exonerated from these more serious day to day of violations this was an this was in inequitable portion of this penalty plainly and even a proper crime hadn't filed bankruptcy he was then the two brothers well he did file i can't remember exactly when he filed bankruptcy but it was real close and i'm in fact some of the proceedings against him have been stayed because of the bankruptcy but but anyway even if he mean i've never sat and never will say that they shouldn't have some portion of this penalty is that as much as they got not nearly as m m let me see when i think i think a fair portion of the penalty would be a hundred thousand dollars to c l c c l c alone violations another hundred thousand dollars to c l c for the joint ecause that would have been far more fear than ninety and i really i mean this is a pretty short record and a pretty limited issue i really don't have anything other than i'm sorry any question thank you significant modification program violations is what we know there's that much there's even more economic benefit because there was certainly some economic benefit from the overhype violations because they they allowed the the prime c allow the landfill to become over high and never moved that whites so there was an economic benefit to them from overfilling the landfill it's a little harder to quantify but we know there was there just no economic benefit to looking at the nature of these violations and contrary to the representation of those who are least serious that those didn't have the potential to harm the environment the board determined exactly the opposite the board considered  violations very serious on those to be the most significant because they were systemic violence and they were of a far longer standing and these type of your financial surance violations impose an additional penalty for that particular violation but the notion that there was something you know much more serious about the nature of the c r c only violations is not the board somehow didn't have the authority to pass joint and several liability for the joint violations there's no merit to the i think for one thing an unreasonable hardship on average crime that would warrant anything other than joint and several liability for the joint violations and that was perfectly reasonable liability towards parents have to do with personal injury or property damage and then there's a subset that involves toxic towards or medical malpractise none of those circumstances address what the dishes are they're just not relevant and they certainly don't preclude in the use of their circumstances when they are well they described a certain types of sorts of situations but they
solidified if we don't move relatively  height later reform on the best
richmond farmer's market t shirt which are on sale right now for only ten dollars so we don't have to pack them away for the winter please help us with that outcome when i do think the date thank you thank you all is finally here right
not here anything i can do but i thought you were getting married be is life just because off i think the best thing i can do is to him to you don't have to read that to know what's in it about your wife he wants a separation i'm gonna stick to his fish and chips and get out of my business and get this done right away how do i know man probably want to make up a ford bridge now listen there's a train leaving london the two fifteen that makes a connection of all right all right you can look it up yourself then but you've got to be back here by nine o'clock at the latest right souter waiting to mike steady at thirty five feet so taxes so it's any question of time just me telling us i remember glow you could bring in the boat and they could hijack the juice if you didn't get away with it we couldn't be any worse off right i'll take over for you no
defended you're saying dead in two thousand and one when the contract for de sign was for the sale of the property on percent under twenty five thousand dollars when it was twenty five thousand dollars or given to the defendant for the sale of the property
intent and subjective feelings and reactions and investigate in this case we delineated ten to twenty thing these days he did which clearly reflect or have said well children suffer is it misconduct or is that negligence or is that even passably neither well it's a question of failure to be determined to move the motion for summary judgment true did he make the privilege of publication of statements to third parties with regard to his investigation and then this publication in his behavior chance to impeach things and in reference to what he did these things would have been brought out there and the bottom line was during all of these things he was still under order of the chief detective or whoever sent him out to statement is a mirror of wall legally insufficient and cannot consider to raise issues of material fact in summary judgment motions so when we deal with the question in this case of these trans in determining the summary judgment is appropriate in this case let me ask one other question with reference to stricken although as you say it's not specifically the forest was that he struck those records because they were on  this was an investigation and these alleged concepts of bad faith and bad motives if you read the record if you read the transcripts and the citations to the witnesses that we did he was a thing outside the scope of his duty in face far as the scope of his duty goes then it's not an issue on appeal either there's never been a challenge day was it acting within the scope of his duty and one stay at scope is triggered the nothing to support it i encourage you to read the deposition testimony of all of the with this is that they said had to fill in two or statements you know made to them that own are in the record before judge course the united states supreme court for example has held that you can lie as a police officer the witnesses to secure confession let's assume it was a lie for purposes of argument and it was a strategic methodology used in the discretion are any of the allegations in the complaint relevant to after the state's attorney or relate to after the state's attorney declined prosecution nothing of record those before church popejoy its time  on one force in the state my suggestion to you would be it would shut down criminal investigations in this case in the state where you had a situation where it was a he said she said you suggest there's no question in this case for example and i can think of one brief if you look in his brief he pleaded to avoid the case law on the second district with regard to a motion for summary judgment and there was a reason he did it i submit
contribute towards the educational expenses of a son eric i feel it's basis for that is just that it was unreasonable for erica calls to attend the university of iowa the second issue is the cost courts can look at the programs offer how school music child's needs the benefits of shall receive attending the school and if we're looking for talking about a private or out of state school versus a public or in state school that i now the problem with this is that the estimate is twisted and i well was approximately thirty two thousand dollars now he got a scholarship and approximately eight thousand five hundred dollars he got home three thousand five hundred dollars every graduate in a physic therapy that there is one point seven job waiting for that original base on that back the rantings really i don't want to sit in a manner but this should be a primary concern because there's more jobs and there are people coming out talking with there the out of pocket costs there would be approximately six thousand five hundred dollars you're talking about almost a difference of twelve thousand dollars for him to go sing am pro ambrose as opposed to university of iowa that there is you know of this by the fact that it is a good school that their first saw would be a good fit anywhere he went because of his obviously he's a good student and he's going to succeed wherever he goes but there's also this issue of there's one point graduate program a six year program even though he still gets me by and there's no guarantee that he would be accepted to that school and so based on those factors it's our contention that the awarding the order to the sponsors for him to attend university of necessarily mean you're going to get a very good job you're going to need the two years of the additional training where they get a significant order out when you get a computer not less expensive alternatives they have to be comparable going to make college in which you want to go to the graduate program but again there are the one who's going to school says i have to apply i have to be accepted there's no guarantees and i think it's going to be difficult for me to do that now i'm
d and you can go back to investigator point while they were going to continue questioning her despite her indication of her rights later in the day because it's no big deal and before that did they ever tell her directly that she could go home i mean i thought this was the first time she said can i go home now and they said yeah you think go home and what happened was if i had if i remember questions she doesn't feel like she's under suspicion under the circumstances the object circumstances of this case she  there as driver's license she's driven to there she doesn't seem to have any problems understanding or answering questions and she seems to be perfectly willing to answer questions the court found that  three thirty two when she did make it out with the west or came we saw that nonetheless her conversations with the with the officers there out here although violation of her rights were voluntary so there's no there's no coercion going on during this procedure and she doesn't understand what she's saying i think what her position yes i mean she certainly understand she's being talked to about the death
stayed on the record some sort of indication that they consider the defendant's claims if they're specific like they were here the court should could have had courts that as consider i understand your complaints none of it is it's he was standing forty feet away in a doorway to his apartment building well they're sitting seven guys sitting in a garage in a large group so he should go to their to pick and say i'm just saying that th notion that somebody is going to be enticed to go talk to a man who's drunk and raping and threatening to kill you and then that person is going to come over to be killed is ridiculous  this was an isolated this was an incident yes the defendant had been behaving badly for several days leading up to the event nothing which by itself indicates that he's sitting weapon he was arguing with a group of seven men it wasn't the wisest choice but it's not proof of premeditation every case where this factor has been found to have been proven involve cases where a person makes tells you that there's more of an example of a planned happening of deliberation happening jeanne the case against you no matter it comes to mind where he told somebody explicitly how he was going to carry out this murder and then made it happen several months later and did exactly as he said he was going to do it aren't most of these cases death penalty case yes they are is the only case that i have encountered that this factor was applying to extend a term or natural life well let's let's talk about that in a minute because i'm still a little confused are we concerned about the fact lots of the aggravation factors he's been trying to give indication and instead the court said i find that you have a history of mental illness that you served in the military with a general discharge under honorable conditions and that years even for brief periods and the court found that the defendant had attended classes while he was in the jail had you know there was not this this is not a no mitigation case the court is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and i'm not saying why don't you go the easy way why did you create this other layer but what was that again because what was the purpose of doing it because this is a good socially bad guy committed exceptionally bad crime will get the court's statement saying twenty years the maximum natural wind may be the maximum it's permissive natural sentence not me and three the fact that the court didn't mention is enhanced m
entered into so and i really think their argument with their saying is we don't know whether he'd be different position or not because he never got the opportunity to try to do anything about it that's