MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
green he also indicated that it was clear that he was carrying a gun in response to this fish in the stream file a motion to dismiss a motion of course that assumes the truthfulness of everything that's in the of the original trial the only appropriate credibility decision will be made in third stage now the judge also found the fair there the testimony of the proposed testimony of jervey and damien's was not going to have any the other witnesses support the state's theory that there were two separate shootings one by a few bamyan one by a fence that witnesses can't get together on the number of shots that were fired ranging from six to sixteen all three of the crucial case of people versus gentlemen three ninety nine eleven thirty three forty one and three sixty four and sixty five it is not for new proposition it is merely actually referring to the point that justice the people have a problem with defendants case and yet he raises concepts he raises the concept that the trial judge error in certain decisions yet the people in their t defendant made no effort to ascertain nap we don't
say that if i have a very
t singers that either are living in the rogue valley that's where we're at or are passing through and we can capture them on film and way back in two thousand and three i recorded a group i just thought they were amazing and you know as a christian group to tell you usually i'm not i'm not attracted to christian groups they just sing the same old worship songs until they're just i d well you know and so but spike's upline is a very interesting group a very a regional what they do is they do parody they take a popular song and then do parody version of it and i really like that and they're quite imaginative creative unfortunately they have to spend and i hate to tell you about some of the things that have happened because i think they were really amazing now i came across this is literally found footage ike i filmed this back in two thousand and three and then somehow misplaced the footage and i've been looking for it ever since and i recently found it perform but i think you're going to enjoy it even if you are not religious sometimes i rather like to think that i am not at all but it doesn't matter it's just such good energy and originality you're just going to enjoy it so oh yeah the way they get around copyright law by doing the song because otherwise if you're singing the song of a cover band it would be illegal or at least illegal without getting we're going to bust into another song here who songs know a country song by a band called the mavericks and the mavericks they did a song they did this six mix rock n roll just this song smoking walking down the street and yet
what but next year is the golden year i'm not mistaken for about twenty two million or i know that those red loss of revenue at the hampton inn i'm not opposed to this but i think we need to go in conjunction with our noise ordinance and when the bans need to seize i don't see any problem with people still staying outside but the live music was an issue and i know that the hotel manager had to refund several customers and i have to be honest if i were staying in our town there was a live band outside my really just something that was vital to me passing along for discussion i think you know if we if enough of us like the idea i think we should also have some sort of public time that the public can with public discussion because if they're not of us are in favor of it then there's not right is our meeting any reason to tell you i'm definitely not in favor of it i was one of the people when we did have the summer our set i wasn't happy with that either because i was working at the time and i didn't miss any meetings but it's very hard for somebody who wants to make a meeting that's working that wants according to maybe their job you have to have to shower try to grab a bite to eat and come back i think we have to do what is in the best interests of the public to the public so used to meetings be on the seven o'clock going way back to meetings where at eight o'clock then they want to seven thirty for a while then they'd want up at seven o'clock so i think that's a good compromise i think people used to even the like public meeting that i don't know if you remember this or you remember me but we got together with people we had a little board that was set up in our our issues people of public brought up the for the board and we tried for minutes for a while you know  order and tell them to summarize that's always my thing but that was tried before four minutes was tried at one time maybe about six seven years ago i'm just going to guess but though again i don't i'm not for stifling the public at all
procedural and substantive law generally applicable to similar proceedings originating in this state well didn't the court have to do that here in order to issue this and find it to be of support ye can't just walk in and issue an order saying you will support without finding according to what the statute says that there is a duty of support so the court would have to make a finding that she is the acknowledged father what i'm suggesting which i think the past has correctly identified this plumeri step to them displaying what we think is morally correct a parent does not have a legal obligation to support their child moles he's physically present this state and may have to size all powers and provide all remedies available in those proceedings and determine the duty of support and the amount payable in accordance with the law and support guidelines of the state yes and i think that so in other words if someone walks in and says i'm the father that's not sufficient there has to be a legal determination of parentage is that what christy first says so th determination see i mean i think the issue that whether or not he's a father he's it minute walk there's no question the father perhaps i might buy your argument that you might have a woman coming in from mexico saying i have custody and i want to be paid when in fact the children may not be with her they may be with her father sister or in another country and so she's figured maybe this is a way to get some money the other women say i am my kids  need to have a past determination before you have a child support duty or obligation and as i said what is to preclude the woman coming in from another state another country singer i'm
we've discussed this case and you know in other there are laws and we can tell you that you know we believe in we agree that you're probably too good bar exam questions that are going to come out of your  were touched on and no one seems to have the answer whether rob or our reaction actually knew he was the father whether the natural mother
is defense counsel argues that it's because in his mind or his opinion as you say is that the contract is a legible that it becomes an oral contract and therefore subject to the of limitations i can find any law to support that that position has this this lease agreement which is the documents case is is clearly written the trial court found and i think almost summarily that it's a written contract determine for itself whether they can read it or that's really what it is in this case there's nothing in the record at any point that shows the trial court couldn't read the lease to mean tell about the copy in the business record exception and admissible in the one thousand three as a duplicate because there's been no genuine question about whether this thing is authentic in other words is it or is it a forgery so the from it wasn't paste in different places you've got words in different locations it is the exact same document in every single letter word is in the exact same place and recently so i don't think you could really have a genuine question as to whether or dismiss but he never the trial for never found that he couldn't read the first duplicate it just became i think i would imagine easier for the trial judge when he got the second to put it to say
talking about what just as gold and her she was asking about is can you do that to avoid the pain that a child support so that your your obligations become so go back to zero for the purpose of you raise an interesting point that the court whether the court can think you're this case there was no such evidence in the record he came forth with no evidence the idea that a trial judge has no discretion whatsoever to modify terms to make them reasonable which is what judge katz found in this case the riggin term was not distinguishing those cases by saying the original was not one hundred percent valid and in this case every debt that was incurred is beyond dispute that it was court did it's not a question of pointing a finger and cast away that's not the point was what is the balance between the business owner what is the balance between the business owner and children what benefit to the the business owner in this particular case mr kant also argues that there is no basis for just picking every amortization and there there must be some reasonable sure mr can't go on to talk about i'd like you to address is this nine percent interest rate i mean i'm present in today's market the judge it was   i think it should have been fairly apparent at the beginning of this case that dr mike would get the business interests dr kelly would get some soft money to try to avoid those two awards we simply took the position of the worried is there any n any case law of that you're aware of that says you don't do that there is a case law that says in domestic relations cases and to my knowledge only in domestic relations cases it's discretionary it's not month it would have been fined fifty thousand dollars which is as you say that is the of the vigor that the your expert came up with this trial which was a higher force than then the right figure which is
recordings  because they're not following the federal guidelines even involved a state suing a state college all those cases again it was whether they were all in federal court and it was rather under the federal call screams at a state entity could be sued so it's a person may include bad politics it doesn't say person equates in all instances to body politics and that goes hand in hand with the board of education city of the city chicago v but at the same time did not do that in an acting there were eight balls claims act and is counsel points out you know that's been twice amended in they've had opportunities to do that that can be very expensive so you know taxpayer money does go into the p t o much in the same way that taxpayer money you know goes into find room whether it's through local taxes state taxes these community colleges as well as the tuitions that are you know that's paid elected it is governed by a governing body the head of which is actually appointed by the governor of the state of illinois so i mean there are carols you know i mean you know all these agencies have to maintain certain you know if i can just briefly touch on elian's case because i do think the court with all due respect to the first district they got that one wrong big leap frogged over the jurisdictional question jumped right into the other amount of work or it was a state about how poorly so thank you for that makes our drive much easier to read something that's good
on the hospital from a care worker to give a physician any answer in those cases is that the patient walked into the hospital so she relied on the hospital to provide that care but those cases start stand in stark contrast to the case presented here thousand and seventeen the real time period when this physician patient relationship with established was back in two thousand and seventeen years earlier so one place it was talking about the signage outside of the office i'm betting really that really does not address world she's relying on the hospital to provide that care the only answer here given the body of record in this case is that the plaintiff which were lying i'm dr to see a to perform the delivery later on a surgery is going to be for a hospital the plaintiff presents to the hospital for that procedure and they file suit alleging that back particular physician's care was negligent and the core correctly apply the critical distinction and sat here we have a case where the plaintiff presented to be treated with her personal physician so here the plaintiff did not rely on the hospital to provide the care now interestingly in that case agency analysis so i'm not saying that fact on its own requires al home but i'm certainly saying that it supports the outcome it's mandated by the creator critical distinction imposed by the supreme court no thirteen consent for treatment forms clearly demonstrating the doctor to see a doctor to see a decision have the hospital run as an independent contractor and not in egypt the employee and i recognize that you don't have a substantial lot of time left so i was solely focused on the apparent agency claim brought by plaintiff so in that in that summary judgment we focus on the fact that there is no june issue material fact on a reliance on it which is controlled by that critical distinction that i
he testified i do not understand or read or write english i do not read or write in spanish that was the only direct evidence as to whether or not my client he responded to a request made him in the kitchen so it was it was a critical credibility determination of the district court made on the issue of consent or not and he made that things that were of concern to judge hogan fifty one that mr ayalon is just money was incredible because he said he didn't understand english and the testimony showed that he did because he responded to a thing which question and that was around  number two that he testified that it was quote just a lucky guess that he produced that document in response to the english question and again that was a question that came from the prosecutor from m the court and it goes to the credibility of my client who is on the stand testifying i do and understand what i was signing in spanish for him and for that reason i would question put to him by the prosecutor based on a false premise the premise was you answered in that you responded to the english question and that's what i  pressing to the question of clear air or no teeth the district supports conservative that the government had met their burden of showing clear and held it for a period of time which in the judgment of the officers was sufficient to read the docket apart from my client's testimony that was the only evidence of consent and upon were different masking over sold and i would argue that that can be fairly characterized as an item that can be used as masking or odors really go drugs so whether those three reading the english incense and his eyes were standing that document to do that he was concerned because of the language barrier that he wanted to make sure and he didn't you know keep him out on the freeway for days it did it up with fifty nine minutes i think for us to get  necessities of the consent he's saying they were in custody so i mean as in i realize that's what he did i'm trying to figure out what we should do i mean is that right conversion which the fourth amendment does not allow and it amounts to concerts by the treasury it was clear no one was going anywhere until they were in that call to get by the drug
my name is jennifer sister carol see in the record and she will lose her observations about family events and also attaches a photo from the of the family of nine hundred seventy six which includes robert's teach children mindy a a separate accident against the executor but that what's that got to do with whether the estate has a right way to hold and with respect to citations those are if you think some of these mean that back and you're saying that without of your hypertension you're saying that after making misrepresentations to the court and you seeing that after reaching across a bit at you just quoted a act because one of those distributions the first one was made six months he he didn't follow through on how the nation he's responsible for not going through bad actors have to be responsible for their bad actions and that's what happened here  took place on june nineteenth twenty fifteen that in addition recoupment should be upheld by this court because it is a remedy imposed that closely follows the original testamentary intent of the of a will against the executor for that error but that is not the issue today and issue today is the challenge by the appellants whether or not the court even had the power to order that the or were distributed funds be returned and clearly matter jurisdiction court why do we have to bifurcate i mean you have to create a separate proceeding why do we have to have this money and i'm going to say be redistributed and then fight to get it back when it may be already phong isn't that just wasting edition resources we
of your time talking about them to pursue discovery with regard to the venture between marathon oil  distinction between what you argued on remain and am the notion that marathons involvement somehow impacted the notion that this was school or public denied the landowners there was no effort made by the landowners to pursue traverse to pursue their or even to pursue anything in terms of filings  if mr turner had withdrawn his filings that day that you all stepped up for the hearing the day after her to come out and before you do that do these relate to whether or not marathons empowerment is reality to prevent the public using the sixty percent that's right ok these do so if you look at page seven is probably the best was given ninety days to present the evidence that he said that he had and we showed up and he said i don't have any evidence but he argued about america this complaint at the traverse station why was that because extent of that involvement was not relevant in determining whether the pipeline is primarily for the benefit use or enjoyment of the park the landowners are about america was involve
twenty five thousand dollars has been exchanged and i think there was a notation was there a notation on the royals or the better it was a notation on the check and says sinclair county illinois one thirty second interesting that it the rand sufficient right why we're so the one to pieces there that talks about i guess the section number is nice what you're saying even though we can determine that by looking at it no if there was a check to have the terms unless you had to prove beyond a check to look at the amount of the ground i mean to leave there was a one thirty second interest in the least
let's turn to the rd and final argued case for the day which is roll versus st george and let's make sure that we have both parties on the line so let's matter i have i have a motion for the court the circuit court the right your problems limited role let's do this why don't you start arguing when we get to the circuit and i have my appeal the never been granted it never got that doubt back in over twenty five years before the court the nd circuit the district court allowed to go to trial on any of my case and i want to ask this question  judges recuse themselves when they have biases where they've heard something about the case extrajudicial lee and no one here has recused himself or herself that's because none of the others either have any prior knowledge of you that doesn't come from their personal interactions and cases and what i want to ask you you said that this question of libel  properly administered and there's only like one sentence that sort of says there was this defamation but it doesn't say what was said about you that was false or why it was  is that when you come here and you start talking about a whole using your time to talk about a whole history of other cases it tends to distract the focus from the particular things but i know that your issue in this case but i think i understand what you said you've answered my question thank you very much and here's do you have any questions now thank you so mr all i'm going to let you take a couple minutes a rebuttal even though we've kept you beyond your time so let's hear from  know st a member retaliation claim based on judge st george having allegedly defamed plankton you know retaliation for plaintiff haven't submitted a complaint letter but not a judge it is true for three independent reasons st there's a three year gap between the purported complaint letter and the ledger retaliation there is no temporal proximity second it's not plausible that a judge would retaliate against a right again wrapping a plane about the conduct of another judge another case spare time is expired now and we appreciate your argument we will consider everything you've submitted we will consider all of the our arguments by the parties today and we will reserve decision so thank you very much for participating in or large event mr lawrence we thank you as well
no i've got other things to do and the judge later on tells you not to discuss the issue of personal property so you know he's not an issue even though he never really answers yes or no to anything and i would suggest that if i think he doesn't have a complete comprehension what's happening he certainly doesn't understand the judge is not going to discuss these issues later doesn't have any idea that what the judge wants to do is is  and twenty seven they were e mails from previous months two months the parents said they had also should know that from september first to september seventh there had been issued an emergency order petition order is this something that's kind of interesting here because even though he doesn't have any legal right to visitation under the domestic violence it because he had the knowledge to turn you formally still
serving the quality of molly and many and varied ways we thank you for allowing us to do that guiding us in our efforts to pray for your continued guides and help blessings is for see during this holiday
marijuana and that that really was the problem here the issue doesn't affect amendment violation that occurred when it did become readily apparent to those who were executing the search warrant doing so upon a mistaken belief when they entered the head and maybe look at the top to make them look i it was clear she kept saying but the police came and got the merano we're the ones who made the report that we were the ones who made the report way they don't act individual at the act as a way to leave and track the crowd or a team and they act in concert that in concert to get the job done and for their own safety and for for many other reasons and here the sad thing is that they acted in