MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
not school with multi state branches it is a school located in new jersey and it is not gigantic like most of those they have in the  describing the florida on the students rather than the governor so how does that sound it's by the d c background allegations applied both to the students and the government and i would ask your owners to look at the books are a great example of just what is a garden variety fraud one group the government and the students and if you look at that sheet you can see requires a little interpretation he can see how the middles are split the books and when i say garden variety i mean these two were you know the big classic sort of selling it part of it for a thousand dollars i mean his share are way more abusive than that these when you were talking about what is the definition of a consumer fraud applied to the sale of books in urban communities they were saying oh my gosh these are being so all the free time that people who can't really use and every student who has dropped out who is the incentive man case you know when you're not you're not permitted to pay recruiters per head to compensate them is an incentive in any way  the center of the rod and that the front on the government if i understood him correctly is the the boosting of the various class b s and books leads would normally apply poor and what one would apply for as a result of the exorbitant fees and you know inflated prices and so what that gap there is sees me is the  dismiss paragraphs if you look at the draft paragraph seventy to seventy for and paragraphs eighty five through eighty nine all were added as well as paragraph ninety one alleging specific conversations with mr east amended complaint at eighty one thirty nine aircrafts seventy seventy three were added and paragraphs eighty five to eighty nine were added and when it changes it in so far as this is is headed in the same way that united states of america versus education management and judge because it varies opinion describes the incentive plan in that violating the incentive compensation ban in practice because they combine to put pressure and both positive and negative pressure on the recruiters and  so you call that a culture that made recruiting and rolled and rolled into students the focus the compensation system and other things like that and so yes i think those are very specific they they allege practices that were specific practice is that cause with hooters aid to survive they had to meet their quotas and b to get bonuses in cash they had to as well i before of the same and five is now a class action for consumer fraud count five that existed before which was because it was in the nature of the details of fraud was put into account one of the second the supplemental amended complaint because it's her personal experience and so it's is fraught with particular details as she experienced them already
as two thousand and five this is when the spirit of the first were introduced and started to conduct business and quickly over the next few years the parties enjoyed were could easily be characterized as a mentor mentee relationship so when this is tha like to say that you specifically point to a material fact that is disputed in the record that the judge should have not been summary judge
the case with regards to how the incident took place very good thread here's the point that i wanted to make along should reverse it cam or convict it is obviously fast testimony and it is fast testimony that should've been known to the defense attorneys who had the medical records and never issues that you've raised this with respect to perjury the extent of officer regions and juries that's not properly before this court and direct appeal the medical records were not part of the trial record they were attached to the post conviction petition so his p c claim in this regard at most the car door hit officer and as he drove away but that he did not intend for that to happen he absolutely denied getting officer reagan or running him over with this car his testimony was they did not intentionally hurt anyone that night and that's not enough to warrant self defense instructions and there's another car or case with the same facts for self defense was not granted by the defendant admitted to struggling with the officers but tonight shutting them striking  he said he did that to to get away it wasn't getting intended to hit the officers he said he never ran over and he can't combine his evidence that he was in fear and wanted to get away with the state's evidence that he intentionally struck the o without faculty justification and twenty four days twenty five point zero six in point our way to find the use of force into offensive person and offensive property as i said the jury was aware of those things and we have to consider in this case the didn't have the specific intent to kill at most during his closing argument he said that it was a anger white situation but he said specifically he didn't fight he just wanted he just back so he can't argue now that the jury convicted him because that it's frustrating as did it did it imperative it affect the fundamental fairness of this is the defendant's trial in didn't he never argue to the jury that he should be acquitted on those friends and next thing wishes this case from the other from this argument that he's making an appeal that he never presented to the jury he never asked them of them so the jury can't say now that the jury was confused and something he never asked them to even consider and just because that  if there are no other questions we would rest on our brief and ask that you affirm the defendant's conviction and the denial of us conviction edition thank you resemblance during the course of the trial can justify the obstruction the court rule in that in that manner in the the attorney can certainly you leave it up to the jury to determine whether
just said i have to do a low recalculation that's the only way you can come to a different number and so if you're going to do a little regatta lation then you have to look so that's where it's either one of the other is it really come to the actually there  to evaluate that and see is it again that's the sort of work is in the braswell in the trial court found that the exercise of the stack options constitute income do you disagree with that i don't disagree with that and so that issue to be clear when they work they're just ignored and then the calculations that are actually generated then do not follow the evidence at all they don't they don't on the income side show they pollute exercise cost when it should not as actually shown in the calculation that is done so the council another aspect of this argument is the fact that proposing counsel says well the court didn't consider the cost of exercising the stock options with the initial order that you appealed the st time and that in that appeal you didn't file across appeal challenging the fact that the court originally did not consider the cost of exercising the stock options and therefore you shouldn't hear allowed to raise that now here is a good point let me address this way number one when we were here day that was the issue for me was that this is the exact way it's done is the in number one child support was in so specifically as it relates to the correct number of support i would say that wasn't did the trial court consider it if the rule of the parties was in your studio the court was it would make its decision based upon the evidence previously submitted because by the time the trial court made on its own what is the tax treatment stock non statutory its options one thing to talk about them which is set forth in the regulation didn't criticize the fact that i did that and the opposing counsel didn't appeal this didn't raise this issue before so as you indicated trial court was of the opinion that the trial court judge recognizes that and said no i'm not going to bother with this already had the opportunity to do it and you know it's just i would prefer if you don't raise a point on the initial appeal or whatever it's for that well i asked that question because a few moments ago you said that the trial court did not do a global recalculation and d i want to make sure that's the statement you want to make i
right to move on those around charges but again she made a decision to decide to put these together she made the decision to terminate the proceedings and made a decision to start the new proceeds as they did so  screen thank you said before or after they introduced evidence that then you know as well came to a directed verdict the decision maker decided to terminate sac the question was it wasn't a recurring i think the fast demonstrate there's no question it
to reopen i think it's pretty clear we have no jurisdiction over it at all do you agree i do agree i actually do agree that our case then moving to the  that's a little different than your articulation of it the board has not said never the part from this extreme hardship situation which he found wasn't man in any event he would not as an exercise of his discretion gr us to bypass that question because you feel on both procedural and substantive grounds you've got a good case he got out and said look i have his statutory right to appeal from the substance of the denial of the motion to reopen and the reason i do is that i'm presenting to issues of law the first is that being caged in fact finding the second is they didn't follow their own precedent what's the government's position case law that because there is no manageable standard this is the second is that the council conceded that there was no
case so the state certainly permitted to argue consciousness of guilt if the state had argued he didn't take the test because he he knew that he was  why i haven't made that argument because there's a large there's a line on the one hand the state can argue consciousness of grace and so making an argument that there is an inference or consciousness of guilt there the defendant estates are going went on the wrong side of the line on that argument by using the word guilty if he wasn't guilty why didn't take the test so the what the what the state is doing is it's going over the well they could have argued in a different way they could have argued that he didn't take a test because he knew he would fail a test or he knew that he had been drinking too much or knew that he was  his conclusion to the last thirty attempts to do the tests is just arrest me yes i i don't think the state has to prove something to me that it's urgent and that's why you're here they've got to do this and i mean the language because it you know you read it in johnson the prosecutors quoting the police officer i'm going to give you one more chance talking about what's in the defendant's mind so in the context of the argument plus the atrocious there's no or yes there is consciousness of guilt just using those terms over and over just to whitewash i can say he couldn't prove what is the rational juror say when they hear the word guilty guilty ones that the elements of the offense are true that he's found guilty and instead of being found not guilty it's a legal term well the issue wasn't forfeited because the judge made some incorrect and non issuance would you agree it's only substantial compliance not strict compliance with six o five well whether those strings are
there were specific allegations of the hand of money he had heard and the number he had access to her account he made banking transactions for required under the law to dash six one five it clearly appears there's no set of facts that could be proven with what is i there it's often said no claim or no petition should be go on with this matter however and bombardment the core of all that the meeting under the influence in a well contest must contain specific were final of the manner in which a free vote the test either was impaired at the time of the instrument and the true they said it there's avenues to take here a year of sanctions there's all kinds of goodies and happened with somebody makes nowadays of which they had no forms a reason to believe was true when they made and then you know because we are state so the fact that the facts need to be concise and they need to be able to be shown as a fact rather than a mere conclusion and the court should not accept those in your conclusion as true and  he lived on the property in a trailer by himself for the majority of the years that she was alive it wasn't until the very end of her life that she wanted he who didn't have her residence when she had  of those matters the fact the fact that they argue that he lived with the mother and she was older and actually had the kind of counts it doesn't make it a who would shovel the snow at the house or trim the trees just because she did what she what she asked of him does not mean that there is a duty and lee pl places had made allegations on information and belief and they created a bad situation that could be facts to support their claims but wrong just people to take care of their parents and by merely doing so it does not relationship and the fact that the will was substituted by it i mean it's a secret this case should be reversed and sent to be dealt with in accordance change
i think it probably is yes yeah so we have to look at the case without lance and so what we need to look at is the decision of the state court that unreasonable finding or not i think it was a reasonable fact finding object to be unreasonable for the for the for the trial court to first of all after concluding that your number one if in fact there were the object of the reasonable finding of fact that the jury would not follow instructions was not discharging duties i'll concede that under those circumstances if that conclusion is properly reached in a proper reasonable doubt well in california i think the jury not being convinced by reasonable doubt by itself is not precluded you know the california courts unlike the federal i couldn't give a death penalty without being convinced beyond a reasonable doubt would you want to give the death penalty well you were convinced beyond a reasonable there of course not but in this case we were only considering the subject of guilt and you had reached the subject of healthy i mean you not just three days in in jail was talking about somebody putting being put in prison for the rest of his life or maybe even put to death we would not expect a joy to have consciousness of  these taking an abstract scientific view that you apply reasonable doubt in precisely the same way to the question is it alright for me to leave the room for ten minutes as to the question of should  execute somebody or can you have a grave or a mound grave or a quantity of reasonable doubt do you do you take it more seriously if it is our right to take it more seriously the question of reasonable
termination so there is no precedent on all fours with this he has to draw as a missile matter i would note that this technically is not a partnership agreement it is an agreement relating to a limited liability company which is an and then if she is dr dr richards and the thing right to voluntarily disassociate from the business and if she did then dr mcmanus would have a right of first refusal to buy her shares the only different provision is the involuntary dissociation doctor man's i couldn't find  that is correct under the terms of this agreement yes so we generally get a few common themes to those to those one cases where the court's trying to you implies that bargaining power i don't believe that the employment law cases in that line of the actual while what was going on in the office there should've been some deference paid to dr richards i believe are because she was the incumbent doctor in doctor he managed was coming into her practice  deference in my opinion with respect to how the business was running in those types of things and i think that led to actual conflict are the conflict that broke down this relationship was because there was not deference given there was not at just against the death for instead one would think would be for it to someone who's giving another person an opportunity to buy into their business so there is  the testimony that is in the record i've demonstrated that there is all sorts of conflict there are both options for coming to the office crying from the from the turmoil merely the upset there's two factions something that creates you know we have to be something that created that obligation on dr richards and in this particular situation we don't have that we have a situation where the parties reach an agreement and  necessary will in my view the employment law cases or interpret seem phrases for cause with cause has cause they're not interring phrase mean sure it spawns cause and i think there's a significant eighty she paid it through the profits that she got from the business that i mean she traditionally when you buy a business you have to go find third party funding and then payne pay a bunch of questions thank you
shoulders when we took this job for the first nine months he handled somewhere close to a half million dollar half a million fifty pound bags often over his head put him on health that changed after nine months this for nine months or a year so it really doesn't change back if you did it three years ago her self really doesn't make it so i know there's something fusion there but for someone we love medical records with all these different people that have  diagnosis it's amazingly consistent as to what you normally see so you know i don't know why the year and a half is in there but i just don't think it's critical and i think when you look at the ledger in weight the consistency of the job duties what is there was a conflicting testimony about chop we know we started in december of two thousand and two and that was the more physical demanding it is about thirty percent of the time he did spend working with bags overhead that's when he got to the gym later he received no treatment during their period of time they had no complaints then when to another job for nine months  his gastric bypass surgery and he was off her period of time for that then when the doctor scripter in may of two thousand and four in petitioner said i've had these symptoms for six months what takes six months from that he then went to the automated job in june of two thousand and four in the petitioner testified and it's in the rockery i think it's pages five zero nine five well as to the automation the fact that he sits before he testified testified that his understanding was that he continued to do repetitive lifting over had to this date and you're referring to december of two thousand  and that's when this initial complaint is really a factor i have this problem the commission in this case found dr fletcher more credible just talking about the surgery and what they found what they found in that surgery and no one testified so you know it's my argument cursus passage of the medical opinion those findings were inconsistent with the process or something that was caused in tribute to dr yesterday by yes the commission chose to believe in december of two thousand and six fisher's own testimony contradicts that history they get pick which doctor to believe but you can't retry the case and i think that's what the arguments about  in look at the evidence again and come up even if you were to agree that it should be a different decision that's not something that you're supposed to be doing i think in this case the commission was the trier of fact they had the right pick and choose
earning a fundamental constitutional right and what that means is that the statute just not enjoyed the usual presumption of livy and face the constitutional challenge for more mr yank wages not are a burden  read it as necessarily claiming to be of assistance in because of the fact that it was the trial because the fair counsel didn't do anything that was complained about in the course of the trial prosecution to where defense counsel contemporaneously represents a prosecution witness and three were defense counsel was a former prosecutor very personal have been personally involved the prosecution the and those are the three categories recognizing the noise per facial challenge then is making a facial challenge unconstitutional on its face because this statute is not a wholesale prohibition but is a prohibition on a subset of individuals it does not don't have that in this case because we are dealing with a subset of recognized in the jewels who are lawfully prohibited from having a weapon and as a result we don't have to put in this incredible evidence  would never create a fourth or that there is a possibly for it isn't exactly a good way to look at it and in my reply brief for about point i cited people wrists from reading from the ninth circuit and what happened in that  have counsel effectively having
yeah yeah need to be raised by the actual renter's of the vehicle rather than the problem with the unfortunate injury or well if we were talking about the rancher who was driving under the influence of alcohol would you be making a different or unique then you're making here no but but we would have to see if that rancher argue hey i didn't know that i couldn't drive an influence of all i did not know that my my consumption of alcohol withdrawal would wipe my liability protection if the rancher made that argument we have to consider issues that w tone was in fact it was a policy in excess of the original policy is that what you're saying correct i say or provide access coverage right now but but is that what the owner was told or the the buyer was told when they go when when you go to rent a car do they say oh this is in x x you were your regular insurance or i mean i don't know i grant you car which injured rd parties may be compensated but they went on to say that those types of coverage gas implicate policy concerns are properly considered by the legislature not or so i think i think that's where the trial co and my response to that is that those are hypothetical scenarios that we don't need to consider and that's just not as self serving as it sounds that comes right out of new york because the same argument was made in  it directly and implicitly that the legislature does not but it does not prohibit exclusions they have to be looked at on a case by case basis and to  i think at some point the legislature would actively find the coverage in primary policies are getting through i don't think the legislature frankly is willing to set policy in the area of access cover