MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
ok yeah you know does this and i think i would like carl to weigh in on it before we go on this i mean i guess you could vote on it because you can ultimately decide not to be anyone to deliberate or make it active but i think that that's really a consideration that we have to have is this going to cause a red state in our whole department that could possibly endangered someone's home you know so again i think we can pass it as it is but before we make what kind of the system do we have in place to make sure our people are able to come forward with a proposal if they're interested in doing so great labor just like the operation of the guard corps or whatever do we predictably so i just think we should have the ability to have an open process because they don't know that all of the people involved are happy with the way things are going on so you know either we
and both of them were participating in the decision on the case and listen to your arguments below the recording  lawyer up to for the sale i mean my understanding is that you have knowledge of the baby perhaps at a time in the near future might have the right to ask these questions but there were two twenty  and one of them the judge sort of just took into consideration or under advisement i should say several of the requests several of the number of requests that have been made and i do revise and it doesn't it doesn't satisfy the overall issue in the first place or whether the discovery of whole when you went beyond the scope to twenty
course based on the record that we have i think a reasonable explanation of what could have happened because of their version would be that there were one or more jurors that felt that the state had this court is going to do because that's really where the evidence is about this issue she protected herself she did not say anything that would put her in jeopardy and till she was argument was that the language of the f b i followed the language used in the statute but that's really no better because if we h  instruction good or bad defining knowing consent was clearly understandable people with jewel and it's it's notable that the defendant's knowledge can be tied to what his relatives who worked with this
were securities that were acquired from
filed claim if the government in fact had a legal obligation to advise about the claim in that event the claim would have been highly even though fourteen years after the initial  be crew if they were if it were me but the entire rationale of the judge seemed to be that the two more the sisters are not trust play like this case and even in that case this court that the ignorance of the legal right to sue the government doesn't have any impact on the statute of limitations all you need to know is when how to that got the rationale of the cryo that the sister had not been informed of all the things that they would have to be informed of before the big hear means that no one is allowed to consider what the government was obligated to tell the superiors the thorp any that you run because this court has held that the government doesn't have to inform of their right to sue the government so they took the gag and they're already up another branch of the government and yet they don't abide their beneficiary that they have a cause of action because of the action the government has taken obligation of the interior to be so law what's the harm in telling the sisters the were taken away the way you thought you were getting from your father's will but you might be able to get some
corporation uses its products hose importation to create new and different products which then in turn be sold for using gas and applications now i have to handle how different what is the difference between what is chapter notes and section notes and only you can make a quick decision based on two general rule interpretation one then go to a general rule interpretations two three etc the federal circuit has been a number of occasions specifically do have a number of pages dealing with whether it's something just mixed with something else as that somehow changed be that condition of the article is important a is also concerned about europol in admissions so anything that could end up in gasoline directly or indirectly has to be registered you have to do with e p a here's a chemical structure so when b s have goes to certify their
that the
assuming you may be right on that can you cite us any testimony that indicates that there was a suggestion to make the substitution and either common knowledge or implicitly in the art dr was testimony the other half of my being directly may make a comment that the first well i thought that the the district court judge really came forward with a thorough opinion really worked hard to get it right and found against your client then another place for independent grounds in going through the brief so i found it very difficult to to cover some of the points  find where one witnesses is testified where that that testimony ends and where another with this starts and i found it very difficult to follow along so i just want to make that comment  i do have a question i thought you raised a very good point and in reference to the improperly compound standard in your brief you argue that the district court use an improperly response and the fact is because of the high potency oh i remember on used as a certain attacks and that was a lovely retasking there was one response but it doesn't say there was no response and it does not say th
i owe my life to billy caruso over here on one of the league guitars been with me quite a spell and off and on in quite a few bands actually and tim brick over here on the right on the other guitar and he's been with us for and you can picture for yourself whatever you think them who do stuart is what is who two stooges was i don't really want to get into it too much because i'm from the mountains and i know wh for my name is tim brick come over ma singer songwriter and you might see me throughout the state you never know where you'll find me but on this next song i'd like to perform for you all is just a song about a bad relationship and i'm sure a lot of viewers out there can
exactly forty five day when he was asked do you believe that your problem was caused by your work at this point did you tell him that he said i did because when i started it carpal tunnel fill was a complete physical and there was nothing from with me when i was hired so when you first sign you told them you thought it might be related to your work take to fix yes yes you know this is not a red herring here the issue of prejudice doesn't come into play this is a situation where no
negotiations regarding the minimum is contained in the licensing agreement we're going on and you have letter after letter to russell bringer and michael sermon do it do any of those to became part of this was the reply it was not to the front of the jury it was not in front of judge more of my way or mission or stipulation or anything else for the jury  not a particular office whether someone has an ownership well there's no proof of personal benefit or anything outside their scope of authority to scope employee and all who were the case and you're the connecticut kinetics ca testimony as to when they were or what things were or what his day to day responsibilities put a bit they had to show involved that's a personal involvement which would show some kind of culpability be st as a matter of law and that's what he did he talks about his notes he talks about the testimony the only transcription of the of the apparent is the testimony  talks about what happened in the old what happened when they had the licensing agreement and were friends and all of that he has no knowledge of what happens after he terminates the licensing agreement and infringement begins they made a reference the judge made reference to this out of sight of the record cross examination of the ex attorney and judge mark on that the closest they came in that was to suggest ownership in the case law suggested ownership is not  wish reasonable then the plaintiff hasn't met their burden of proof and we would suggest that the appendix in this case is very telling there is nothing in the appendix appendix to the patent brief which would indicate any acts by either defended from when they have to the date of termination they made reference to licensing agreements before prior to trial before that they made no reference to x from an after the date of the termination determinations that's why they took away from the jur or by way of asking another to do anything that there was even been a suggestion the kind of intent necessary which would give your personal life it is not just the intent to remain an owner or the attempt to hold  office but you are required to personally participate personally be involved and he had a degree of culpability and intention to do something and that is simply not to not come forward just to reiterate the evidence has to be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and at the end of the judgment should be affirmed only if the facts and inferences point so overwhelmingly in favor of the movement that reasonable people could not arrive at a contrary verdict it relates to the fact it mike serban and russell bremer were completely in control of the production the sale of this thing it shows they were intimately involved with every
five million dollars in it's him self actually liable for some of those when the deal goes sour later and this is what the government was contracting to acquire that's why they wanted contribution was not a contract that was how you ask our offer why there was nothing binding them to make their contribution that the government was willing to just take the risk that they might put fourteen properties an six of the fourteen properties only on twenty six percent one of them fifty percent three of them he's just a trustee shouldn't the damages have been calculated on his percentage not the entire value of these properties here are whether if he is the central person here and we're looking at him how do you account for the fact that he doesn't own a lot of this i'm still back struggling over whether or not you should get anything at all so i think that if you don't mind i'd like to bring you back to the liability before you could use up all the time my question is is really getting to whether this is one for the contract approval letter says expressly this approval is expressed we condition upon compliance with all relevant regulations is there a regulation that says a dividend agreement must be signed by the parties as part of this i belie cases it might be that the dividend agreements explicitly mentioned in the overarching contract and here that's not the pay but i'm just wondering whether the statement in the approval letter that conditions approval on
for me to sit here in the first time in front of my aunt the own man my two magnificent cousins janice and pam and i think chief judge aiken has a comment or two as well  what i'd like to do in the brief time i have your honor is offer an open by way of opening a couple quick comments on sixteen twenty five to give us a frame or context of reference to the arguments of the parties and then i'd like to move quickly to three can rely on the letter that you presumed to be the same as when you can show that you have any design specifications that your lumber matches t but one has to look at the description of the articles in the ruling the designs offer no information whatsoever on which the manufacturer could could conduct his manufacturing design his product or otherwise make modifications to be sure that it was in compliance so the fact that there were descriptions that offer no material information to an importer under its right to know as th it about about interpretive rulings the other thing i thought should be noted about designs is that this is the designs referred to in the rulings are not alike other types of situations where designs are referred to as part of the description the article a typical example would be a chemical formula where a a formula or specifications concerning a project are clearly an element of of the description of the article in this case the court nor my client have any opportunity to refer to something specific in the designs to analyze for purposes of it at the caliber of the rulings but when you're relying on identity caliban between the description in this prior ruling letter and your not identical with all those circumstances in this letter how can you i how can you invoke the identical ality well there's a difference in circumstances your honor the import and elements of the of the description of them secondly we did not argue or pointed out if you go to the record point out that that period of time it was pointed out in our in our motion that that period of time customs was taking extraordinarily long time to issue  know which of those two things there now you're on to the the fact that customs skipped over the sixteen twenty five she proceeded to modify or vocal rule cannot be corrected category has almost something that seems to me to be good quibbling of the use of probation these goods have to be recognized on assemble pieces for purposes of falling within this section and it was classified under it to forty four so now trusses require specific playing snob standard lengths right which cuts against your argument that these are had that they would be classified and if they're identical to these goods in the same way these were and whether customs made a mistake in these rulings or not it's not or they should be able to rely on them and there's something there is the whole procedure for changing their mind no but that seems to be at the heart of what you're telling us right is that you think they are really using the angle cut as a subterfuge to avoid the import of standard lumber at standard l
to this day this this is one of the situations in which the state did not put the evidence on what happened in this case was the court asked specifically when if it was going to test whether there was going to be any issue regarding then even commented on the evidence or something later and what would seems to me that might set this case apart that this is a statement or as i can see for the record the state never even mentioned well but the problem is that is that's required to defend it to he did not know that the codefendant was going to shoot mr dana and the only evidence that the defendant was able to put on that would counter the state's accountability argument was his was his impeach testimony touched the gun earlier and had given it back to the other so there with contradictory tell it let me ask you this how else was the defendant going to explain to the jury why he didn't call the police after he was so horrified defense more juveniles more defendants still come forward and tell the police what happened is because they'll get used to being doing something that they didn't do  if we've already gone through the deal which was not decided until after the trial in this particular case here as we just were decided and then subsequently the supreme court just heard in affirm which is essentially would via reiterate that the defendant had opened the door and in this case the prosecution argued only if the defendant testified   as you mentioned unlike harrison below in this case the prosecution never placed this education in evidence did not raise it in rebuttal and did not raise in closing arguments the jury never heard this from the attorney which objected to use a trial who knew and of course there was the argument as to whether or not it could be used to trial the defendant you'd notice in a very brief exchange a trial was the only person who brought this up and of the crime and if the shooting event had begun prior to the crime and gave it back to the shooter so he could have prevented this crime or happening in the first place he hid the weapon so we've got he mentioned consistently no problem nothing comes in and in this case assuming that the dia trial just ruling was or it was harmless error because defendant's statements came in and those statements admitted
insure illegal this pays damages because a bodily injury bubble caused by an accident and resulting from the ownership maintenance or use of a covered auto and your opponent says that means two they have to be two things shown for pepperidge long as it's a covered auto the other one is operated by and insured now let's say we agree with everything you say about subsection nine would lead a reasonable person to believe simply by reading that part that if it gets in that definition it's a code word for good about the idea of insured or whatever because you got household member so just to make sure i still understand you're not making any argument that fits under the policy definition of insured and you're saying that reading this this it's an ambiguity and a reasonable person would read that and say uncovered if these  that if fine driving a known battle with the in a member of the house will be the president of the company involved in personal affairs i'm kind of because you know is this definition goes into all this about members of members of household and business and personal affairs and all that and really it's it is difficult to square what all th anything if you read who is an insured because  berger and others that talk about stacking if it shows a premium and their son that have that language but again i mean does it is there an ambiguity there bush i think it's probably true that most of the if not all of the coverage questions based on insurance contracts that we've had in this district in the supreme court said
follow the director of insurers in state all knowing the policy we're talking about that form was possible but then what happened later was when the company changed its address changed and officer they went ahead and made those certified copy and this happens all the time when you get it in you know actions get filed over other issues or stacking or whatever and everybody relies on that certification and that a lot of things kind sanction hearing process
not presently resigning in the state in the arizona were found to petition or scientific severus petition in arizona listing her in the challenge here hers is being in phoenix arizona right so so what's your reaction to interest in arizona should be combined with the illinois emergency matters and so therefore that's consistent with only emergency jurisdiction and now we're looking at a second there was a couple  best interests of the child the person is being punished by mr crowley and not being able to see your child because of the financial issues is a child the child is being deprived of her natural mother or a father makes two hundred sixty difference did was probably make to go back to arizona to recall the one after that date december sixteenth or twenty thirteen what efforts if any and a half since twenty thirteen and or china now lives in the breast with the father the father was not near his own father never lived in arizona  twenty fifteen he was taken she was taken to nebraska and that is where the child lives in the past i have one more question for you when you first kind of made a reference to t were what i believe you said was that there should be child support payments so that she could attempt to protect or perfect her visitation rights and i don't know that turk says anything about using child support for anything other then the cost of supporting the child so in order to see to it that the playing field is leveled in so far as present future litigation is concerned the general policy of turk is is that you look at the best interests of the child ostrow he's saying stop till million who's the one that's being punished the one that's being punished the child which every child should be able to see her mother and skeins we have dr who makes a lot of money and we have a woman from her natural mother and if the father has a way to do it to get the mother over or to to assist to help the child which should be in his interest as well out the best interest of the child at hand it should be done
ideal complete obvious one will remedy that the bank also realized that they would have remedies under the formal and implied contract even circumstances a local have reasonably expected and you're saying they couldn't possibly have expected that there would be any remedy because the requested indemnification was not agreed to i don't think you i don't see what your basis is for saying that as opposed to somebody else maintaining exactly the opposite now i think you have to look at it under the circumstances in a sort o reasonable expectation under the circumstances not that they would have a system that's protected i mean it's just why not any good government contract lawyer know that there is an implied when it always inherently an adjunct to the written agreement with the united states so why wouldn't a good lawyer or a good business executive exactly have the implied contract of their dealing in good faith if you have to file agree to a contract law to obviously there's an argument the other side not likely to agree that there was agree they're going to argue that there wasn't a break maybe you'll win maybe a loop high risk litigation costs delay problem computer interest on the balance as the normal curve and so there's no reason to think that there's a special sovereign immunity that allows the government to charge interest and keen interest on money was never
say i post say nay six zero mr sylvester e special reports are now on next item would be audience comments this is the time for any member of the audience to speak up for the five minutes with respect to a non agenda item journey one that would like to speak to a non it is and i don't see nonono move on unfinished business there is not a new business request the first item would be requests for a special permit for a banner on the arrowhead trowbridge for our lady of victory church event on september twenty first two church and i suggested that we do it here and i didn't see anything in the ordinances that said that you could have one from the state or out of community or anything else and so i applied to invite the community to his festival big impact on my decision to do all the proceeds from the festival go to the to the church i mean we have the proceeds goes to our church to the operation and the somebody on the planning commission and this may not be a complete done deal if you will so on maybe suggesting cities going to go to the next meeting we have another meeting right after maybe we next item would be correspondence and there seems to be one item under there mcdonald land services this is on seismic testing request yes is it your docket for two reasons one is to point out that there's another company that would like to do seismic testing primarily in the western portion of the township to mark discussion with the donald land they are basically working on behalf of the range secondly you know are they going to like use our white of ways and thirdly i don't know these people and they know it's a residential area i mean you know they could have you know people working for them that don't have child one room schoolhouse and as you know we have gone in and work on that side of things and put a lien on proportion of it but that site is up for i guess not really share