MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
think the reason i want to let you make your argument is because i really feel you make it for when you asked me is if you you question whether the basis of my question of you with the with the resulting death gibson wasn't being treated for a month by a prison doctor who knew the prisoner had prior medical history this doctor cannot say this doctor cannot say with a straight face monitoring and that was probably the nurse in this particular case my point about dr chung is if you're saying that she can step back from this person at a time of his in crisis and go chart and not pay attention what's happening diagnosed the situation apply her best efforts to diagnose the situation and come up with a solution and i can approach to her treatment the fact that some doctor and experts on their side can after the fact look at it and say well i would have done it differently doesn't change the fact that talked about the black monitor but i believe what he's referring to is the fact that the chart which is checked off by the nurses showed a gap in marking between one forty five and two thirty pm but that's just shows a gap in terms of the nurses monitoring there is no contradiction in the fact that dr chung his herself monitored doing those doing that entire period of time so there really is no contradiction here we can only think they have a point that the nurses my out of monitor doing that forty five minute period of time more still even doing that forty five min so again we have a situation here where all the evidence the plane just puts forth at most and we have evidence from the car that you're suggesting that everything she did was actually proper that most scientists have raised an issue of medical malpractise they have nothing to contradict or exactly the time that she was in the prison i know that she had been treating mr toogood you prior to him being paroled so she had been in a prison for at least a few years that i can't tell you right offhand exact number years she was in what is your  even f one of where to disregard her explanation and say well i wouldn't have i still would have considered contraband at most again you would have suggested that maybe she was negligent in not considering it you wouldn't have a situation where she was conscious and actually conscious he was aware of that risk any possible cause of his death was one that she herself in her own perceptions thought was going to be a cause or contribute to his death there's nothing throughout the record in this case that would ever suggest that she knew or appreciated any particular risk and then disregarded that we were acting in a way that would that she knowingly subjected him to a serious risk of substantial harm patient with simple things to take a blood test as his doctor harvard suggested to take a pulse straight on to to make sure that they are says were in fact joining their jobs if you look at excerpts of record fifty i guess my question would be if if the treatment makes the prisoners clearly forced with that meet the constitutional requirement and i think the answer to that is no because that would mean
there momentarily sort of is your position the court hasn't made a ruling as to whether or not there was a transfer to join the band or with another in the process of preparing for the transfer that makes sense so there's this tension that i keep going back to and nat is there putting the fellows as the prepared to then begin the process of transferring the different from the pillows being a part of the transferring of the individual and the band yes and so your argument is i hear it is that the claim a loud for this distinction and that you're alleging a negligence occur prior
whether something is positive or negative versus whether it states fact or opinion i don't really dispute the fact that saying that someone is corrupt is the day  not a compliment and not positive the problem is it is a classic case of name calling hyperbole and it's opinion you can read one hun defamation opinions and the only law they all sort of trapped the same formula they look at whether a statement is the famous or does it fall into one of the per se categories they look at whether it's sort of the truthiness of construction the law takes into account that statements can be negative and even defamatory but still protected and that's what i think has been overlooked is that the first amendment really gives us breathing space for the  calling for uncomplimentary speech especially where do the poor political speech here read because we're dealing with an elected official and and the reality is even greater the highest things going back and forth but that's what our system is designed to do to foster that kind of debate and i can read a column in and maybe not talk to the other side directly but it is debate and it is protected from and if we start are circumscribing that we start chilling the speech rate we may not like name calling but once you stop name calling it has a chilling effect and it's a slippery slope slippery slope so norm we have to protect that these factors opinion dichotomy cases context is everything of the weaker size and so it's protected versus the other situation when you say he's corrupt i saw him take money in exchange for a favor now i still believe that in the it's complicated that way because the law teaches us that we have to look at certain literary signals right that's the literary contacts and then all of those people can insulate what they said by say to my opinion  judged by readers corrupt or by the same token that is a factor to be taken into account on the question really is a factual predicate or facts that the it cannot be the case that you receive a phone call in new york and talk about someone in the other state and thereby subject to jurisdiction in the other still i think the trial judge was with this all the
another walk doesn't really do the job for me i want to know what's the matter what's lacking what's lacking is the application for the fourth wiretap offers virtually no investigative methods that were pursued before the wiretap just by cutting up a camera but you can't do that and they said that because sort of where that's that target lives they couldn't hang around outside without being seen and he did some that traditional investigative set of techniques would reveal about couldn't do want to cover work because i was afraid that somehow would review other aspects of the investigation or wiretaps the physical surveillance or was offered were explanations as to why physical surveillance video or stop producing results are creating problems in the coming quicker and that's another one of the problems that we highlighted with the application for the fourth wiretap there's really no explanation as to why working with potential cooperate is wouldn't y explained is these people we determined should not be questioned largely because if we question them we could risk compromising the investigation that's what's the matter with that either i mean you go into a deposition in a civil case your questions reveal to opposing counsel just what your theory is what you already know what records are you familiar with you can ask questions without disclosing a lot i think that the lack of questioning of any of vailable sources of information who are already in custody or under the question of the mission at trial of statements that were taken from my client after he was arrested and i focused on three things one is whether or not the tactics that were used to change the statements in combination amount of time before  you i'm having trouble with both hands of this on the l stand and secret argument it's basically a police technique that where you interrogate without miranda the person with the cat out of the bag and then you do the two somehow or other the agent this week he's loose from speaking with his counsel in context there's little doubt that by saying your cooperation be more valuable that others don't know your
something that certainly sets this case apart from so many securities actions isn't this was a brooch how many or the matter of law which would suggest it is not an allegation is sufficient to trigger source he would have to take that position right because the irony here is your position is this is material or was material each of these plaintiffs who are applying an objective test to any reasonable person and be on the other hand the taxers had not played materiality  investors buying this is a hundred shares and that reasonable investor sees that now you have to pay seven dollars from a transaction which is five dollars when the knight promise i am not going to investor with an account at vanguard who learns that instead of seven dollars they can pay two dollars for a transaction and another brokerage firm might it certainly is something that was a factor underlying that decision but the difference between that and in this instance as the court noted earlier in the bad the false statements and instance and i'd like to be very careful and clear about my use of the yes if you were to try to phrase the false statement on which they were right or the false statement was made on the company's website you would have to have something additional beyond that i think to put this within the realm with respect to their other investments and you know kind of their sort of a secondary requirement if the court doesn't modify to move to bad away from materiality and that's with respect to the second thing that the supreme court discussed stand that is dead in order to fall within the boundaries of sluice and be precluded the false statement can't just be a false statement it has to be a fraudulent misrepresentation and here we don't plead that the transaction  if we were to rizzoli this question of materiality as you would like us to do we need not then delve into the in connection with that we really don't have any kind of a dispute or whether we don't believe that there's a rational dispute about this question here as to whether six itself is triggered there or a number of the cases that we or some other factor with similar connection to the securities and sells and this is we don't have that here we have a straight plain representation of a website of an amount that the company said it was going to charge and when it did not and example would be a churning case against a broker where amount of the fee that was charged and in that setting the court said where you're charged exactly what you were told you were going to be charged batts not a doubt immaterial misrepresentation in that case what they
that that could also be seen on the mother was fatally shot by the police officers of the city of gardner kansas before get into my points you know i would like to address a few things that were said by opposing counsel  particularly it noted that when it hit them like in this case in our case and in any the with the white case the person is dead and cannot give their version of the testimony of what actually happened and so that the him and no other officer secondly and i think very significantly multiple times he demanded in officers really instigated the shooting death off because they're screaming at a fragile victim and causing that person to react we don't have that here w and i think you've got a time well thank you thank you both for your arguments this morning the case
airport examiner came to the immigration court here in and testified however when mr lee had an opportunity to respond to some of his attorney's questions he did state that he thought he had mentioned the sterilisation  the examination consisted of fifty questions and if you can't be certain if everything that mr the stated was indicated in that question answered there room dialogue in the transcript about some questions and answers that everything from the forms these were people who were unqualified to prepare these applications and ins accept these applications knowing that these people on father's day or any indication in the record th who are who are doing that it's a big i guess it serves humanitarian purpose to allow non attorneys to do this but it's highly inappropriate then to to really hold the yelling to be exact letter of all these of these documents which the that's right but he did say in court that he did mention the sterilization of the scene he thought he did at the interview and there's no guarantee that everything that he said was was placed into that reliable that it shouldn't be given full weight i think that that's the third circuit's cases on this be because the the the manner in which the doctors were prepared were unreliable they should be given that much weight and then the entire record on the substantial evidence standard should be reviewed and if in and  and it was fairly well established that there's no question that he had the three children and that he has a wife and under the existing policy in china as there's no question that that policy in fact exists there's a tremendous amount of documentation to show that therefore he's got to answer the questions that are being actually asked or answered the question dollars did x cost if he gave you an answer for a year and he would give you a different answer and he would give you for today the euro fluctuates i accepting applications for people who are filling them out in violation of the regular of their own regulations and then using those documents to try to impeach them to keep the clients went when the ins should be receiving his or at least should be looking at i would be if i was slightly disagree with that right in line if a person didn't oppose the policy but for themselves on an individual basis a poll is being sterilized it was not a position as to the overall policy there's an automatic conclusion that
shows the exact type of reconfigured plastic that is claiming those two prior art references together the fun up problem in the eyes of the law what degree of skill is needed and the high case going to be argued next month the government is telling the supreme court again to reverse this court because they say hat grant and patent denial decisions are very simple is what is being revealed in the garden variety declaratory judgment claim what is being determined is the ultimate question of do these claims meet the statutory requirements yes or no according to the rules agency never has a chance to go back and correct its own and in this case the agencies ever did the challenger no good because it reminds us of what the stated reason everybody agreed and the stated reason to be subject to dish review but a patent isn't it's irrational to say i cannot be arbitrary when i say no but i can't be arbitrary when i say yes and it's not a defense to say that the expert agency didn't do its job and gave an iranian frivolous arbitrary recent issuing the pat the government is saying that although we are subject to the a p s constraints when we say no and we've got to have that basically is a policy argument that goes way beyond what the government asked work with this argument that the congress supposedly intended it in one nine hundred fifty but just failed to express its intent has any active role in the
promote a movie or something so i designed it from the get go with a non working few so it kind of exploded that way but it's got explosive device it's got important parts that otherwise would make it a bomb is that covered one had no fuse would that would clearly be enough for you or for your your case if there was one one of those forty had a few years yes or so the question really is cases including a second circuit case that basically reject the argument you are making that if there is missing component that takes it out of the because you want to say it's still a grenade but it's not an explosive grenade because there's no explosive in it but then you run into the cases in which the empty hall is treated not as a grenade so what we do about that in those cases you're on  any fuse available to him he didn't find one when you search just house there's no evidence of the record that he could have readily the wired piece which doesn't that make it assume i can't go down to that i get these things from you and i realize when i bring them home they sold them to me with with without refuse is there any way that i as a civilian can go to the hardware store and buy a
only difference between easter in this case the defendant has overheard the plenty of the defendant was in the car when they when they talk about the guy and she saw the gun and they decide who's going to carry the get here you have exactly the unfortunately i guess from from my position i somewhat assumed that once there was knowledge that night that the weapon would be used in the crime that we're just creating in the crime in whatever sense w
you know state no position and what can be done in this case or something like that and the trial court felt pretty strongly about that statement how how do you deal with that  say and do we have anything which actually any further case law which actually defines what it means to point to specific  years happened there was a forum to where presumably and there's probably are a record somewhere where the court came back and said this is what i've heard this is what i've agreed to if you know and this is you know increase now can we tell you how a judge that you don't have to abide by the statute but do the right thing this time and they want to say well no but we said by this opinion we are not making any you know we're not telling you what to do really aren't telling you that you needed to have a p s i i or the information on the record since you didn't have the information on the record you're going to go get a p seems a tad unusual that illegally obtained packets of salt and pepper would be worth four and a half year ok there's your estimation but you are no love people to make th terminations because you don't see that of st of all we don't know what i mean i try to find the specific rules i put in whatever i can find from the carpenter corrections clearly th feel is more appropriate than the trial court did as long as and it's not so you know outside the realm of a possibility this guy has has with you know put into a very violent crime and for a home invasion it was incredibly violent and then he goes in you know he starts breaking the rules in the deal see within a very short time this is a single incident
in this particular instance that she is now on appeal and mean here the court went to second stage and considered the allegations they did not not as forfeiture
so that was a key piece to our discussion of sufficiency evidence and if the court found any instance of misconduct opening closing arguments or the testimony in memory guess why there was no prejudicial error here this is a case in which acquitted cardo on march twenty seventh i believe the very next day the garden a twenty five thousand dollars payment to leto with the second twenty five thousand dollars following the week after that so there was again both temporal and step by step district court thing followed almost by the book this court decision united states versus castro cited castro at the end of this colloquy that's about a thirty or forty page court made every effort to try to find common ground and try to find a limited set of questions that might be able to answer but by by surveying both the defense counsel and the government is because this court's cases require district courts to consider what will happen on cross examination and whether a witness who potentially could testify inter criminal charges and of course because he was still a defendant pending sentencing and i don't believe that that opposing counsel is contesting the heart of how to fix them right as his own sentencing and could have adversely affected his sentencing through his testimony on direct or direct testimony that went ten pages three or four of which were filled with a junctions and colonies addressing the defense injection so this is a very very minor piece of the government's puzzle was the second witness the government called nineteen witnesses and it did not make the babylonian trial the centerpiece where the centerpiece was i think we're kind of looking at this through the three factors that are shot describe but in this case i do want your honor to know some comfort in the fact that the opening comments the opening argument and the questioning of new york guys was actually done by department of justice public integrity attorney some nation was done by attorneys from the district  puerto rico so he's i hope runner doesn't leave the this case in this record this argument with the same thoughts he had before about about the government generally but also specifically i don't want to throw under the bus attorneys who did not make those comments in this
to four it's at least as powerful if not more but doesn't give a quantity for sure on how much more nonny an exact match course we don't have an exact match or we would have this question or if the guidelines states guidelines say to name one point one comment six and those three factors to get to the second factor and two when we find that the closest analogous controlled with powder
actually an attack on arbitration and if you look at question number two in the plaintiff's appellant's brief the question is whether an arbitration clause in an online contract needs to be more can communicate so much conspicuous promised the plaintiffs had to create an account the very first point in the process is create an account the third screen says right in the matter of law conspicuous under massachusetts law will give the right hand as one does the color of the box matter because it's certainly more difficult to read using the gr that it is exactly in the center of the page where your eye is drawn on the bottom half of the screen is that the keypad now they've talked about they have there was no convention getting to the terms and conditions somebody know how to direct people to something trying to come up with a way to make it very unlikely that anyone would looks ok you have to also understand that in the context of employment in arbitration there was a long line of cases now discredited by the supreme court but nonetheless still out there about vin sure well i would disagree that it was really in the client's interest i think it would be in everyone's interest when its side with respect to the consumer contracts different standards apply to consumers and interest in the page at the top there is i can put my credit card number that's the first thing and like most people i usually start reading from the top down so i put in my credit card number as i go down isn't the very next thing that i see is a button that says done now you put in the credit card information and the next steps down is by creating your account you more if you are agreeing to the toms and underneath close in terms parks and you cannot miss an impact when that home statement comes up terms and conditions signifying you should click on it there is a button in the left hand corner that says cance they had the ability to cancel before they went through with the transaction and the account creation was complete so there is a cancel button only if the consumer is clicked on terms and condition dispute about what the screen say they talked about possible we mentioned the judge when we had a warning and as is contained in the transcript in the appendix i was the one who suggested to judge one lot that if he thought there were law which it is when the facts of creation are undisputed now they have also said that no one the case in the country has helmed that this is sufficient that is absolutely incorrect in fact there are three  in the second circuit also said that just because it serves a function does not mean that it is in any way so every quarter in fact it ha