MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
i said this before and say again you were ill served in this case it was somebody who practiced in the real estate area for years it was somebody who was aware termites current problems yet you moved going just looking at the sale price of the house they're going to negotiate prices down to reflect the amount of damage well was that present in this case absolutely not the most telling part that i was on exhibit two point seven one point four disclosed information that would be necessary useful helpful important to the purpose of this particular case but that should have been demanded while before we sit down in a room and start ninety nine thousand nine hundred fifty dollars and they then back to the residential real property disclosure report and the two o e m to fill it out and it just so happened that there were two gentlemen from our lands who were employed classic residence doing some more just classic had a long time contract with them to  exhibit they indicate this contract is contingent on a home inspection septic inspection and inspection of what is referred to as wouldn't just drawing incense terminix still under contract to her and she asks her next to come back out to her house and go over it and look for infestation look for damage in this that she's not present when plastic grabs these off and she doesn't ever get the words she she says she never sees something happened at her office classic then these reports are crucial because they indicate that there are numerous areas with his opinions about my sleeping i will state this i mean i think we i don't disagree with any of the opinions here for us i don't know that there was anything necessary into the decision about there is an issue that's been raised that mr sanders brings in reference to it here i think this is mr sanders issue but about you know trying to say that the statute could completely change the phone without getting into  if you do that it defeats the whole purpose of this section of the licensing or in addition to the money seemed to be arguing one point that maybe his client was guilty of violating the disclosure act that's not before th
that he always ready to contract to do he changed orders and that's one of the reasons we're here that we're here because we have a contract that was drafted by the contract that had construction of europe and the construction of the planes which is james lee so under what basis was this additional work done on are we talking about so is the original work was going to come in the sixty five thousand she's now given the permission to build on other items up to an additional fifteen but she still has it in this room so i don't think there's anything  case is that in stark the general contractor hired russian she says knew that this we're rising work is being performed by the concrete way did you tell jane that you masonry work will not exceed eighty thousand dollars answer as long as her people could supply where she was required or where she could supply during the conversation
to the jurisdiction without the agreement of the attorney how do we have jurisdiction because howard clearly says we only exercised general jurisdiction this defendant was not doing business in illinois there was no connection with illinois so how do you distinguish
and and with no no no no no no no no no no no
office or the state chair of the journey's prescribe by law and then the attorney general act first to appear represent the people of the state before the supreme court in all cases in which the state or the people of the state are interested how do directive is found in article six section nineteen of our constitution which creates the offices of the various states because they are independent counsel office and it was their authority their constitutional basis that led to this court's decision and the looked at the attorney general's authority not relation to states for his but in relation to other state actors in specifically health but nothing in the constitutional debates leading to the one nine hundred seventy constitution indicated any intent to that the fifteen year old on should have been it is an important decision to be made by the states from its to how he or she is going to interact with it judges in this case in future cases in so it is very important that the states from this be able to make those decisions on their own it's how they can
if the city biased director actor authority causes or permits the street to go out of repair it will be liable the city must be presumed to have known the condition of things and should be held responsible as though it had notes of the direct result of what express again and although there was there was some policy in place mr lu best testified that the exception of the freedom log for hours reports there was a thought that follow up street light was out on madison street in the city crosswalk of lighting of failure to warn of an operable street light there to maintain the street lights and so there is issues not only of them light eighty three feet south intersection being out but also whether or not the signage was adequate the now moving party and make these determinations i would argue that that's the case if you look at the case law that we cited the argument that there was no evidence that that additional science was necessary and he talks only highlights that the direct funding was not appropriate in this case and the fact that mr barr was tired only highlights again that the propriety of marking
it's not just for breakfast  within a few hours and really get my street going and when you do when you finally master it you'll never be invited to another party again which one of the things i do know about just because there's a the oh yeah
oh yeah ah oh oh
way and this is where you can see that so there are women looking for women on the app that are not interested romantically in women and that's why there is a certain aspect of trying to look queer when you're on your tinder profile this manifested in a lot of ways a lot out of the seventeen people i talked to to talk about how new media platforms are increasingly increasingly becoming a mediation school between the individual body and like larger social formations and increasingly recent change though i don't know how recent th really interesting query history but it's not really uh i mean i understand you have my issues with safety as well but um i don't know i think it's really interesting history that sometimes people forget about i would say in particular  capture this market it's thought of as being like unique and different in like nobody understands how women meet each other and so and and also that it's kind of because this there's this perception that like women take more time to meet each other they don't just want to hook up that there's this like it's not really compatible with the kind of the kind of contact that these are trying to design it's like not so fast paced and also that like  e's kind of less of an access to capital which also is makes it difficult for these apps to capture or like a lot of them make money off of people's particularly sis men spending money on  i can't tell where we are at on time but yeah so i like to thank you guys for
if there is public money involved and that he should look at it statutory authority to see what his responsibilities are well i think you deserve their responsibility and again we're because they did not have noticed that this was a prevailing wage job and then once they got the job they didn't see the posting that they were underpaid so they're saying that these are things direct causes of the  own employer's duty and in essence it is a notice requirement it's not in the requirements so what would be saying is you or your employer better be paying the prevailing wage and i don't see how there's a disconnect there between saying that have rendered the same liability is not payment absolutely not and the only plane that's relevant for the purposes of contribution is that column liability as the other game which is so not hosting could perhaps be separate claims and the department of labor possibilities that we should not be an issue that should be relevant to the determination but i would pose this core that it is actually more inequitable to impose liability on a general contractor who does not hire workers  your client didn't believe her to be the prevailing wage and that's how we got down to mr fielding well i mean that step is potentially an issue that's that's not relevant here but there's think that that is even an issue and i think that i think that we only look at this this idea that the prevailing wage applies equally to both generals and stuff it does say that you need to do your homework a little bit in ignorance of the law should not be an excuse now these these contractual requirements and provisions that are in there if you get a written contract and they are in there and those liabilities run these and the this stuff and the general now between the general and the the people of the city with ridge and because the general is not told you by the way this is a prevailing wages that are prevailing wage and job he he's he has no responsibilities well no it doesn't i think he is
out and they were misplaced i don't know if they got rid of her file or a few lost them i don't know but what we do know is this she never said anything about getting a release she said you sent me the records all the value with them he doesn't know what the offer might be if there's going to be an offer she has to evaluate extend the interest because there's already hundred thousand dollars in turner the question is how much more hours it's worth i haven't had a chance to see the record yet but was was process i mean but what of but if we're deposition was taken and she said i was hoping we'd get a release that's why i keep asking you for medical records and that sort of thing you know i release to accept one hundred thousand dollar policy limits and release the driver and accept again and expect to get additional coverage and some other powers but i think he'll be out there i mean we knew he knew what he was her and share his capacity as an employee of michael a white he was concerned about an issue he was concerned about gilbert issued he knew about it and he wrote down the release if there's some inference that hey you know they had an agreement the release was never even discusses undisputed undisputed and the release was never discuss
about it during all this discussion about the agreement her attorney was sitting next to her in the deposition and everybody left believe an agreement had been made these thirty two attorneys did that at the discovery decision according to your client's affidavit she and her attorney went outside to get and discuss what was going on and she had the opportunity to talk to him then about what's happen
the kids so to speak but now we're talking damage actions for violation of for a clearly established rights to what unsanitary conditions that doesn't tell me anything has been significantly narrowed can you give me a case addressing unsanitary conditions has been decided least in this century and i quit in the last decade that talks about how courts litigation were no one shot clearly established and so forth are now free to do that again none of them have with respect to this question whether the presence of an environmental allergens that can be eradicated  life they have therapist that was kind of unique because of the supreme court told us that didn't exist you are the more the more typical situation where we're trying to define it smith so again i'm looking for something nice big kid has tried to find something in the last twenty five years where this is true and all general concern that the person in charge of the jail was responsible for keeping it as clean as possible i think there was language in there that once seemed to be a little something and made it an ad open question
your participation we really do appreciate
for those reasons be the appeal must be dismissed let's turn to jurisdictional issue for just a moment that you analysis of the supreme court  trial work with man then you have to obtain a finding from the trial court that there is no yes reason to delay enforcement or appeal and of course the reason for this rule is to avoid piecemeal appeals now in this particular case there's a map line there is a map two there are four remaining matters the denial of the edition to enforce the attorneys in this response to the motion to dismiss requirement of a finding under rule three or four a is an essential condition precedent for this appeal since it was not complied with the appeal should be dismissed out more security was necessary then how could this dish and say that the additional security maybe we wire before or after the attachment or counsel
company in various positions his most recent position before he was terminated was operations manager for the seeding company while in the early september of two thousand  board and the second one that  necessarily the exact same thing what the court did focus on was that a person that's in a position of authority and needs to be aware of the requirements of an act in providing information to other individuals has to in that case the first despite all of that sort of stonewalling by the employer if elec were held that there is no willful and knowing violation of the act in not turning over the documents because at the end of the day reasonable people might again this is a situation where mr harrison is being investigated in light of validation yet allegations that it sexually assaulted you know coworker and was sexually harassing another one with the woman who was allegedly sexually assaulted the activities that wall or in the home that might that can't reasonably be expected to lead the financial liability we're not talking about which political meetings this person goes to what church they go to or anything like that which i think section one is really after we're talking about engaging in inappropriate relationship not only with the subordinate to the wives of spouses and we don't think that public polic i've only talked a little bit about the land where he's where they describe we small minds might disagree that little snippet from the case was in relation to the fact that the actual records that were being asked for w intentionally didn't ask in review the act just assume that they knew what was required and that type of a fast knowledge to help me viewing it is recklessly disregards whether that's or asking anybody a pulpy is that when an employee has questions about certain records that should be applied the employer can then just point the finger at the individuals that they don't know so there was nothing in those records it was a surprise when when you argue that he needed those documents figure out why he was fired because all he saw were these going forward
hand you are going well this is back specific and you need to look at the exact facts of arcades and we haven't got enough facts out there yet for you to look at so how do you reconcile those two  truth and aren't you stuck with those at this point in time and then how do we how do we get to those additional facts well first of all
person and a person kicks their habit
then the officer noticed as he approach the car that mr pena sr who was in the front seat passenger seat put a large dark object into the global compartment and obviously the he's not the driver so now he's investigating what sum up but the problem is that the standard wasn't met for proving that there i think that if you are a legitimate lawful passenger and unless there is some prohibition by the driver who has a mission to drive the car if you can't put your belongings within the well i don't think it's that uber because the way the passenger another person the cards conceivably open up your bag look at it it's there it's not locked and so similarly if it's a global parliament and there's no prohibition your your car and it doesn't matter that he didn't own it he was a lawful passenger he was an invitee he still had some some fourth amendment rights and not only there's a true partner chaps actually there has to also be reasonable state area at one point the officer said he had to step up or seek the check but he never specifically testified might i felt that my state he was in danger and that wouldn't make any sense because he said i could not actually see that happening so i'm wondering why you object to there is a safety search because there are certain requirements before a student church can permission to use the asian and actually set a trial other people with him which is for them the ability to jewel exclude others used improperly there is nothing in the record that would demonstrate the defendant had any ability to prevent others from using the but even if you don't assume that if you get stuffed driving a car or just driving a car one of the first things you do is reach for your driver's license to show that you have one and reach for your transport should they get one so if you have a gun case is going to be taken under advice to this court now staying in recess she took off then thats it
acts i am only an engineer putting up an engineering proposition you may find it a bit fantastic but i know it can be done it's a proposition still have been proven to be non ports even under the terrific pressures which we might experience and the new radium invented by my friend you make it sound like something  ten little millionaire feeling mighty fine on oh ok that's anything on were talking about that that you ought to be in charge of the t wouldn't be here if i can help it it starts at the time  the effect of the tunnel on the political situation that's been fifty years from now you know why you would come not to be photographed an interview that way our sound of the atlantic you don't seem to realize is a well prices drop people are beginning to lose confidence in the tunnel and that react on everything connected with its a lot of back on the front page we can get back to competence of the people and the money will foll to never look at anyone but you do that i want you to do something to please me but why did you make me say that because i won't be here when he gets back to you talking about i'm going to wait on taking jesse was for you mad i should be if i say it was because of this but like now she left you when you can't understand it's where is it's too late by several years know is there any other reason  what is it going to do with you you've got everything you want i'm not  want much in dollar friends like evan you get the benefit always thought you were against i can only say i'm sorry i thought the last twenty four hours been very healthy down here the president of the united states i can see so many and the guy let him die never held out a hand taking everything it's has taken everything your right taken everything but if i had my choice again my life again much to do just because i believe i believe that my work will bring peace to the they'll never get through  today is a great day perhaps the greatest day in the history of the english speaking peoples still an example isn't accomplished but as the english and the opening ceremony is being performed by the ruler of the british empire
number one whether there was a problem finding increase of him and whether the attorney's fees were appropriate they appellant in this case or ours is a claim that there are many problems with the court's finding the first of all is the so everyone just thought this was going to be to the right this could be retrospective no i didn't i don't think that a judge but i think the various case law that says that if it's the some appropriate word you raise the question of attorneys in that in that are there were a few that i'm sorry i don't have read and and even so so why the court consideration of payment of certain other expenses and there was significant evidence to show that those mr barr socks obligation on those other expenses was a large obligation that they average of which support level but what he did do was leave in force the additional obligations and then stand with support later level at the statutory amount so these things continue on this  this income back down so when it was advantageous to him and use the death a tool that he was working all this overtime that's like an exercise visitation but then he's going to resign well if you work all this overtime for visitation purposes  put on the braces could have been paid at one hundred dollars a month over a period of eighteen months instead she paid for the whole thing and then came into court and claimed that it was eight hundred dollars behind on these additional claims that he had to pay that's marital settlement agreement when they got even worse and less than nine months before she filed the petition in this case and as far as the visitation the evidence was mr barrett stock was getting any visitation that he requested up until the time that mrs
we were there when we get think he's going to say we didn't do anything to get think he's going to take the rap while we walk out but we did the thing shut up you said that once and explained to you you know i think if you do anything is can you prove it can you prove you didn't do nothing s if you're saying you'll be tried for murder so talk that way when i grow a beard or something to change your appearance ok i'll do something i didn't figure that  you know there's only one reason i want to sta don't you'll be a pleasure me when you told me that you're looking for what's that got to do with it every because when you love someone you don't lie to you don't hold anything back what are you talking about what business min
the proposition you just aren't and they think that by only to the condition of the friends in the sense there was big present or it's not necessary to do it how many secret room in the basement where these molestations like the fact that sailing township knew that these criminal attacks were taking place on their premises is we please not the defendant sightsee of central district of illinois federal court case for the proposition that it has to be some defect in the structure itself some of those arguments are being made simply to give the just print for the chance to reconsider their position or their hol so the issue here is what is this court going to review as to the decisions of the lower or in coming to the conclusion to dismiss the premises liability other than the fact that coun conceded dismissal of the premise i believe so now all the arguments that are me being me before this court are arguments being made for the first time and i would submit respectfully that this court is not in the supreme court said that it is not a condition of the property that is an activity that occurred on the property but not the condition of the i'm happy that gives rise to a permitted liability there's an all of that of many other that is not a condition of the property doesn't give right and i believe we can also look at the i p i instructions relative to liability it says the first now it is it has to be a condition of property building something of that instruction so there's all of the forces that tell us it definitely is not in the liability case out of the trial court decision dismissing the plane should be upheld in that regard and then turn to the order under the statute to make him to take care of them or to make restrictions and things of that nature on when payments can be made who is eligible things of that nature he's the guy who actually says in the office with the recipient and decides who is eligible how much they're going to get and gives them their check nobody from the township has the authority to do that the statutes make it clear in the council only has the authority this