MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
five minutes for a vital ironic the jurisdictional argument this case boils the rest there is no economic next president to justify federal jurisdiction over the research pronouncement and mccoy that you will conclude that this is a purely private conspiracy not of making any activity economic activity anywhere it's street crime that should have been prosecuted wrestle with and mccoy is first dave they found the statute unconstitutional as applied in court because there was no effect on commerce and because it was a non economic activity and reasoning from morse and in lopez both decisions that the chief justice arthur and lopez the chief against by discussing the three areas of commerce that can be regulated by the congress over those acts when they regulate non economic history and the trend in this court and mccoy the supreme court in morristown and lopez and other courts throughout the nation has them when regulating ffects commerce that those are the two least important oh must of course to look at this circuit in discussing in this same discussion and mccoy specifically points out of that  harm point in that particular and we call framework and my time that i have reserved for the first argument is now off so i would like to  to be committed to the federal court laws against a lot of violent acts of people against people on the argument part being closed my client was the one that got the tickets for being in the park after hours
that's the last place on the calendar i cases are still good law and therefore the only way in which a penal federal civil rights legislation can reach  jones held that congress has broad authority only to
so in other words it's just such a move that to you're conceding a point which might ultimately be you lose the case because if you conceding but there's a basis for there and it's against the water or at least there's a city ordinance that says that you force that's a city ordinance that might not be subject to be that as vague but the point we're getting that is that your carry stuff we may find that yes it was a terrorist stop and yes there's case law that says that even in a situation where the state failed to make an argument which is we're just getting to the guess which was whether or not there was a search incident the rest of the state failed to make here the only thing that officer was able to get anywhere close to saying that this was a situation where he felt in danger or where there was some danger was when he was led by a prosecutor that he had times that he comes into contact with drug paraphernalia and how long he'd been a police officer by the way in terms of feeling the  so we're left with the only offense here that he could possibly be arrested for was the bicycle headlamp offense which if the law is that the parking lot is not a highway that there is no facts in the state's case and if the state is require once he's testified i was doing nothing wrong it then goes on the state to say yes you were doing something wrong or you were driving without a headli on a public street the fact that he fails to say it wasn't on a public street doesn't mean that i as a judge can say well since he did say it is a public street i have to go by what the law is that relative to suspensions i knew  say that at night time where there has been reached burglaries those factors are not enough drill case it's just that if a defendant is boisterous or low that that gives reasonable suspicion somebody might be armed or and fox and where they discuss the fact that the fact that it's night time really doesn't enter into the equation less there are other factors that would lead one to reasonably believe the situation is dangerous and here we just don't have that wh crime area and there's certainly case law now that says that just leaving somebody even if even if the officer testified that he suspected that mr hernandez was a burglar that would not certainly calls into question whether or not believing somebody might be a burglar is a valid factor at this point also the fact that the defendant was a little bit out a little bit of an attitude and seemed upset that he was being stopped by the police officer is not like any person you would see getting arrested most people with a resident are when they're stopped by a police officer are confused scared and might talk a little bit louder however i think the important thing to remember is that in addition to his testimony that the defendant was a little bit loud the defendant complying with every order the officer
the united states particular this court's recent pronouncement and mccoy that you will conclude that this is a purely private conspiracy not affecting any activity economic activity anywhere it's a street crime that should have been prosecuted in state wrestle with and mccoy is first they they found the statute unconstitutional as applied to mccoy because there was no effect on commerce and because it was a non economic activity and they derive it's a requirement under the commerce clause because it's a right statutes are based on the effect on commerce and the section five of the fourteenth amendment does the government has to prove that without that there is no case  a jurisdictional element of the crime the courts use the same analysis and same analysis of what commerce lives and in this case the jurisdictional element and section two forty one is provided by forty two us the section two thousand accommodation at the time we've also raised the issue that in this case there is only non economic activity that's going on at the time and under the court's holding in lopez and and the courts maintain the strongest rooney over those acts when they regulate non economic history and the trend in this court and mccoy the supreme court in morris morrison that the civil rights cases are still good law and therefore the only way in which a penal federal civil rights legislation can reach really private action is through the commerce clause and so i would ask the court to reject the thirteenth amendment analysis as inconsistent with the chief justice of pain and morrison and his and my time that i have reserved for the first argument is that is now off so i would like to  court says no you don't because even the first movement is a right on which concords can be placed as to time and place harm first if they can be placed on the first amendment right certainly can be placed on a
supplemental forty in particular this court's recent pronouncement and mccoy that you will conclude that this is a purely private conspiracy not of thinking any activity economic activity anywhere it's a street crime that should have been prosecuted in state wrestled with and mccoy is first aid they found the statute unconstitutional as applied in court because there was no effect on commerce and because it was a non economic activity and it derive their reasoning from orson and lopez both decisions that the chief justice arthur and lopez it used against by discussing the three areas of commerce that can be regulated by the congress concerns of state here is the things people do the activities that somehow affect commerce now the government's argument has it's been there very well the park itself has  accommodation at the time we've also raised the issue that in this case there is only non economic activity that's going on at the time and under the court's holding and lopez and and the courts maintain the strongest group me over those acts when they regulate non economic history and the trend in this court in mccoy the supreme court in morrison and one of the things the court should in fact consider their legislative history and or is there an express jurisdictional element finding that a certain type of activity i e racial discrimination a ffects commerce but those are the two least important elements of course that look at this circuit in discussing in this same discussion and mccoy specifically points out that  used meant by an individual person constituted as its lavery and the court held that it did not and that it would be in fact running the flavoring argument into the ground to make it apply to every act of discrimination public park merely because of the color of skin   a violent act of war people against other people on the argument part being closed my client was the one that got the ticket for being in the park after hours and the crucial element here is
she didn't she it wasn't so much that she found that there was no identity she was really having she was struggling with what how could she put these in these these square pegs in round hole she and so she  did was on in kind of the ok i can't figure it out i don't know that it is i don't know that it isn't so we're going to go to trial well we've got some of that's correct but if it really was found there's different vision those are all things that were not decided factually or legally in the context of the cook county as well did you agree or did previous counsel or whoever preceded you if anyone did you read the wait on the county case did you ever get to the pretrial i don't know the number to eighteen or whatever that number is where you said ok these are the issues we're going to try this we didn't really do it that way now but what was also not missing was there was no issue six thousand one hundred and ninety three motion never this record in this case the procedure for years were going to trial and to page anything by the defendants to suggest much less by a motion to preserve the question that it shouldn't go forward and could come should go forward and as i claims and those would not cover everything judge reading when she heard those cross motions one motion for clara style one for residue to concluded i can't make that decision and i would submit maybe the court was actually correct vision because i can't fit all of the facts from one case into another which is i think the evidence of the fact that we simply are different so even if there was that we have six and i believe there was there also was really not the appropriate find shareholder riveted reaction which then is the whistle blowing if you take actions in retaliation of that those are different backs totally they were cited or even addressed in the book in terms of the specific claims in this mathematically similarly here when just we was doing was assessing damages which were far less than what actually i asked in closing argument from the court for damages for the actions taken by the defendants as a those are certain enough so is there an element of subject to be yes there is always a must we have mathematical certainty but that element of subjectivity is not enough to beat what judge we found in terms of the counter claims that claim says they should have
so on but how the fact that this mortgage went to somebody else and then somebody else and so on wasn't the exact same amount due that was at the beginning  d as far as you are concerned remains the same all the time in terms of the terms and that you said that the rate went up that as a result of the original mortgage or because you as you correctly pointed out so i don't understand how you were before signing the mortgage and that point we had no will choice at that time to to escape that beta suit because things were scheduled the wedding was scheduled and we could not  and tell them to take the mortgage and drop dead which was really not wells fargo because it was the undercover with the superior home mortgage we did not know that we are dealing with  not even taken place yet it is essentially a wrongful foreclosure case despite the fact that appellant's as they even said today concede non payment of their mortgage the claims in the instant  action are based upon the theory that the mortgagee of record holder was a note fargo lek standing to foreclose upon appellants home this is properly a defense that should and has as a matter of fact stand standing comes with two components there d is constitutional standing which requires an injury in fact and there's prudential standing which typically bars a litigant from asserting the rights interests another nonparty in order to obtain relief from injury to themselves as the court is focused upon a constitutional standing i  will also address that issue the court has repeatedly rejected cases of this type asserting claims based upon the assignments of mortgage original mortgage lender were a party for instance that was very understanding about delays that had a reputation for allowing  dealt with don't tell you at least then in that situation you say but i was armed then you can argue whether by contract allow did or didn't allow it but that goes to the m because it is a function of the original contractual agreements if the contract say no assignment then they would have standing if the contracts commit assignments as they do here  but i mean let's change to another thing i use an insurance company which charges me more than other insurance companies do for the same thing and i use that insurance company because they have a reputation for responding quickly if there is any harm and not giving me trouble when that happens if that insurance company i work to be able to standing the question of whether my contract allowed that or not is a different question that's a question of america here the issues not reputation the issue is what was agreed to eleven's agreed to make certain payments eleven's agreed to an adjustable rate mortgage they failed to make those payments that is the cause of their injury their own of constitutional standing are not just injury in fact but injury must be fairly traceable to the challenge conduct and that is what is absent here there is no link between position as well jim and we know the say that that was created by the defendants we never there was not even worth mentioning the pierce any in any place we simply showed
up because which which i think was was most part of the problem here and it's difficult to define what the commission's reasoning was for nomination in these particular time periods because they mentioned in their decision
hi i'm david the bruce this is steal the show and today we continue our celebration of bob clampett if you didn't catch our first episode on bob clampett please be sure to check it out and in this episode we bring you racy if you saw the last episode you know what i mean with the private snafu and the booby trap literally that there was a double entendre that's what it was and that in that cartoon you got to watch it if you did say it go back and watch the last episode now on today's show we the character is the warner brothers looney tunes characters all appear in the same scenes it's known for that also falling hair really interesting because he actually used photographs of new york in that in that picture rather than just drawing him out rather remarkable cartoons and a tale of two kittens well it's quite opposite its title if you're going to have a good day to day love watching these clampett cartoons man what a what a great artist what a great director sit back grab your popcorn and enjoy
squad jr it's called inventing a pop fly catapult and we have to follow all we have to follow exactly what p b s kids design squad nation requires there are students here with me who are from a school where i first started doing design squad junior that is wellington we've we've been to brookline we've been well not really to korea almost everywhere i have taught and every two t i've had has major basic catapult some of you have been to my house and seen what to fourth grade girls put together down at cape cod weekend and they put together what's called leonardo's in his weaponry includes some drawings of chemicals well isn't this just a lever could i lift up a stone with this yeah  right and flip it right so it doesn't take too much to go from a lever for the pyramids to a greek device to a much later man who looked at all these awful machines that were storming castles right yes they were siege machines but you leonardo said i know they are but and i don't advocate war however i do advocate the way things work here's a ratchet a look at look at the tension will will there be a way i think to get those to release some tension well this is called the release arm and here is the catapult arm and here the ammunition many of you know of my party this is i had to get it i do strange things but you know you don't want to sit  right now i don't want this spoon to hit me right so i have a little loop here and i'm going to pull it very fast and if i had you helping me you would support the bottom many of you know about supporting the bottom so you don't lose force or energy i think i'm go how about that and this will be undergoing some change in my mini camp last week in august because it doesn't everybody come on up here and let me get i want to get you face to face the camera there and i want to be sure that i get your name first and last name please and your school  remember i was talking about you guys are still working right unless you want to go and  have passed the challenge congratulations but your name's on the areas so far as i have markers at this point have won an animal that you chose well yeah right all right before you leave taken animal but you'll have to take him you  i've found that wellington at no time at belmont they school not necessary because you now met the challenge you invented a way to send a ping pong ball flying high enough those the exact things that real scientists do and if you go to the museum of science and you go to a workshop there they will say brings your design  test rebuild redesign and then you succeed even if you fail a little bit you know the next thing now here is the metric design here with the base and i'm getting away from one of the and lillian well as we said we first as you can see there thank you but they were the first to make a square shape what we're going to need to figure all of us is how they can do something like this and h make this a base or should it be more of a seesaw that it go like this and should it we will play hockey table hockey with a polymer
documents were simply put into this volume report who are you seeing convenience with these documents were all or primarily all created over a period my doctor whether there's one or two hundred so that's why you commissions provided the one thing to do with it inside that committee is privileged and just like who to consider is privileged if it's properly created all these other the volume of the board which we now have a different perspective on it they would be in the best days whatever the groups compilation of information into those reports and if you look at the description  chicago trust which is a much older case that says documents that are created in the ordinary course of hospital medical business or for the leader corrective action by hospital staff are not privileged s clane you didn't distinguish certain things here's that we know exactly what you're talking about exactly what the issues are they seem to be i would say on all fours but they're pretty close over a thousand just put it that does that mean that every time this issue comes up in a different hospital they can bring friends that content even though it's been decided by that coup or even for their hospitals in the this does is basically look at all of the computer records of the hospital and just like when you filter something you said all i want is dr jones
during the years of unrest the problems of civil war a poll a full secret organization called believes the blackout sprang up in the western united states if members were to be found everywhere defying the law or using the law for their own purposes working toward the ultimate goal to be suggest that you start in the us wants to there was in daylight and they preferred to fight thank you for the suggestion my information however is different therefore i will proceed along the lines originally planned and  i yes i have no apprehension of going through the woods in darkness i've been informed that the men we seek are beyond the bullets if i follow your suggestion will come out of the woods in the south at nights that is where we expect to meet our opposition what can i do to convince you i'm not in league with those
manufacturing material and it includes methamphetamine precursors yeah and so what you're saying is the jury was instructed both as to the definition of a methamphetamine manufacturing material and the definition of methamphetamine precursor yes and in clearly in the statute the definition of material doesn't include precursor yes but they were charged separately truly safe position stolen property in other words you know if the police come in they find and this guy's got two hundred rpm you know or stolen you know they can't charge him with house and you discover there's various things that concededly is all stolen property can the state charge about two hundred charges one for each item or is i
contrary to the terms of the statute absolutely given if that's your position then it seems to me you can't the third takings claim because the takings claim as i recall the law requires that the he who brings it says the government was authorized to do what they did but they have to pay me for and that's not me you're saying you're saying the government was if the fact that things of monetary value being personal property necessarily support the taking then every time the government collects money from somebody with support of thinking  to go even further but it has to be almost a published case so if you have a hundred percent tax once and that could be considered waiver doesn't depend on testimony or something on certain the only basis of waiver was the two thousand and five information an announcement by the i r s and  i believe the court had that i know we have it and so then the question is that that document support a waiver or not looks to me like it doesn't that people should file all said was during the pendency of some unspecified appellate litigation they want the process the necessary implication of that is once that litigation is over they will be obviously they the i r s was obviously granting a waiver from the statutory requirement of an administrative filing i just don't see how that document in any way supports the idea that a statutory as a basis for saying the i r s waived the prerequisites i don't see how you can get there from here when the document says everybody should go ahead and file their administrative claim that's the opposite of wa claims they're not saying we refused ever pay the claim all they're saying is to file a claim but they'll be a either first when when when when did to the companies that provide toll services begin charging based filed in december of two thousand and five many companies had been charging for time only for about fifteen years i think the gradual process where a growing number of companies were billing by time only ye under the new type of bill have written how can how can that be the the statute uses the words time and distance on its face it's clear that the cold charges have to be based on both s at the rates they determine and then it turns out one hundred percent of those taxes are illegally collected that's one hundred percent tax why doesn't that rise to the level of arbitrary and capricious hundred percent tax under business as a tax put in intentionally by congress is a fluke is obviously not a fluke well maybe that's because circumstances later changed and the answer to that is congress can change the operative terms of the statute they never did change the operative term cover all the fifteen years of