MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
day in day out is on the jump like you'd be surprised if you knew how many people want to get  that your generosity is only by your good night if you  i mean the show for that county they my good man do you know that you are getting to be somewhat of a pest do you realize that we are no longer in a county over what you have jurisdiction for the first time in you battered my face all over the front page of every newspaper in the country after the capture babyface right that's right sometimes the papers make it tough but say what are you doing in this neck of the woods i'm shooting my way from coast to coast with  certainly there's look like a combination of the safe but there's a market never mind a mistake now but i reckon it differently it doesn't look like it to me what do you think i wonder if that's just a coincidence what that show was in springfield the night the bank governor i wonder if there's any connection well how can that be there's a leak somewhere check up on everybody especially weaver i never did like your looks if you can just what he seems to be you know what to do and see that those fellows get out of jail before they talk on ted you know how i feel about him yeah that's just the trouble  nice job no work plenty of money i like what is that  were waiting inside rest do you think he's a federal man yet and would he have gotten away was still looking for one man i don't understand why you should be telling me this because your bank is the next on their list but for feel foolish move on their part we keep very little case on hand will drop the case that's mighty white of iraq my friendship for mr martinez blinded me i can easily understand that you see weaver and i were friends hardly anything we would have done for each other who you figure out do they run the man you followed across the border and you don't have to ask me how i know that either i'm the one who told him he told you we leave here at midnight we'll dip into watertown in twos and threes in the morning in order not to attract attention be sure everyone is there by eleven and eleven five your bob and jim going to the bank the rest of us will scatter on the outside
both of you for your arguments in your briefs in this case we'll get your decision is the earliest possible
now as as further evidence of this the way through the course of the prosecution of the patients they have laid specifically stated that a number of things one is that they were confronted with some other fire one of which was their fire differentiate from from oh well they're really any you know cold and i said i find this not predictable that any particular and i said fire would be less or more useful in preventing incendiary discharge and then they go on to say what they
american am was sort of structured a little backwards because first it went through an x a jesus of called fifty two g but then it ran into the question of whether if there were a constitutional problem essentially whether twelve fifty two g s should be read otherwise that's why interested have to be doing right right so we especially so i guess my question is does that problem arise here i e the prospect  need to read to fifty two perhaps more narrowly than one might otherwise because there might otherwise be no redress for constitutional violation i think the short answer is it's not a whore but it's an interesting problem because i assume that the agency would prefer that we not in general that we accept their their conclusions rather than we consider  jurisdiction thing go back to the article article one section nine of the constitution saying seven hundred eighty nine hundred eighty nine that type of pain it exists and nobody can take away no court no laws and congress can take that away from the well provided by different it's there i'm not making it up it is for constitutional violations there can be a money remedy it doesn't exist within this procedure and mundane is very clearly stated that's true we can't fathom proves to be true he can violate all of his rights in the process and that's just not the way it is in this country it is not that way mr miss roach that live and she lied over and over again anything that was told to the legalization people and have actual matter was confidential but the question of whether or not they were eligible for status could possibly be confidential
you doctor in so if it's not cite specific there's a go factor about this for that observation i'm now
think it's important to clarify a couple of facts because the states beat the symbol misleading on this and the first is that at the time of the search it was not in any sort of grave condition the version couldn't communicate where what happened and where the shooting occurred about was able to respond and i'm sure it was able to go back after his search of the scope of the cell phone and confront that letter with the information and better was able to respond that was able to speak to the level of probable cause to search the cell phone rang me very clear that if you're right if our officer wants to search the cell phone he needs to have probable cause to search the phone to believe that there's evidence of criminality on the phone sure but you're arguing and here there's no indication other than the fact that he had a cell phone that would indicate that there was evidence of the shooting and that cell phone number in the state doesn't point to a shred of evidence that says the is particularly important because it you know any imaginative officer can think of some reason that there might be something on a cell phone and the example they get is you know speeding someone is probably for speeding you might believe that there's text message the kids the state's case on accountability becomes much much weaker because it really has his presence with this group of people at the shooting that were himself did not have a gun and there's afterwards  was supposed to look out for someone and holler if someone came at him there's no evidence that he knew of any plan to shoot of any plan to do anything criminal in nature before it happened all we have is evidence that he was shot in h
not a warranty of some nature with the intent to induce mr james p that the bank doesn't dispute any of those facts and they're not an issue on appeal here today despite those funds you did fax the banks for me is that as a matter of undertake a very serious course of due diligence with regard to the property they did all kinds of inspections they did all kinds of evaluation of the subject properties mr jackson himself and does have experience in the construction tra commercial also forest prof we certainly don't want to see them in residential context and we also don't want to see it in the commercial context especially in today's economic and cultural climate where the demand of public demand is for more candor  transparency and more accountability in the commercial room we don't want to interrupt our common law and say ok anything goes in a real state contract if you have a commission like any and every real state contract has a provision like any you can say anything you can cases with real estate whether it's commercial real estate or residential real estate any of us can be potential consumers for that kind of a real estate in fact in this case the brochure the settling the a mass mailing to various business that might have been interested in the cases cited by the bank the securities cases the pool of consumers is very limited you can't even receive an offer for a private placement under a since the regulations unless you are withholding credit investor those are very those are property beneficial for one point seven million dollars at the same time mr jenkins was fined this building for one point three million dollars and i would think that the purchaser of that residential property i mean anybody can go out and buy or one point seven million dollar residential property  probably a very sophisticated individual to begin with but maybe that person and i'd this is speculation maybe it's money in diamonds if you were one of your clients once in the construction business which i think puts an interesting within a short period of time over a ten year span a short period of time but that first i think blow off and then there were some other blowouts why do we have them out that's basically right down after ten years damage to the image rather to the property to the things trying manufactured their office space i mean it's it's a nightmare for them every time it rains and there was a simple testimony to beth that also photographs showing what was going on there they never million dollar property and of course property prescience over time and you don't know how much exactly the properties were today that testimony was not listed at trial but i think it's safe to soon that it's worth more than two million dollars now both experts  i will say though that both the freshly pretty clothes on all the critical factors as far as how much per square foot and what you need to do with regard to gyptian death i mean they both understand what this jury is dead i mean that's going to happen before all of this replacement and
yes your honor the post position that contrary to the district court's finding this is certainly an exceptional case based on the new standard that has been provided by the supreme court in the octane fitness case it's really hard to imagine a case that could be more exceptional desailly one smart tax long term distributor in the misbehavior of a part of your client whether events so or not but the phone did that way and that was enough in the district court's judgment isn't that a question where we have to say that is an abuse of discretion i must say and i hope you'll come to it because i find more powerful your contract argue with your state good argu say looks to the broader context of the parties business relationship in two thousand and nine to determine what may or may not be reasonable under octane but that's not the octane standard action was clearly an action for him for breach of contract not to force the terms of the agreement the opposite is true spy tech said repeatedly that this  lawyers fees are surely exceed seventy five thousand dollars but remember the judge awarded zero damages and found that there was absolutely no evidence that spy take had been damaged by any of this  of the issue here which the district quite did not have the opportunity to address because no evidence was ever made as to anything about this agreement is whether or not this action was to force which in the end  and those factors or motivation the judge in his in his decision after trial found there was no motivation to harm the spy tech considerations of compensation the judge found  was absolutely no evidence of damage deterrence the judge found absolutely no need for deterrence and the judge this is the failure i believe of spartak on this appeal is simply rehashing the arguments and not giving deference to the district court who has had the opportunity to try the case listen to the witnesses deal deathly witnesses and entirely credible  and especially in the circumstances where any award here would go to what the district court identified as the oligarchy oligarchy dominated board and putting council fees into the you very much for very interesting case thank you for bringing it to us we reserve decision the next matter on our calendar is on submission so i will ask the
for whatever reason once those did again it gives him another shot at v a being able to look back at the entire period from which he has filed claims it's a little bit different and she although she was another avenue to get back to out when you call the book in order to get this evidence considered and that hope is met this case is three point one five six see mr malone submitted his service records that is the reason this got reopened or were
and regular contact with welding rod was manufactured by them and would not on the logic of the actor prove substantial causation any more than proving he routinely walked on floor tiles containing asbestos would evidence is plaintive was exposed to respond or ripple as best as five years and it's in the latter circumstance where the evidence then provides if it is a substantial  let's assume for the moment that we consider dr brende testimony what is it then from your standpoint on well let me of the switch that around what is it would constitute substantial causation isn't premised on facts in this case i want to make sure that i'm understanding it you're not conceding that dr franks somewhere along the line know that you have more to get through but i've got to ask a question that relates to what justice turner read from kinney earlier in the state a news plaintiff had to prove he inhaled enough asbestos fibers from the welding rod that statement and if it did not if it is accurate in terms of this characterization of the law applying that statement in the committee to this case doesn't  wall there is evidence of some airborne as festus find proof in this case in the testimony of a various witnesses that whenever  the as best as a quark would be cut it would release something that there would be some amount of airborne as best as fire for your position is there
record only limited to i believe so because i think the line mr rippling you're talking about that he's worried about is where he says this waiver disposes of all controversies in dispute all controversies in dispute between the parties so i'm wondering if your pleadings were limited to this rescission or if they went beyond and then said you don't get any relief then i think mr mayor would be correct if you expand allergan have been surprised if in fact the judge ordered a money judgment and that it caught you by surprise or were there all of these other discussions going on such that you wouldn't have been surprise
that the trial court ruled in your favor as far as the issue that we're here on today the sanction issues so leading up to the day we've actually had some discussions about should you  appeal it is all these decisions most of which he expressly rely on the supreme court precedents for which are part of the record that this court must review there was an adequate basis  based on current do or die on that in think that he did proceed in good faith with respect to his other allegations and this is an abuse of discretion standard so where does that leave us well first of all the sections are appropriate to the question before us was was the imposition of sanctions a reasonable he said no it was what about this gives us abuse of discretion have you still not there yet on how you demonstrated that it was an abuse of discretion even though we might disagree or rule differently suggesting that this court take evidence on this how would we proceed on this and so i wanted to give you an opportunity to talk about how you see moving forward on those issues or the this circumstances that were  is that judge force did this shows abuse of discretion so for that reason if we can stop it i really do want to let the court know we've been extremely careful because after twelve different sanction motions or thereabouts and asking me to be placed in jail i'm pretty careful and we didn't want to challenge the current and we were very go but to go from losing to now we want to say she again and yes out of the ten or twelve  and we started a long time ago and we made some arguments but one of our biggest reason we're back here now was we made you armed and we were given travel proposition that you can lose an appeal and because they are using your property that somehow by tendering that money there and if landowner goes in he loses the right to object to the traverse to everything else that went wrong in this case is this this case will sit back based on ha he he believes that will if you really believe that then i guess we'll have to continue this deal of if somehow the score would say all right now we want to have everybody testify who took the money out when all that the world of that
refutes she refuses how even from the point of view of just a layman what if she refuses how this is why would she think it's going to come back you're the defendant the civil case similarly before you could be deemed liable for consequences of a criminal lawyer action should you have done something wrong so here's the question what if the guy do and goes ahead and doesn't the co happening in you know scream and yell and say you don't have my permission well if they call i'll co habiting together
court had to be struggling with here to some extent and he observed the group of the witnesses determine the credibility of the witnesses the way to be given the evidence and decided that this is going to be on religious beliefs into irrational thought any follow up to determine if it was or wasn't
to get to be able to appeal you don't go behind that do you know i mean that that's a whole purpose of that whole line of cases if you don't you don't have a hearing within a hearing on whether or not that's whether or not there can be something after there's been an interlocutory appeal that was part of the argument in the peterson case that drew peterson case dealing with it in one of the early on early decision from the score that they were the supreme court then ordered us to hear a case it was rob a whole thing was about the taylor doctrine whether or not your earlier ruling prevented them from doing the state from doing something else and that's reason i'm asking you questions opinion about the extent whether and even of the court general on it is it is it in capsulated in the into the taylor dock in the amount i believe a show and i know that your argument you make that argument in your in your brief and that's right meant i mean that that's an issue before us is whether or not if that matter was ruled on motions open up proves the night goes up on appeal and even whether or not this court addressed that whether or not the killer rule captures that and says now they can't in essence do with was denied to them we open the proofs to put this other evidence on in a trial but that's we're talking about it in their motion to reopen proves that with a very witnesses that they want to use now record and whether or not that was a road into the can be pretty  it from having a trial oh with these other two witnesses were you did before the brought up these other things th workers per se right it comes out of left field when it comes up you know who gets it that's why i'm saying it's awful sort of esoteric
idea the confined areas that the
moved they really are because nothing happens because the treatment is over and so i mean it just seems to me that the state has as much interest is as is a counsel for these
it was the lawyers who are going  witness would be on the statutory definition if we're talking to mystic miles but there isn't that statutory definition here is one fifteen dish ten point one and i would suggest your eyes that there may be a reason for that that absence of any objection demonstrated the entire lack of prejudice and that's what we have here we have no objection at all to the instruction it was clearly tendered in a timely fashion it was provided then traction notice of that cases in most cases oftentimes cross over into their i d s but they exist in this type of situation and all because those that affected him point to any evidence in the record that shows neutral kind of the shares unreasonably from self defense
look at an expert's testimony as to whether this would be obvious we don't have to look at evidence of ordinary skills with the bare minimum level of skill to take the presumption that
of summary judgment that we would listen to more of the same but the other side of the word opportunities to obtain expert reports the fact of the matter is is that none of this in this case
american that is really an interesting question because there were there were two o changed his testimony from his written report to his testimony and commission here if you agree with that that there were discrepancies i don't believe there were any real dis this was something brand new we had never seen or heard of before patient with the man and you can bet that all of my discovery requests are very formal and they do include anyone with three videos and take so if this is something new the
there's a recent case from our circuit that deals with leaving a secure area government will argue that that's that's kind of the effect you've been excluded  isn't that the key is that the crime of burglary has to do with doing something that initiate that moves toward a confrontation a break into your house you may be process of law and walk away offenses are going to fall much more logically into that and that variance likewise are going to fall it's going to be a state area it would encompass much more activity i submit that breaking in a thi
honor i agree that in the district court below we believe the proper outcome is vacant or from the get go the agency argued that it could fix the procedural deficiencies on remand and the agency and the court did not even  and the agency only addressed the procedural deficiencies and did nothing to cure the arbitrary increases that there's so much argue that now that it was proper below but now it's more proper than ever because have a rule that the court expressly decided not to vacate and then they have the substantive problem which is the reduction doesn't seem to be supported but they were have any sense of how inaccurate a zero six for one year going forward to compensate for zero point two for each  harmed exclusive of interest going to start going right away and so i think for that reason and several others as the secretary noted the vast majority of commenters supported this approach because they could see they could estimate how much they seventeen to account for that interest and basically the hospitals use me get interest for every year for which they have a lawsuit pending so if they have three challenges they get an interview each of the point i'm i don't know that there's any reason to think that would be the case and certainly that there's been no such argument here i just don't i don't think there's any reason to think much smaller than what are the most obvious the extreme cases of closed or converted you think that that's right that was raised in the notice and comment period and the secretary realize that those hospitals would not receive the benefit of the proposed solution and the secretary said for those small number of hospitals  don't think so i mean the hospitals have suggested that it could be because there was a decline in patients a global decline i mean that won't be true for all hospitals and one thing to take into account is that the point six so expedited judicial review is granted for the subject here that languages and all of the the letters from the board and so as this court in tucson those decisions were correct in denying interest because judicial review hadn't been sought for the specific years on which interest was sought and this also comes into play in the nd factor in i mean the action that that's here before is the this before this court i think is the secretary's decision to go to prospect of we remove the  rules that were in place prior to that if it again so we're comfortable with considering that physically or seventeen role in terms of seeing whether or not to the parties claims whether it's fully restoring the status quo prior to the fiscal year fourteen  because the boards and also because the more decisions say that the legal question in those cases was whether the point two percent adjustment was proper that two percent adjustment was done for fiscal year fourteen and not again and again it was