MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
the treatment itself they are not designed to capture limitations as it relates to an individual ability to work in fact that is why mental impairment questionnaires exist so of course the ratings are different because they have different categories and but if you look at what's actually contained in those opinions it's consistent in his areas of limitations and the problem of snouts are a combination of objective and subjective evidence and mr grabby describes himself sometimes with moderate sometimes was severe limitations is entirely appropriate that his treating provider renders an opinion that finds it more impaired that he sees himself in fact rest of the evidence in the record  without without fail those progress notes to document anxiety and depression reduced to the side of judgment and consistently document impaired concentration and attention and i want to bring your attention impaired doctors comment took that quote fair or semi colon concentration and turned it into fair concentration that is why it all ja ultimately only a limitation in the area of interacting with others because he because dr solomon misinterpreted the records and he didn't catch that or so and how she thinks that that is not advisable for someone with a long history of anytime he encounters stress and loses the social support he completely falls out so there's a little caution in the air but overall materiality is not an issue in this case and her opinion is not in conflict with dad's a r g turks such a superficial look right i believe that this case is appropriate to remand for payments and not for further proceedings there are no conflicts and the ambiguity we just cleared up  client was using marijuana and now your view there was no inconsistency and in between his opinion and his notes so all as not treating provider over the course of the past decade his opinions entitled to i i have trouble here is that in this case the treating physician and both exam physicians appeared to conclude that he had real problems and the  he also says he has the side effects that make him unable to work with heavy machinery drawling is also not on the record anywhere the st time drowsiness shows up i want to dr mccarthy checkpoint and the othe they had not rejected all of the medical evidence he would have had no foundation to reject all of the witness testimony either and the commissioner goes to great lengths to
broken promises by the trial during her opening statement to the jury and the second which involves failure trial counsel to move to suppress incriminating statement given  counsel's failure to follow through on her promise and the act of making a promise and then failing to deliver any evidence of it not really mattered in this case and why it effected it in the first r this was a case where on the facts my client ever heard vera i got into an argument with a big time who ended up being stabbed mr williams was no question that they had an argument there was no question that some alter harris trial counsel tells the jury about how they will hear the repair and mr williams had an argument about how they went outside and then she says listen you'll hear that there were two other people involved in this closing and closing she doesn't say mr ricci's or mr diaz was there with a baseball bat and night she says he was present even though she never actually elicited any evidence of his presence throughout the course of the trial and there are two places that are open are in our closing statement where she's going through the argument saying the commonwealth has not shown anything other than mr rivera's presence just think that the main argument on the statements is that the prejudice to mr rivera was on the conviction for assault with intent to murder which required the jury to find not only that he intended to kill mr district when he when the evidence comes in that officer sr and says what he's doing he said i had beef with nigger and then he says because he disrespected me that was very powerful evidence bit he intended to go into that prosecutor even made that specific argument to the jury but if it had just been a man outside they had an argument and the evidence showed this was meeting and then he ended up with this that would be a jury might not have constitutionally deficient of any crime and they couldn't have because again sr was not provided with any descriptions of any suspect staff he saw me in writing in the middle of the night crossing the street and did not stop when he was asked what what's it is reasonable also made a strategic decision to refine the evidence that was ultimately presented to the jury because the additional evidence mention opening was no longer necessary to sustain the defense that was factually the lawyer structured the entire defense around the petitioners testimony and again i would submit that is not what happened here based on the record and there was no record supporting hoover were the state courts are running that turkey attorneys
i'm engaged in combat which still face our communities today and that is back when they were  includes the obligation to pay for medical expenses for a child it causes the action arises in fever of the air because of the obligation created by the family plaintiff could recover for the injury in that case in any case i think the court was very clear that it makes no difference who pays him or it comes to damages diminishment the defendant was not entitled to diminish the plaintiffs because if they patient the else might be different but in this case i think it's clear that there wasn't in concert nothing when they walked in
hi my name is cheryl arena this is danielle morale you're the g is silent and we're really happy to be here supporting this good cause belmont rising we are two women and this is for women by women about women it's all about us girls and we're happy to be here and we're going to play some original music and some cover tunes  blues based not all exactly blues but blues based and like one of the songs one of the songs i'm doing is called shave it and it is country blues style song in the style of bessie smith who you know influenced by back in those days in the twenty's the women like my rainy bessie smith they all did very racy kind of stuff that was very tongue in cheek and  and that's kind of how that song you hear it goes and danielle well bessie smith was a big influence on janis joplin and we're going to do a janis joplin song true as well yes who also well behaved women do you think yeah that's right that's right yes so they are having us yes thank you for having us hope you enjoy our music  you got a shame and they if you want to get along with me
either version so the issue isn't whether a case involves a credibility determination and guts going to be true or of any case in which there's there's testimony but that's all there is to a case and in this case  other parties get conflicting testimony about whether the victim consented to sex acts it is certainly not true that they are that their testimony was equally plausible or that there was no experience of evidence crowd waiting or disproving that evidence either deny that evidence that that she gave him money after the encounter was over that he forced her to an a t m machine i he didn't deny that he did that and it is that he gave conflicting statements to the police because this is what he testified to he told police the day after the event that night he wasn't at haha that he didn't have a sexual encounter that's not a hallmark of a consensual sexual encounter is she repeatedly says it hurts he denied at trial that he had heard her say that even though on the video he's affirming that he's hearing her say that i eat he he orders her to say i'm in love with tony repeatedly tony being the conveniently claim intoxication when clients on days points so this is not a case of a credibility contest because there was much more to this case and a determination i've been the judge determination of which of which apparently decided not to argue that the state didn't meet its burden of proof on them but that doesn't mean that her pretrial decision to give the state only one bite of the apple only one chance to prove the defendant guilty of all try this was an unreasonable one and  that the defendant mentioned today the apprentice analysis for the admission of a prior convictions is that where proof of prior convictions was wrongly admitted french impeachment purposes  prejudice exists if the case amounts to a credibility contest and as as a argued here today the case that not amount of credibility contest therefore even if there was some
hours counselor are i'm going to call the clerks of instruction that everyone has read the briefs and i'm going to go directly to what i believe is the chief culprit in this case and that holder is when the court did the analysis on the over an anonymous hazard and this is a case where my client having fiber walked across a pallet to get to some dirt and her foot went into the power and then she fell and clear that that's there for the purpose of being for sale it's not secured by anything it's the public is not prohibited from going there so if we look at that exception and then put that in the context of the famous case word became where the key thing we have to look for under a word became or analysis is whether or not with this open obvious hazard distraction there's a thing called the deliberate encounter exception and that's it stems from cases like with fever and on we rely heavily in the people are prosthetic as are anyway because of their own self interest then this deliberate encounter exception kicks in now what we have here is a retailer who one purpose has all the product out today because with that i believe that's the strength and the guts of our argument on and on that i would ask that you reverse remand this case thank you very much thank you mr davis actually i guess i want to start with a little bit more factual background mr mr davis but the one both say that she was looking at the back of soil she just prior to her falling but there's more in the past in that she admitted in her was strapped in and in the case said no the hole was such a blatant his condition that it could not be forgotten and could not be distracted from in the circumstances of the case and i would say the power is the same thing the pla in this case there's no indication from the plane that she considered the policy dangerous rather she didn't indicate in her testimony on pages twenty two twenty five that it was a power she recognized that it was by force it is why i traverse it to get well she never indicated that where there was a dangerous condition that she was deliberately encountered so i think there are several elements missing from the deliberate encounter exception to be applied here in furthermore the case law  forty three a itself and look at how it shifts the analysis to the defendant's knowledge and conduct
us the state for a nonracial reason and then you have the defendant to establish or to try to come to that therefore because the wrong how to follow the thirteen discretionary decision to sustain the state's objections the defense counsel intended to ask a witness at trial questions about his criminal history specifically misdemeanor offenses none of which were crimes of moral turpitude dishonesty or false statement accepted by defense counsel and eventually served on the jury strikes the fact that a prosecutor exercises approve three challenge against a black union member does not without omar demonstrate that the prosecutor engaged in purposeful discrimination about this case as it could have affected other members of the core system and they didn't want to get out of the trip the prosecutor simply could not violate instructions from the f b i and go into how the defendant then he was currently being investigated especially considering that the judge  didn't even know he was being investigated and there's nothing in the record that indicates that this just doesn't work when you know further there's nothing in the record to even show that the defendant suffered any prejudice the trial court judge in th motivation and then going back to the defended to see if you could rebut that but that's not what happened if alternatively what true what the state is arguing is that you should look for the record in presented the unconstitutional probability of
piano from the second district that seems to not come out with a conflicting hoping that the state needs to intentionally mislead in order to have a violation of due process the child in the room he was frustrated with the child and something happened to the child to have his heart stopped working and he is now out of educated state argument is that's not enough  putting in the context making it sound as though she struck the child in anger did he ever did did the defendant ever say that he was concerned that other family members would find out that he was somehow responsible the he said he didn't fall off the bag which was completely untrue he never said that the child didn't fall off the back so the way to test him which came out he sat on and the defendant changed his story as to what happened our position is that you can't talk about the evidence that they should put in when we put in the wrong evidence you have to take out yes it is and see what remains would have resulted in the indictment so i don't think the context of the hitting the child in the chest would be part of the analysis you take out that being the child in the chest and that's just not part of your consideration but would it be important if
client because he confessed on the stand during the arbitration he was as good as he was before we had the accident never happened and he could do the job so now the question becomes when close he confesses to being as good as he women this is the doctor who swears you can go back to work you can drive a truck he says i can go back i can drive a truck the employer as to whether the claim is the genitive condition is called who related to the work injury he writes whether or not the generations related to the aging process are the absolute on the job i have a more difficult time seeing one versus the over me and never the commission evidently interpreted the second sentence is same it's possible but i'm not going to say within a reasonable
the facts yesterday and today it's speak for themselves with confidence in our armed forces with the founding china while hipbone was still brawling in the streets of munich japan had already begun weaving the pattern of aggression started with an incident a japanese train them a south manchurian railway had marched into austria i hunger was not content with austria at munich he had said his theory of race and blood demanded the incorporation of old german speaking peoples into the reich hitler called upon czechoslovakia to surrender the sudeten land and because the democracies of europe were hungry for peace removed withdrawn from hitler's side that check on me and the little  but not the machine
this morning ends i don't think it's a perfectly clear so let's go back to the question certification to the supreme judicial court where i'm i mean if what pertains to when the state passes a statute that seems to set up the rules for getting it trusts and it authorizes a creditor at that may reach all property of the trust revocable at the settlers death intensity on the issue of control in deciding whether the creditor of the deceased may access the assets of the trust on a cell settle trust there's some disagreement groups as to whether the trust in that case is self settled  control of the trust assets after the formation of the trust in determining whether creditors could access the assets and research case the trustee did he would retain for himself the ability to manage trust to change the beneficiaries to change t
dated july twenty eighth that has to do witnessed by filed as a separate crime or again labeled as a fairly common a felony by the state of oregon even if you do that it's still not a felony for the purposes of federal sentencing law because we no longer look to the five and not bumped up from a misdemeanor to a felony that even in that case blakely would indicate that it's still going to be a misdemeanor yes and that's because i think likely and and taylor and all of the cases that are label you look to the language of the statute and you compare that with the court looks only to the language of the statute you compare that using the taylor categorical approach to the court of fans have situations like that we certainly would have a situation and i think that's not what the guidelines talk about here this is really not a case where there's any confusion and that the guidelines is very the guide life section is very
going to do is that actual question i don't think so i think the factual question was whether the provision of the r f p to the union without any additional information union didn't have an obligation to come through that document to understand what c t a meant when it was providing it to the union city could have said you know we're providing this a f p we expect that this f p is going to impact your membership rights it's going that you come out on the side of i don't think so because as well as different set of facts the there was no discussion of whether there was a clear and unambiguous notice and that cases every everybody knew that this was coming it just so happened that even the union knew i quote the priest accepted discussions will result in decisions which are better for management labor and society as a whole and quote the words and that policy is also consistent with the policy statement section two of the act that you know grants employees freedom to designate a representative for the purposes of collective bargaining the power to see the state is in support of collective bargaining and the parades policy is that these decisions are best made when there's a full and frank discussion between unions and employers to best determine how these types of situation should end up those policies are not fair here where the re necessary i'm for the poor to have reached the merits of the first charge especially one and it goes hand in hand with the elimination of the bargain you know what i don't think that the discussion would be significantly different as it relates goes hand in hand with the analysis for some contracting it doesn't make any sense to remain the case even in light of the board's expertise in these matters because i don't believe that it would render a different result
do that's how i read it said he was doing that in attempt to gain compliance and i believe that is consistent with the videotape that you know he is still struggling at that moment and so that's our position is that we use that time interval and the argument of course as you know at the midway is the momentary continuation of the first because we know that the court up until the probate in time where moving doesn't mean that the police time tap him already en restraint but they did have it in straight but that's the he still had the ability of looking at this particular individual's his state of mind and i'm sorry i did not pick that up from your paper eyes they continued to sit on him because he's a risk to himself and he's restrained i think these are the days when growers of the reasonable  belief of the officer say all right what about the fact that he's sentenced to the officers i'm having trouble green thing he says that twice and they apparently don't change necessarily being dead that that's the when it happened but some time in that there has to be a time period for the officer to appreciate that you know there is a sation of the struggle of the resistance in this case if you remember one of the facts that he found was earlier of him this struggle when he had his taste and asked to give his hand when he took his hand out for not on his body as sensually in an act of partial compliance when that happened he began to resist again essentially feigning if you will compliance and having done  once was certainly reasonable to assume that simply being motion was does not indicate to the officer that that ended typically when he's on drugs is this a way t it had him on the ground the video comes and at some point after he's already on the ground after that it is possible a in time i mean we have somebody threaten to kill an officer in the interview to the officer happened thereafter so you know it backward in time just to speculate well but you know they might have had it on the ground they might have known really record because to
in the world did you ever get through the had that car look familiar be like i am and gratulations back and they are more in the morning and i'll give you a little fight but i want to make sure the district attorney and there's plenty of evidence to prove wholesale fraud in this election what do you be find out they're going to be subpoenaed that will destroy them i'm afraid that's the best i can do all right let you down at the bed i'm afraid or the green hornet is going to have to deal with the law has been unable to do that those ballots from falling into the hands of tru
after that point are you saying that she kept the passport after those events and the government has put the wrong data i want one of your position well she the issue the week before so and i don't want to parse the words but i want to be clear and i think what my colleagues are asking is when this she applies for the passport was it prior to the incident or was it subsequent to the incident up when your incredible about the harassment goes through and parses a lot of inconsistency this including this problem with the passport and it's very troublesome because  you can tell from the questions i mean that does seem a material inconsistency it was to me that it would be something that i could understand the i g being trouble about but there's there's no confront her with the inconsistency and give her chance to explain so that if there is what might seem like a material issue on the passport and the i j a can have a full hearing can give her a chance to state her view and he can he can make terminations like if we if we were just saying the  again say she's not credible but i'm having trouble to be just as one judge to state my concern i'm having trouble in light of in light of the serious we think of some ways to reconcile but  record i have no idea why counsel didn't ask a question the judge may have said something off the record but in any of that the point is that it's the mother who was relying on her son and you're saying that