MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
there are two problems with those calculations the first is that improving were married for just over eleven years they were actually married precise however the judge's ruling was that this technical read of made its didn't actually occur or he was using that figure as a whole set against our clients of the home was one hundred thirty eight thousand at the time of the dissolution of marriage there was less then three one thousand two hundred dollars remaining on the we argued that the value of the marathon was somewhere in the vicinity of one hundred fifty thousand dollars an hour across to the core was simple sell the house divide the in his or her what he would term the value of that metal property to be what we do know is that in exchange for or in a roughly thirty thousand fees for legal representation and  whole question which is which is another one of the issues which we take exception to judge brinn marriage order states occur this warning testimony under the finding of facts he states purdy's presented document to read and testimonial evidence and do the property distribution wire the court order goes on to state he meaning the petitioner steeds he does not believe the residents say it's much attraction for others none of this testimony is however they don't mention that on respondents position statement gives an entire list of non marital property to the respond including four brings i believe it was from an ex boyfriend  expenses that she pays a hundred sixteen dollars a month for the real estate taxes but judge brinn manner points out in his order that the petitioner was actually paying the real estate taxes of the residents respond  steps to a factors we need the transcripts we need the testimony at trial  reconsider refile a response to the respondents motion to reconsider i agreed with the calculations based on the correct length of marriage based on the correct on things of the parties and that on january ninth of two thousand and seventeen all the calculations are on age two and three better than reciting numbers and in going through that but the bottom line of that is the petitioner was actually  titled to bring two thousand six hundred forty two dollars on maintenance if we used a statutory formula specifically which is two hundred fifteen burglaries were thirty nine years old when they married i think common sense would dictate that they had either one or two holes holds little contents at the time of marriage therefore we can assume that the purchased after the marriage and the court says respond then receives all property in her possession she but they had to have some property acquired day after the marriage  furnished according to the response and respond in financial affidavit she has listed over twenty thousand dollars current debt in credit card debt and that's only for furniture but when our office a prior to the availability of a transcript of the preparation of a transcript we were informed that no transcript was avail so we are left to rest upon the record of the sure exactly what he's entitled to by formula
evidence and do you think that this case falls within the ambit of the supreme court's requirement that there be some of the robber reading evidence that somebody would just wake up and think that they were molested by a man you know this just just doesn't seem logical that that's the first thing they would think of as a fifteen year old girl the first thing they think of again i i know that the defendant just went to the back so i'm sorry for the redundancy but i do have a point so the victim and see here coming to work best friends and up morning hours of able people twenty second day they fell asleep and the victim is in a bad by herself but in zero through with the other girls and that what she says yes yes i mean that's that's a whole lot different than other places on the male human body so i mean that that that sounds more their hands and touching that area of your body but you mentioned they did feel it it seems like there's some different versions of what she did say one is that she woke up after it was happening or simultaneously when it was happening and the others that she actually felt i mean i think that the defendant characterization is that testimony were that her hands were above her head and actually the fact that she was asleep you don't mistake somebody touching your bridge i know this was a true magic violation this is it like when you you know get the date wrong when you're writing chatter you know mis understand and to claim that she misunderstood what was happening to her is just so widely and reasonable the reasonable doubt it was up to the jury to decide version of events it believes and it believes the victim had met its burden so for those
didn't understand that you don't have to have some paper technical scientific formula for trades i think you can see that from his work he thinks that this was too generic he cited efficiency you're seeing there a picture of caterpillar cars for sure but it's a picture of how to create how unskilled laborers can take these parts piece them together in a fast because what would happen is that over time the model might change a little bit but that really wouldn't impact necessarily the braking system of the assemblies that they were building there maybe a hose moved here or screwed here people on site they're watching what you're doing it's not being kept secret even though you work for a different company you're watching what's going on and learning correct there are factors that might have been true in this if they wanted to maintain this information to keep it secret were they out looking to the take some steps at this point in time to intervene and prevent kids feel like getting information but i think it's important to remember too that during th but it doesn't speak to the issue here on appeal or in this case and so when the objective again was our contracts go away because the evidence the undisputed evidence their e mails show we're now willingly turning over process the best the think you know with general principles that the count conceded don't constitute a trade secret there is nothing but more your argument on this point there is no evidence of a process they say they can you know perform this process whether you're a huge corporation or a small family business but here actually not so when we're talking about what steps are taken to keep these things secret the why actually says you look at small corporations differently than work corporations  not technical data information and better productive than their own workers so workers the unskilled labor that they would use had to have some way to do this and that's where they get to go this is the best to do this let's put these materials and others so that
enough to do dress briefly here in effect of assistance argument m and my question on this is you say concert promise something and opening statements that she didn't later to let her and this is obviously devastating for the defendant's case and so we should assume that she didn't speak to these people and she made a promise to the jury as to what they would say not knowing what they would say that's the assumption made would she did she do properly and i see these four witnesses were not disclosed by the state is what these witnesses are going to tell you and then the witnesses take the stand and said i never said that i never i don't remember even being at the police station i certainly didn't give them a written statement and so i mean it happens to the state all the time why would we assume that this is what happened to defense counsel these witnesses told her and i thought it was her that they saw the shooter's face and it wasn't that guy sitting there counsel table and when they got on the stand they thought happened and this is just piling on doubling up coming like your base is making sure that you get this planet in the jury's mind counsel doesn't produce all the witnesses you promises but you don't want us to believe that the jury is left wondering why he killed these this guy this way surely you don't you don't want us to believe that the motive
adjacent business or the employers employees the park and other allied with the consent of the adjacent business and there's some set get a limitations on who can park there this is an agreement entered into between both adjacent businesses that's is providing the parking lot for because they didn't own the parking lot so your definition within that definition is making the arrangement for the employees to park there is in the legal sense providing the ace customers specifically employer the employees of this employee could park a nice property is that the provision of parking could they require ace to allow them to park here no no may said there was liability there because it was specifically provided a certain number of spaces designated for the employees but i had difficulty with the concept of building an scary that's exactly what we said roldan inquiries were the employer maintains and provides a lot for the in poor we decided th
during the scope of the case and was then faced with what do we do after the fact i believe the day was also forced with something that happened during the case motion file after more than thirty cases that deal with contempt which is essentially will say the issue here was a violation of the courts and where there are all these due process procedures laid out which the traffic here circumvented process it is pretty also how i don't know why everybody else might go down a different route they did it i think it's a little unfair to send it back basically to remediate they're zation reveal her identity in motion knew there was going to be protected information confidential maintained that way that's the only reason she agreed to separate deposition because she had the protection of that order so did for discovery the invitation to surrender into nineteen orders after jurisdiction is otherwise lost i think is in a way it's he's creating a red herring of the earth so it's far as in general premise of inherent authority
of raising a child from birth all the way through the age of eighteen and maybe even college we did that intentionally because we recognize that there are these limitations in the law not only in this jurisdiction but many others as re becoming parents especially when you're not ready to do so for support a child this case is also a breach of contract she bargained for a lot of medical device that she never received she paid for a procedure that demonstrates shared by this as a disparate impact on women but this court to district court need to agree with us on all of those grounds in order to find that the statute as it had been applied  strings by the mother during pregnancy and pain and suffering associated to pregnancy if it's a sterilization procedure because you seem to be saying sterilization procedures are not you can always so we just we think this strict scrutiny for the first time absolutely does need to be so that is potentially a constitutional claim precluded in every way and every form of damage that a district court recognized that states within the constitution and not legislation that affects common law causes of action including to limit those causes of action or to abrogate them all together access equal protection substantive due process the approach the district court was to determine first what the main statute does and what it means and the district interfere with fundamental rights it actually could do with those limitations that you might think we're through with a fundamental right because it might interfere with the people to procreate if they thought they could never on a medical doctor without private parties after the fact they are still not affecting fundamental rights and you are still on the basis of rational basis review that's that's the difference your honor and that's the analysis that this district court applied below different policy choices some have accepted sterilization contraception some have limited damages in a similar way that made us when it comes to failed jewish procedures but each of those times that those or some rights interests that seem to impact women much more substantially than they impact men i understand the question on the first part of the question regarding  those cases it's withdraw  plenty of other statutes worker's compensation in iraq leave the already in place and therefore rational basis review is appropriate here we have a very different situation and even the district court damages were allowed that plaintiffs in that case it just wasn't images for the birth of a healthy child so she was still able to recover for say two hours a secret for example and the things to take this case upheld yes we think that it is it is entirely unconstitutional to have no damages available whatsoever in a perfect world we would get all the damages as  massachusetts you are allowed to recover or ask a jury to award whatever they think is appropriate that would be our our wish but we understand that it may be reasonable to limit the damages and we don't contest i do want to point out as
very clearly that's what the court was focusing on here a little bit different not a console resident and therefore looking at the case law that is there is there is support for the notion that  thirteen twenty two b two because loosely thirteen twenty five the five has absolutely no right to modification and i think the court twenty two the just five years is a matter of fact this court has held the same thing in the bars case in that case they try to do the same thing they tried to paint make the payments over nineteen years in the ninth circuit t if you had a very high interest loans and the interest rates were so attractive that it would make sense to pay it over five years
brief concerning the surveillance video first the state argues in this brief that the surveillance video shows missile brian ticking before the bag to the cashier's counter and placing it out of the cashier's reach shopper missile prize position is intending to pay for multiple items with a full value of ninety dollars and is expecting to receive a sixty five percent off discount she also only answered that she has trouble with her eyesight she couldn't see very well and she perhaps didn't notice the hole that sitting on the couch those answers would be responsive and perfectly reasonable to such questions as did you take a look at the review obviously counsel i had you the same video and we reached contrary conclusions as to what inferences can be drawn from the defendant's actions fortunately as the judge has indicated you have a copy of the video and i encourage counsel stated that bag is not it there's a whole slip stapled to the front of it if also this is a longer decorative coral that she obviously determines she's going to buy she takes these items to cashiers register and there's a large counter up at the slightly obstructing from the cashier's perspective by a cash register and buying merchandise that is on the defendant's side of the cash register and throughout the entire notion of the financier actually she doesn't address this bag that she's place there she l were the only excuse but it was one of a series of excuses that the defendant provided and because she provided multiple excuses that could have caused the jury to infer that she lacked credibility or that she was lying and then  concealing of the bag the bag was concealed at some point below that we don't know exactly what second that occurred because as the just a stated there was some obstruction there but it was clear that before the phone x in the store she was following the bag below the perhaps there was some other context that they were involved with the defendant i'm not going to speculate because that would be improper but there were other possible difference is it was well as evidence of the video so he tried to minimalize that and it appears the importance of those three words and also that scene had nothing to do with his ultimate trial strategy it's clear from the evidence that this was a two pronged attack by that to prove that there was
maintenance and the responsibility of the party to the minor child to participate in helping maintain and i'll keep the horses in order to keep those costs down so i think any objection to the hearing and again they are the facts are pretty clear but i believe that there were three full days of finally hearing that spanned over two years still and it was there were a year between the actual first day of hearing  i asked about whether that matter had been resolved is the court made some comment about well that's in your financials i can read that was a related to the disposition that was related to submitted from a couple years prior but i would say that the market fluctuates quite a bit and this the homes sold two thousand and three and i think the the market will dictate the sale price or the price of the
to the doctor by he asked lee and she was supposed to have received the entire medical record is her position that she did not receive it and she had to go out and get the other half of the record but prior to the final day of the trial she history of this and it was an ongoing issue however upon receiving the entire medical records all of the records that were missing showing just three of diaper at each and every single one of those visits that were not disclosed initially contain evidence of that  doctor and interim exactly what the facts of the situation failed to adhere to those requirements and of course should have ruled that i should have barred any of these witnesses from testifying first and foremost there was a surprise not only were we surprised at the witnesses that were tested by the indians that were allowed to sure the testimonies all seem to be considered of the nature of the testimony on all witnesses presented by the response was just in the sponsor to the questions and the testimony of the petitioner there was nothing prison outside of w question as to rule sixty three specifically find it interesting that there wasn't any time to make an objection objection wasn't made until after the ruling of the core of the trial court record that is correct that is correct however
are not allowed the plant is parents to see recovery of their expenses and is it that intent of the statute to determine the actual damages sustain it is not clear the statute whether a third himself or herself i have to agree and i'm given an opportunity to explain myself outside of my  case that the parents say they use their credit card to buy the services or goods let's say one of the ten thousand dollars in her bank account and said that we and they have spent money we need to trace the source of that money and they can bring a positive action if it's earning money or maybe they sold something that they'd previously own but they could not have a course of to get my status quo remains and that's well said with every so if i'd gotten the gift put it in the bag and had set in there i look at my bank statement every month that it's got ten thousand dollars and then i buy goods and services and it's this act shall become affective on january first nineteen forty eight we sit here sixty six years later talking about the intent of the statute we asked
diagnosis this the commission adopted the opinion of dr graph and in terms of the doctor pressed opinions more closely mirrored the evidence in the record the problem is that dr kraft did not have all the relevant medical wetlands particularly since day one the employer has never addressed the issue as to why dr graf never reviewed these records and since day one the employer is never addressed the case on hand good one step further not physical therapy she was a vision in which she was able to completely work condition for him she was able to return to work without restrictions once the diagnosis falls into place once the medical is falls into place everything else will fall into place in regard to diagnosis and complaints from really the left ankle pain it is clearly not a big back injury they did not emphasize a lower back injury the assessment was primarily ankle sprains last contusion and then there is a reference to a co to mention that on those two days going forward again on august third two thousand and other three your doctor call on her assessment was that this was a long bar strain of work it was back pain from kidney stones again this is another objective diagnostic test lineup or as far as i'm concerned every single diagnostic test that supports the decision denying their claims that there was initially ok after we've gone through the treatment dr engle the triggers diagnosis as he goes on he continues to use the diagnosis herniated disc all the way to the end so even one by the time she gets a functional capacity evaluation he's calling this a herniated disk diagnosis when he g based on that earlier diagnosis except for the fact of putting sounds more definitive and significant on dr randall testified he agreed that there are only ten percent of low back he says involve this is  this great diagnosis of lumbar for says syndrome so that's a very small amount and then he he admitted that this it would be even less likely in her case due to the clinical findings will we make of this she didn't say that she had it but it was not a want to go ahead and do it in a place and maybe another important fact is that she then had another another one of these blocks perhaps several weeks later  next day complaining of low back pain with radiation going down the legs one thing is very clear counts of trying to avoid it as much as possible only when a boy or dog will tend to doctor react and not meet the diagnostic test and the injections which we
even before the navy's my sign an allotment application or immediately thereafter they're holding a lien trust and just many of them because there's nobody there to write