MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
wasn't his statement when when asked how did that affect the outcome it appears case wasn't it it's hard to be certain but one would hope that had there been better communication better attitude and better sharing of records that he could have been diagnosed earlier in treated or is that enough he's why is that enough because that seems too long for even short of saying it was a possibility or probability what i hearken back to is quite a number of years ago the to this that's how we got so necessary now we have a relatively obtuse word with respect to causation opinions because idea to have barriers to communication in any situation involving hero patient and it's not just specifically a barrier but it's an attitude of you know we don't share records we don't communicate well across the organisation and i think that's all tribute towards that medical care hurt experts and expertise to say that had policies not been in place that based on their review of records or view of the evidence in the case that they can say with a reasonable degree of medical certainty a different outcome  that gets to the additional part of the expert deposition was that the evidence that was actually asked for was that throughout on cross examination the doctor should minute that he and not reviewed the medical records that were at issue in this case  he said that numerous times that he had to review the records so he is only able to say what record that would have been seen that would have changed the treatment that was given to christopher rivera without being able to know what the records are there issue in this case he can't state that the outcome would have been any different he just cannot establish causation even if this opinion rose to reason with real medical certainty he doesn't have the foundation of presented he doesn't not required an expert is not required in an institution to show negligence klein in the cases that he cites it does state that an expert's not required but that's one standard of care on the elevator proximate cause jury that here is the cause of the injury and without that the jury can infer from other testimony other evidence what the standard of care may or may not pay but they can't determine what was a shame because you're dealing with whether our hospitals statue that there could have been an interference with the doctors will be to determine care however on remains you know the court did not strike did not grant summary judgment standard care granted on proximate cause in medical practice and the way it was bad failure for your communication led to the late diagnosis i believe it was i mean that goes to the standard of care i believe he's giving an opinion he's houses shouldn't be in staff on policy in order to make that case with reference to
administration abandoned and there was a reason why they did any other members seeking recognition
during the years when the st railroad being built in the west the country was wild and lawless both indians and renegades attacked the construction crews and the great task might never have been accomplished if it had not been for the mass driver of the place his great strength the curtain falls on the st act about a lone ranger story before the next exciting  it tell me what should we read way out here if we aren't going to they are gone off not just you and me all we have to do is have a few rails at the top a lookout hill i'll get it so just keep your shirt on i'll tell you it's six o'clock this morning writing the thing ross on the train stopped on lookout hill he'll stop the st bullet it's got to be that way you'll be in the past your coach and the boys will have to get him before they go after the crew i don't like it's a man against war i didn't think take good care now
was terminated discharge even less than a year later but the letter goes all over specifically says that his one year supervisor probationary period is retroactive effect for one year in the prior service c the computer generated there are whoever did it whether it was a data entry person whether it was a contractor with t s a we don't know that's the problem we don't know what they were told and your question was where's this conversion letter compared to this data question is what did the agency in ten at that point the we know that there's a data entry clerk entering excepted service but that i can that was referred to  clear it makes it a total conversion to competitive service the problem with the case was it was dismissed i was never given any scuffs i don't know what they mean by that if i were given the
probably at least two different time types of pick their court judgments one be a declaratory judgment where it is clear that declaratory judgment should be rendered to one party as opposed to the other and then a different type would be a declaratory judgment were isn't so clear and it could go reasonably either way and the judge decides one way or the other and then  it is it is the do this is that true because if you go on is that true plaintiff wins because that's the standard that some of you don't have to decide whether there's coverage of this case or not you really have to decide whether certainly aggressive when it gets trying to both there is not any exclusion in the policy in fact i have heard of animals is not mentioned in the entirety of the policy anywhere except for the fact that it provides coverage so there is no
mitigating circumstance so mitigating circumstances surrounding the a fat such at unusual job had to personality that state but in this case there were no none of those mitigating circumstances in connection with your client having been found to have made the statement you're talking about bad faith that might have been demonstrated when somebody decided to t problems and you get fired for that then it might be mitigation if there's a history of clash of personalities and so forth but in this case you're asking us to take factors back that are completely separate  from the offense here for which he received the penalty and sort of factor those that i mean what are we i'm accused of you know destroying massive amounts of property there's no question but you know some provider happens to hate me for very ridiculous reasons and he turned me in because of that and i really think if he had really liked me he wouldn't attorney and why is that relevant to whether or not i'll be fired for what i did because  in the case of a mere statement there's a paragraph in her at page a fifteen which doesn't talk about years of service whatever it seems to really represent to the fact that she did not tell him to cut it out that she was not intimidated by him she had no reason to be afraid of him and then he goes on to say i know that she did not expect any desire to have him disciplined and she would not did not report him to well i learned she expected coming out of that ha considered those for these charges or whether the complaint in this yourself was made to something not because the credibility of whether something in fact did happen but as to whether the total itself is appropriate i don't think that enters into the part of others involved in the matter would judge type hypothetical constitutes that safe on behalf of others involved in this matter you're referring to i'm afraid to factor eleven on douglas why is that appl service and decided instead that a demotion was appropriate petition suggestion really is that there's a more reasonable well that's not the standard a standard is whether the penalty of demotion falls although the bounds of reason and i think given the specifications in charge i don't have to be much to speak to that they're very serious charges mr van was a supervisor and in that case it was some sort of the motion to a scrap position was a per about the demotion here it was i think i read somewhere it was to a part time clerk decision so it's not just a downgrade in terms of level but it's also the difference between a for profit a part time position is that correct w it in regards to petitioners argument the penalty wasn't reasonable i would submit your honor that the facts here were in fact sufficient for removal but it was only because the system here worked
that the trial court properly instructed the jury it was already deliberating you know not the murder of the individual but it did he prove his defense that he has subjective belief that he was justified in the murder  considering that he testified that he acted in the manner anyone would in that situation and the jury's didn't believe him and given all the facts that he testified to use activities that he was doing after the murder you know when we picked up who we picked up when he was doing all those facts showed someone who was not conducting as well conducting but who had a subjective belief that they were justified but someone who as he said to the pro office was out  had a tumultuous child and bounced around from home to home but his mother and in a number of different school district had an experience of violence in the home his father had in our criminal history  promised his mother don't worry he won't get in trouble i'll be looking out for him instead they spent the weekend with her twenty two year old boyfriend and his sister drinking and using drugs and when he read the money  and it is it is not within our rabbit there's nowhere still basis for doing so and for no reason at minimum this should be returned to the trial court for additional and rejected in his first post conviction petition so clearly that that issue is not properly before the court and there was also extensive discussion on improper admonishments there's no reason why i don't i'm not sure if that was specifically trial court tonight we have to file the success of post conviction petition defendant has the burden of establishment carson prejudice at that point the trial court correctly found no it doesn't apply to this thirty five year sentence which is the only way
seventy years that same judge in rejecting his plea here communicated very clearly her preexisting view of the merits that trial proceedings were filled with errors from the beginning to the end starting with the jury selection and go all the way through closing argument we have raised many different quite substantive errors in our research and it's not possible to cover all i selected a few that i intend to focus as an offshoot of course i represented then i represent now he did not know what he was going to say when we called him to the senate so we call him to the stand and mr hyde as you can see from the transcript was permitted we were printed prepared to ask  say this is a situation where he gave testimony that directly contradicted the substantive evidence from this did she could have been previously admitted so there had been affirmative damage there this distinguishes the case because in those cases the proponent can always call a witness hoping to get something and the witness gave neutral testimony for example and introduced case of the state called to try and sas relationship between the two other affirmative damaged rule was clearly satisfied and there was a clear offer of proof it was plain error not to admit that it was also highly prejudicial the state argues that it's cumulative i that i had my my head scratching were situated here for all this was plain and simple there was highly highly prejudicial stepping back from all the technical arguments for the i think that the spirit motivates chambers and then cru i'm not sure i mean isn't it her own your obligation with an offer of proof to show here's the witness if called think they would testify to x y and z because they told the prime minister peter and given the nature of the testimony the sort of spin really that there was a statement by a witness and the argument was the state wanted to bring in a prior inconsistent statement and that the supreme court said no you can't holds all sorts of things and you know there's a defense a defense argument that in fact all that was in regard to or in relation to the questions that were that were given to him you know sort of leading questions which brought him to where he sat but there i really went through and only set forth what he stabbed which did not come from any type of questioning that suggested a response and in it we still have the defendant was in it went into this the i believe it contains the months in two thousand and one where these were made and so the issue is whether the court can and whether that's enough information given corroboration given that he was available for cross examination given that they were very that the the perspective that it's only the state that has a case may in fact be true in most cases as you know many criminal appeals reacher where there was an alternative case being put on the state which is being held to a reasonable doubt could
dealing with completely related case the same incident identical circumstances that maybe we have to run for sinners who are involved in the same fight two officers who were in power and then as you mentioned before the same photograph and this is the kind of situations where if
hearing but because during after a full sentencing hearing the court decided on each plants and the twelve years as it actually is consistent with the other in this case the two harms were we all participate in what we're doing which is taking this truck and taking these delivery men with us who are don't do this and we are going to come looking for your the evidence suggest that because the delivery men were plying with everything that they were being demanded that they wouldn't be harmed so that's exactly the situation that mr gibson was at it is this long as i go along with this nothing bad is going to happen to my family when the delivery man didn't really have a choice once they were accosted but didn't distributes and have opportunities when he wasn't under observation where he could have done something as simple as make a phone call and tell his family get out of the house figure and whether or not there was an opportunity to you know to notify somebody else i mean i think that doesn't necessarily preclude the instruction to be given to the jury and the jury determines whether or not there was an opportunity to get really looking for instance light evidence to support the tendering of the instruction to the jury but is why he didn't run away in the first instance and you get tired of looking at the evidence the crimes of bobby aggravated kidnapping and armed robbery are really committed in our in those first dark moments of when the crime was unfolding so everything that he did was once it wasn't hard driving back in chicago or you know trying to get back to his home that kind of already happened after the crime were arguably committed so and when they were committed he was operating under the the threat that if i don't do this they're going to come after my family was doing that makes it even more why didn't he once the robbery i didn't tell you because i knew you wouldn't go along with this so you know he he knew that he didn't want to have any part of it so he had you know if they needed another driver whatever they needed him for it we had to do that by tricking him following the orders of wilson who were and had no control over what they were going to do and secondly that you know he had this belief that he had to do this or else his family would be harmed now when i was a recent movie really wasn't up to the trial court that arming against them against them even revisiting the issue they never got sued whether the judgment was ok or not ok they came in and said sorry we don't know what they said but they came and they argued against that and so with the court the supreme court sa purpose and why you have to have it because the point is something investment is a theory is a very limited it's very limited is there to allow the trial court to resolve an issue where the parties go you know we have a problem here there was responding to their argument right shooting the judge you don't have jurisdiction and then come in and said judge will let me have nothing to say any more about this maybe it would be the ideal situation but
whether there is evidence to support the point the circuit court improperly relied on the fact that the perpetrator is a better position to assess credibility he found the commission could not make a determin exercises original not appellate jurisdiction and they are not bound by their peers by the supreme court in kirkwood versus the industrial commission found that it's a province of the commission to assess credibility of witnesses resolve conflicts in the evidence and assigned weight the commission was if the defendant was credible and then any inconsistency is for minor not enough credibility and not enough to deny the station this is clearly supported by the record i'm not going to go into detail about all  the plaintiff's own witnesses actually confirm the defendant's claim of accident they testified that that is how old that therefore there is no evidence of any other accident there is no evidence of any accident that specific medical opinion is not necessary to find causation if there is a history of good help followed by an accident told by the need for treatment then the commission is properly within its bound to find that a causal connection occurs that is the case here there is no evidence of any prior knee injury of my client there is no evidence of anything wrong with his knee at any time as a matter of fact probably in june of two thousand and seven had to have surgery or corpsman assist in his mean therefore i think it's well within the bounds of the commission to determine that there has been puzzle connection and that that is not against the manifest weight of the evidence to find edified two coworkers he was working with that it's their records show that he was on drugs sixty one to two other people that and in fact the records we introduce show that in the four vegas around this time period he never worked with those and  and i think that that's more than the records he has witnesses didn't have an independent recollection of which from mr bryant worked on they only knew based on their airports and he very well could have been working client here to his knee on the second is the day of accident they testified that he used the phrase several weeks earlier or three weeks earlier and he then on that same since it was approximately a week and a half prior to filling out the accident report i think when a person says it happened a couple of weeks ago or several weeks ago they could easily have meant a week and a week and a half later he didn't put a specific date on it he's been consistent with that date ever since the day in regards to rain and whether it was raining he testified that it was a misty duty type of brain that's what he was referring to and i think the medical records of respondent clearly
innings thank you all they want to report and they've already noted that this will be in my last meeting i would like to take a moment to thank the community for giving me the opportunity to serve on this board for the last nine years it was sometimes a challenging experience sometimes rewarding but it certainly was one that i'll never forget thank you will be we actually have them all now in our possession it's just a matter of getting policy meetings  this just to know that the next meeting will be on wednesday of this week
but i think what what the district court was concerned about is ok maybe in theory you could appeal but bad in practice we've got hundreds of thousands of people who are sitting in jail without bond hearings and court ought to consider that particular circumstance and realize what this is a remedy that's exclusively reserved for him  o'donnell and it was not in the one case the court of appeals said that the city or county had waived the issue by not raising it in a timely fashion and any other it's not even mentioned and i think and twenty in which the district court on remand entered a conditional release order directing that prisoners would be released the photos a bond hearing individual lives bond hearing was not held within forty eight hours and the th  being well i think the problem with that is that the that to me walk us right back into the abstention problem because when it calls for a constant monitoring of the operations sheriff there is that allegation but i submit that that is also moved because the the new ruler mandates that the circuit court conduct the kind of individualized inquiry that everybody agrees is necessary  positively that there are not and but it's my understanding that of the current population in the st audi's virtually everyone would have had a hearing by now whether and this is another thing that came really you know has no power to change the procedures that are at the root of your your lawsuit and potentially in the situation of either being held in contempt by the state court judges who are denying an order by the federal will still be further proceedings and the district court can consider whether if in fact the judge is already in complying with the new rules and can make that showing that would be an equitable basis for it to consider in the issuance of a permanent injunction confidence that in a few weeks or in a few months they were ready to implement the new rule she asked about these very question she said when they were having issues with the implementation of the plenary injunction she said i don't understand what you have already put procedures in place because of the rules and they said no we don't actually have those procedures so your point i think this which i did think about those things and thought about those but ultimately decided that a permanent injunction was wanted for that reason that there were thousands of individuals who were being detained in violation of their constitutional rights and she going and in gerstein which again is the case on which we rely the beginning of the opinion that there are more radical other alternatives for someone who is challenging a probable cause hearing that could have filed her b s they could have brought a special probable cause hearing in thirty addressed the merits of that particular argument and the counter argument was made relaxed part young fails to appreciate the distinction here which is that the relief is being sought as an injunction against a warden ordering him to release these people so this issue of colliding with a
cheeseburger you know the bigger things and the way yeah whatever you your mom mad at you go get her fault would be well then it's not lame o i just dream of that stuff because i was dreaming of the training and how hard it is to become an office runner and first hand that is very true yeah that the workout they put you on now it's very tough to actually have one week work out yeah it's really tough i are you thinking from the heart and you're peters township a rivalry has developed between saint patrick who lives in the janitors closet and the creeper who lives in editor number five the two will settle their differences in the s patrick's day boxing match if you haven't already guessed my name is st patrick now you know i don't like a creeper month very much he always tries to he always tries to be sneaky and creepy and he pulled out my chair