MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
after events a third party tortfeasor or in this case i would have and provided the analogy the employer in this case should not get the benefit of a plan that mr hopkins and mrs hawkins had paid for through her husband's insurance someone here is going to get a benefit of the bargain in the wall help principle and eleanore you as the the tortfeasor in the civil case doesn't get that benefit here the statute makes it clear that the employer doesn't get that applications of the bill passed to be awarded i agree and i guess it's a judicial admission i mean they did pay the fifty thousand hours in this case they didn't put proof of payment and i know that it was made because it can have been done and that one want her to go to that doctor should it be mrs hawkins who paid for this other plan or should it be the employer here being able to pop shift their obligation in this case that they really didn't dispute to her husband's that i mean i think that the purpose there is to try and encourage people or about people to get access to health care so they're making it so far for proof they've gotten the statute in that situation to should have and this is by talk about the common five doctors and essence they got prospered reduced their amount by a third which normally i would have done because the bill would have been awarded and i would have died of blue cross blue shield because they had a  obligation with ross they put that blue cross can reap the benefit of getting paid back without paying their portion of the legal fees then i would have paid them two thirds of that amount which would have been about fifty thousand dollars so the claim are that way then doesn't it shift who is there where is the evidence that it's not reasonable they're saying it's in dispute what evidence doesn't the partnership spente you to dispute the reason was by some type of evidence in this case to have individual help farmers and their bills pay it is not the system encourages people to engage in location to get an extra turn a series that was what you're talking about here between part system of the new system so you're saying and that's the standard when you consider the fundamental underlying purposes of the act and public policy reasons weighed against giving for the with exactly as you're saying that's reflected in modify that benefit of cautious in their costs to blue cross blue shield or a plan that they didn't even pay for not yours we pay for your responsible for no right but the credit portion for payments every power is governed by section a j watch which talks about how that works if it's if it was hopkins health insurance they have a stout home and they is through the corollary part of section eight which is a j one that provides for that someone here is getting that benefit and the question is and insurance companies trying to correct her to a doctor because this guy hasn't done it before and go the same less for a plan they didn't tribute to or is it going to be mrs hopkins who is fortunate enough to have another insurance plan so she can get that treatment there so i think that the statutes are clear on this
wissam county police officers absolutely positively gave the defendant fresh miranda warnings before they spoke to him defendant says in the requiring that the state is wrong and health well let me quote says this the most in fact important factor or a straight flush or stated the crucial thing i
representative gerald solomon
that's good what i know he got a look at the man who knocked him some food i hope you choke on it but i haven't done anything to you right because you have tried to take my johnny from me that's right i don't run here johnny
would you like a cup of tea to some food i hope you choke on me but i haven't done anything to you right because you have tried to take my johnny from me that's why i don't  find my friend you know it's kind of very well thank you
your girlfriend's  words i'm going to do a handful of originals for you guys and these are going to be newly released soon this st one is my next of coming song it's called the dealer and it has absolutely nothing to do with your exit it's very primitive to your you know you don't get  you know so thank you so much this is my last song is the st song that i wrote by myself that kind of made me start to write some solo stuff it sounds like i'm talking to somebody else to but
pants get your he won't mind he's out now piling up sandbags a beer and go back to sleep what do you want to do wake up the whole house take whenever i want to do some like someone everyone looks like someone going down the river when i come with  when i get on the chance to see the river overthrown pretty exciting good night and don't get out of bed until only you keep an eye on him look you'll be all right how can you keep an eye on me if you're asleep  anyway you know i was my mother knew i wouldn't get my loans for six months and you don't want them to know i don't like be just wondering that many people comic labored and you were the only stranger any person who knew around here so i want to say my are what make any difference anyway if you were the fine but i was not allowed to travel on trying i like to watch them but not right i don't even know where the station lands yeah knowing there's nothing wrong with being there and that's the someone like my mother who doesn't want you to go first when we saw  wait for me nice to meet your don't let i'll give them a good talking to just like a big brother make sure you s your mother is on the warpath nothing new just thought i'd tell you i think about it hard for a while what have i done now holy cow she's always after me for something she'll calm down but maybe like it don't do it so all but you know lots of places we could have more fun than sitting here twiddling your fingers here i knew a lot of places down by the river i rode tracks of the park i sure would like to ship cat play danding up doesn't count it's the part that loses i have a short memory sometimes i lose the next time the wind sort of balances the books you know you've been in the dark less than a full day i've been here two and a half years question which one of us is more anxious to leave you me both of you know i tried working on i've been doing some thinking without even trying you better do some thinking to you know i'm going to mark suspicious them home where i'm small town and you did something and i think i know what it is all my life i've been attracted to the wrong kind of guy they're thinking of leaving forget it i'm going to stay right here and play but for the time from me no one saw you get on  what's going on in your mind but you can't touch him to hear some women get with their look but you can't kill a kid you're pretty off you're even too bad for me i don't know what you're planning to do but i
in the bed man that worry me something anything i can do no thank you i'm willing to help your father the gambling debts are something the women don't understand i understand all right you want this ranch for some reason and you're doing everything you can get it yes we were having a little proble he owns the valley range and wants me to settle to him he had some mysterious reason for wanting this thought there was something wrong you stand at the door like that i'm sure now and this is a man who killed my uncle
capability is gone because of their mistake in the claims adjustor had known that there was an eighty percent actual cash value rule and that was the lowest amount that the preview for the calculation for three months occurred because of the state of issuance today of fire you charge two thousand dollars for three months of coverage of three hundred thousand when you charge two thousand dollars current for twelve months of don't have the opportunity for  is this not account for the thirty five hundred feet which is now very much in twenty eight thousand she has ten thousand square feet or fourteen he is going to make that thirty five hundred he didn't realize was the basement and corrected it on the stand there's still more than two hundred thousand dollars worth of damage for two buildings here and he's right each one was worth one point two the second building was heavily damaged as well and when you look at how they calculate the damage they're basically saying we're paying actual cash value for the one building the other building was damaged as well and it gets november they knew the amount you were going to pay in os they say they communicated in october and any changes you look at the record she made changes she upped the amount four thousand dollars two months later and all the time bought it is this giving
prefer not to discuss what we do public
are you going oh so me for the moment that we this agree with your claim that your party is of the ministry of review well my understanding possibly it's incorrect what you just said well but i thought you just were telling us they were considered because you total up you provided this information you provided a you're wrong at this here's what i do you know why isn't a point that if they file the co actor they thought it was a good idea for those circumstances have parties like mine is here standing that when they drafted the surface mining act they could have followed it they here is the question i want you to address why don't we have the same provision in the surface mining here granting your client's hearty status that we have in the coal that they could have done that they didn't do it you heard the argument from miss manning there's a reason for we have to tribute reasons legislative action or inaction in this case she says it's because they
interest let me know commissioners or members of the i'm sorry what did i do wrong so why was there no concern at this point i will stay on this this a really do rest with this whole transportation issue we live we observe that introspection almost on a daily basis and it's becoming more and more of a concern even if it's even in its current form because we constantly see a speed limits violated for sure you see the congestion and so i understand this is an issue that needs to be resolved for discussion one of the solutions that i would other concern i have is that is the population that lives in that immediate area we house fairly significant senior citizen base they have significant limits on the options that are available to them so walkways are terribly important protect and to assure that there are safe crossings honest as we've looked at that empty spot over the last year and a  half what i was in vision and was certainly going to propose and that's part of the discussion on the town center development is really looking at that plot of land as a possible park and recreation recreation i mean it's a very sordid history and the town actually required me to put that interest drive where it's presently located i had located on my property previous to that and they wanted to square up the intersection so i've been dealing with this for twenty nine years crossing over the post office property i would like to clear up because i you know i i want to have the ability to get onto my property as well as fourteen tenants in my building and actually but i you know i've worked with the post office i work with them two years spent a lot of money trying to get to use my back in eighty nine and and ninety and that never happened and now we've actually gotten a little step closer because we're now we're
that they said you were recalled because of a conviction for battery and i recall a miller case i still cynically and i could be wrong but my understanding was that he was  because he would say i don't and i say please ted because of the indicated for the fallacy is the reason why they had revoked him but he had also been charged with a domestic battery but nowhere in the  letter of denial recreation through the illinois state police that the illinois state police have the language indicating the domestic battery or these were the opinion talk about  domestic battery and talked about here they had also looked at the time that my quorum had applied for its way card that there was nothing in the boy card act that prevented the circuit where from grant him relief under the section tax load that that's probably the question if we go  me so i guess you know you are an opinion kind of leads that door open in my opinion as to who should make the determination of whether or not there is a violation under the federal  so in this case if you're going under twenty eleven then does that does the relief granted these are you friends contrary to federal law and leavin it is because  be crime contrary to federal law so it really isn't an us and it is not there are two different sections i guess where i was referring to was a bit eight and a little bit more on the lines bias under federal law so so there really isn't a disconnect there it's a it's a more inclusive definition of the federal off that could simple battery and that was actually kind of the point i was going to card upon the charge or is here to be so apartments in basted just just upon the condition itself which was for misdemeanor battery and it's a specified list of of
said the first time that i mean what you're saying is this issue of turning off the insulin pump and all that had nothing to do with the child being taken it initially i don't know ok i'm not aware stood trial that doesn't work here because of the trial not being you know being tried for the time period from after the crime up until the time the trial here it is this exactly what he's looking at the we know what happened in order to reach the determination that factually the defendant in this case expected to get privacy from that conversation is it doesn't the trial could have to dr
in in his opinion that there were indications based on a range of as a scale a range of opinions that go from a certain to zero uncertain particular opinion that's contained in his two thirty disclosure back be the question for the court is what was reasonable at the time of the filing of that co know a good lawyer is not going to file a complaint after he retains an expert without having the papers to protect them so what do you say i am i say i say substance of his opinion was what the basis of this opinion was whether the degree of certainty that his opinion was it was only in this in his cross examination at the deposition that the may have sage clearly yet to you know for our position indicates and abuse of discretion of a decision that does not logically follow from the facts presented interesting way the defendant that reason we think that on the sanction should be vacated and that caused that reverse the appeal of the story the ruling reverse unit another basis another principle basis upon which the court or for which the court should reverse these orders is is that there was simply no evidence  in the objective untrue pleading point then there were it was as it was drafted by the defendant's counsel there was a s l written finding in there a conclusory finding such as prayers for the improper purpose that language was explicitly stricken by the court after a discussion about language in there or again several weeks later at the hearing there was a it was a hearing related to the same amounts so there is a fee petition it was a hearing on the amount there was a ruling with respect to the amount  quick then also entered in addition to a handwritten order related to that to the amount to see that there was a typewritten order that the court had previously prepared which then rehearing based or to support the entry of a finding all fit improper purpose that the one rule that thirty seven sanction was entered because it was the keating was i would like to to aat disagree respectfully with as a counsel when he says that the ruling and summary judgment was simply cleaning up the record that is not the case this and passed away about ten days later and it was clear that point that he would not he was so sick that he would not be able to participate in the trial and so
sold the bar with because of the deposition it can indeed taken there was no deposition in this matter phil was not taken so at the default hearing it was and there was also on an order saying the guy couldn't individually and the court did take into consideration documentation and he knows and in the discovery because i will run the panel that mr dyson did respond to my discovery all the depositions would have to be rescheduled because the bar owner prevented or allow talk all parties to proceed without any more work to tional discovery sapporo court can do it here see that's what i don't know if it's really involved thousand months ahead of time and that and then the individual did nothing or the turning communicate that with them for six or ten or eight months if you look at all that compared to cases that pointed out more briefly that's not the situation but it's not the would agree with the position taken by a trial court and i think while there are issues raised by the justices as to whether our trial judge got it right but as long as no reasonable person would have taken her position then this court needs to affirm he spent a lot of time to get before you however there's nothing that's going to preclude lions number from continuing to pursue mr johnson as entities and a pain a judgment allowing my clients their property in court and that's all we've been asking for and the trial judge agreed that we have a right to have that and that we did satisfied it and to dash fourteen zero one and that's what we're requesting i think we can say with the due diligence when we did find out i was hired trial court's decision to stand really rewards the defendant for their corpus for the lead if you look at the record very e mails back and forth between the defense counsel and the defendant where they simply say we'll just basically put our head down and stall meant in the absence of either ambiguity or fraud or for the reason you just don't get to do it that's what i was taught that you're not allowed to pick up the document that you side and say well gee whiz this really the trial was that i meant to side especially when we
been remedies asked for this this is different than it was planned and you know i would like to continue the case the bench trial to allow for whatever need to be done but i was
didn't thing which between them is claim sixteen representative his claim eighteen representative and the government said they were good together and without distinction and they stand involved again how do you to try and figure out how to reach this level of modernization once the product is cured just because something in a powder form might be a modulus and that's not even clear from the sucker p two on page or some thirty of the appendix if the government relies heavily on the statement with that the such as external added particles which are usually president on the surface of the powder composition it complaint although it cuts both ways i guess if you're saying the boy did should have and did not construe dispersed homogeneity throughout right correct your complaint did you offer what you can claim conjunction for that term for that blending is a process which can have a number of and results it can be lightly blended or are strongly blended for example so if you can i s solid solution you might mix some type but you have to mix it sufficiently for the dyed to be spurs throughout that the powder in order in order to ultimately have a they baked product of the or the right color to just use the word or you just use the word mix for what i think yes it describing claim i'm not making that up i'm apologize if i was unclear on that i'm not saying that that's part of the the claim of saying i was using that to describe different different types of lending that might not and the claim descried through that describes how do you keep it the result of being dispersed homogenously throughout it tells you how to get there not just that you get there yes and so to wrap up it important issues like i said is is the fact that it is that in or if you want follows soccer p a claim construction what was the back and forth on claim construction it would say after all my reading of the record didn't pass i don't recall seeing any request for a claim construction there was discussion of lending was misconstrued i don't know that there was any and there were dictionary don't you get them excited different than a construct right but there was i don't recall seeing any construction proposed for that claim terms or the terms in the prior so i think that the claim construction issue hasn't really been raised at the border even here  so it seems a little bit of a red herring thank you thank you  this i mean where's it say that
to do i the we have the most ardent gestating in effect provide a sufficient basis to show that there was probable cause and there will be charming should be render in a criminal proceeding where evidence was presented to the grand jury but it is the prosecution that solely makes the present tension to the grand jury and there is a significan if you allow testimony in we know from this case because there is very limited areas of testimony these are allegations regarding hand in hand transactions then every piece every answer if you will provided subject to interpretation and opinion however certain jesting was not the case officer on the case he was not the officer to monitor the cia in fact he had no almost no interaction with the c under oath before the grangers who did not have knowledge of the prior criminal background of this defendant or the fact that he was paid almost four thousand dollars to do this or the fact that we are ultimately learned that he was retaining drugs jury the state brought all of this alibi asking the question in the grand jury about trustworthiness reliability and by having certain chesty in there the answer that he gave was without qualification is trustworthy  that's why i think it's critical that there be some safeguards for defendants in this situation and that's why i think the trial for correctly ruled that there were too prejudicial due process malicious to talk about what standard review i think