MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
interestingly through and i find this perhaps equally as probably as many other portions of this case in the government's brief  government makes makes these lomas processors of the ship processors of the sugar used are supposed to pay this money to the producers of the sugar and they're supposed to pay back the money or give the sugar
one seven one six united states versus but that was emotional subject for him all of that is from the affidavit the government's proposal says that they did some preliminary questions about the family it doesn't say anything about the stuff that he suggests that course inventions that they took me to introduce him to the other evidence that he's been referring to here in the proceedings for example there's a suggestion that his mother might have had relevant information there was no suggestion when the government for ruling there was no attempt put in an affidavit from the mother or make a jury hears this confession i need to make a phone turns this determination right at the judge would have done that have been enough before the judge that he could have made that determination without having a hearing well  permission to add any additional information
to i would agree with that you are big issues come up several times it comes up and friendly could have an effect if this case is remembered because this is not a simple case where you have a related or a defender and the different standards and one  perform an excessive numbers of screening tests that because they could make so much money they they screen people who didn't need to be screened and then the third aspect was because of the excessive number of screens there were excessive confirmations and what the clear bill w first and doctors offices and been met by millenniums confirmation testing and millennium slams that most always the heart of the fraud the method of doing it might have changed go over this crime and we face absolutely because what kind of him gave rise millenniums going out there and getting doctors on board and this is how they're doing it today and they're doing it so that the serapis can me and it's going to get at fifteen percent right which is the question before the court but again it wouldn't have made a lot of sense for the government to intervene in a ca matter jurisdiction but to go back to a question that you asked my brother on some levels it doesn't matter it doesn't matter because judge gordon was given by the later years the that's what happened here mcguire and do it he filed a motion for reconsideration and he missed the thirty day deadline he claims sixty days but the government was no longer in the case and the government was never a party to the cross claim he had no idea that it cost him profile fraud was and involved your beat his case to be first to file had to include all of the essential facts all of the essential facts that would include if it's a standing order for the word standing order and
seizure arises from the textual content of the fourth amendment itself so because of well let me ask you this what do you think should be built into the statute they should have some kind of hearings to decide whether elian holder should  have the car or the owner should have the characters is that what you think should be built in here i think that the lienholder should have some requirement to intervene and make some indication that they are wreckers so that you've got somebody determination of people people repossess cars every day for various reasons one of them is nonpayment another reason would be that the car was taken as this  card by the city and you know for drugs ok and you know and that's a contract that your client has with whoever they finance there carol so i mean how  party rights to that contract what we may you have a court issued for that if somebody repossesses your car improperly you could sue them in court so here if the lien holder says that they're entitle to the car oh why should to city not give it to them we also think that it's taking for private use clearly the government no government can take probably from one party if someone else they could take it and give it to a developer  challenges with would overwhelm the system in this particular case the cost of not forcing a police officer show up for another little witness is that someone's car can be of moving violations let alone the traffic here but we're not talking about police officers we're talking about the rights of a lien holder against the debtor ok so we're not talking about any of those  mean let's talk about what what you have here see you want to expand and what the city's very limited jurisdiction is here and give them jurisdiction to hear all there is one thing that like to clarify that we didn't mention our brief but i think quite some clarification and that is that in jackson's brief at page sixteen she actually challenge the use of sworn testimony pursuant to section two dash one four s one three two subsection seven what they're saying they're saying is that the rights of the lien holder should be adjudicated in these proceedings see that's what it's all about that's correct rather than that all these other things that have contractual and statutory right how will how do we have the power to do it because you don't have the power to make that argued occasion period so that the you have you know that the city knows that they have an owner of the contract with the lienholder it and the debtors says if they're if the car is used for an illegal purpose such as drugs then all the money becomes due and the adjudicated i don't think that if there's no basis for the police officer to have seized it in the first place or if he's an innocent owner that she has she has done nothing to expose it to confiscation it's not a strict liability result asha's shouldn't she shouldn't have to face the fact the carbon we possessed are the fourth i'm ok the second with the fourth amendment i've read we're making is not the initial seizures and
the point of view of the attorney at the time and that attorney at the time had never seen the decision and howard because it had been made it for that attorney and never seen the decision concert because it had been made it and in fact that according to the don't even need to get to that part because the court stated a second independent reason for its ruling and the stated that it is impracticable to apply the juvenile court to a person who was twenty two because bility and again with the practicability it's not just the twenty one year age limit it's also all i just said a minute ago which is that he's asking for by dash eight o five transfer here in that hearing court sent back to adult or criminal court and said to apply that provision and that that was the procedure that should've applied and what the court said state's position of bad decisions made in real time was wrong that was beneficial to the defendant and one that was extraordinarily reasonable light of what the attorney  permitted in the juvenile court and get back to juvenile court understood that submission and they have no authority because he's now thirty six is the practical thing really
that would be outside mr cripps that would be mr lynn big and mr graves the reason wrongly that information was not available to us as because of the very nature of the conspiracy that was being engaged in by discovery rule that that timeframe should be fined years running from the date of mr linden's discovery that position and that you know under the circumstances the complaint filed against mr graves as well as that complaint filed against mr l plaintiff and sole for the purposes i think that we have presented here is a question of fact i think i also read the ad is a situation where counsel mentions something about the determination
result of ineffective service she knew that this case was pending correct that's correct your honor i mean stare at e mails back and forth between the attorneys saying that the attorney talked to her that is only one of the factors that is court considers and that's in direct contrast to the discussion that's made in the briefing about the analogy for example to cases under six hundred and sixteen dollars we're talking about whether or not there are should activities of the plaintiffs are an important piece of this puzzle of and that's particularly true here the two of those do going hand in hand you have a significant period of time from the date of filing of the lawsuit and you have only there was ever an appearance while there was a notice a filing of rights there are two different things ok and in this situation when the errant notice of filing was discovered there was an attempt to correct that and it was made quickly it was made within a handful of weeks it's just another demonstration of the impermissible delay in this case why the circuit courts analysis of this question was inappropriate exercise of the supreme court's discretion why this is really back  concept of the two step process where the st step is there has to be a prima facia showing by the defendant the claim to fail to act with reasonable diligence in effectuating service then was made primarily here but when the time that's correct yes it's a case it's a decision made on a representations from plaintiffs counsel but here's what the records as you know i can't overemphasize no one is suggesting there's been a misrepresentation that it's not what you're suggesting there isn't there has not been  that is not what i'm suggesting but there is no explanation for the left there's no explanation of exactly where the confusion was why wasn't the notice of filing or the amended notice of filing sufficient to put the plaintiff on notice about the fact that there had never actually been an appearance filed by dr shecky there's just there's nothing in the record that really explains that confusion and without them but they're relying on the notice of five that's correct which was corrected and to file and the other factors the the factor five which is the actual knowledge stuff that the special circumstances here are clearly this notice of power and the effect of that going to be obviously we don't necessarily read the five week day comes in specially on the holidays we did contact the doctor the defense counsel with respect to that
the enhanced actor
figure they belong there so once you become airborne you're a volunteer and can't really complain about anything he asks for it and it's tough training real  jump school for banning and then i went through phase one of special forces i jumped on a perfectly good  it was good because they were the most feared to me anybody ever was in the military you cut the mustard i don't know if you fall out on a run your route else anyway so i joined up to you know fight communism because they were they came down and they started it pushing the little people around and the boldest and there wasn't any religion they they were used to wreck temples and the buddhist monks would like themselves on fire to protest that i mean as i'm against religions you know when i was going to be with some good troops and i love all my friends that i served with and lost a lot of them  he was a nice kid and they they remember i'm sorry what happened to your buddy as the last machine gun team i was on raid here the two was one of the few guys to do it but i do yet said it it's tough to keep going you know but you have to win hey good about war you know it's not it's it's depressing but you can read all quiet on the western front the red badge of courage and a drinking problem three years now and now i don't drinking at twenty seven years around drinking it all you kids don't even touch anything you so i lucked out but you know real sad when you're in that kind of atmosphere all the time so my friends signed up for more colleges and stuff it's the poor people that you know and the innocent people in the middle that pay the price like john kerry should have never said anything bad about the v and veterans he gave us a bad name talking about stuff he doesn't even know about most of the vietnam veterans are really good people some of them weren't that's how it is but he shouldn't have said anything derogatory about us and i like salmon  bad he got captured but he was hurt we were going to let him capture us alive we would have died for us that he could have done a lot more to help veterans through the vietnam veterans we came lot more support from the society like they say like he come from belmont and all the world war two vets and the people i grew up with
argument is that it wasn't sufficiently before everybody is for i just i disagree with you how can you say that whether or not she had the right to be there doesn't play into i mean if if i am on an employee and i stop someone from doing something that they don't have the right to do that they cannot do then that's a different then me saying get out of here you don't need to sign and that's when you know morally that they don't have to sign that well that isn't
this court  i don't know that's it i've nothing more to say if you say that it is well established that adult court and no subject matter jurisdiction over residential landlord tenant matters is there a nd circuit case that expressly hold that  trial level court decisions i don't know not where anything on this specific point is reached the circuit but in any case it really is accepting that proposition critical or necessary to your view to affirming the district court you know it's not critical or necessary to affirm  because the court clearly has no subject matters jurisdiction based upon the way the complaint discrete based upon the complaint in this
declaratory relief that presented i suggest a classic instance of declaratory relief blue ridge on the one hand the ridge being a distributor of gallup products had signed a binding away from issues that are fully developed here you have as i understand it a situation where the nature of your claim is to ask us to declare that the north pawson we really want to transfer the gala brands to this new company united and we think you gallo your obligation to c exception in cases where the core the court says notwithstanding what's happened in the case is not moot if that does not mean that there's also a case or controversy there  first of all with being able to enforce our contract and the form selection clause but beyond that we are concerned about the following situation and i think this response to that first question about charged with enforcing the wind act they can't decide whether it's constitutional though to apply retroactively in this contract that's what we're trying to avoid doing so you think you have no remedy whatsoever and i'd raise the constitution european court of immigration feels campus a constitutional question so that doesn't mean you don't have some form in which to raise a constitutional question you may have to go file action in state court or appeal do i just want to make sure i understand the scenario the scenario is there's no hardship here because gallo has its contract and i got the contract and under north carolina law which blue ridge doesn't believe applicable you would have to blue ridge would have to give notice and before it could initiate any action to declare that the contract is superseded by the north carolina statute gallo would have the opportunity to act or not act under the contract and therefore yeah we're concerned about blue ridge actually proceeding gallo would have plenty of time to yes ok and that's exactly what happened in the north carolina case one thousand nine hundred eighty five in which the federal court freed stream district of north carolina decided that mine franchise not apply retroactive you there's been no discussion i have no plans of following that correct or judgment action in north carolina now it's time time the future blue ridge many consider merging transferring i any of this activity to happen is that we are representing their canal plans at the present time and what the record shows in this ca the record shows that there was there was never a right case or controversy in the first place if you look through what you say is that there were two asking questions about some additional information and saying that the mine franchise knowledge is not apply there's never any further mention of the mine franchise nama correspondents who goes back and forth who have subsequent letters pages can i just to focus the issue from my standpoint there is the dilemma that we as a court face of course in these kinds of cases is a judgment as to whether we are being asked to intervene pre merits that the judiciary is concerned about that we don't intrude on north carolina's franchise law unless we're actually absolutely needed to do so and on the other hand
slick let's talk about the incident that wound up in this security gap air conditioner repairman's fire now with the somebody who was taken from th be a single individual woman on travel business at one of these hotels if if there is a requirement for notice in a case like this or whether it's actual or your opponents are relying in the main it seems to me in terms of my duty in foreseeability and should vs fairmount could you give us your spin on the ak and how comparable it is to the facts of the relationship between to make it better and gas but even if you have that special relationship there still has to be a first see ability of the criminal attack so it's the special relationship and the reasonable foreseeability is there anything in  that they don't speak in terms of notice is dubious has to do with percy ability of harm is a perceivable bad you know this woman could have been sexually attacked in that way by a security guard their own employee this isn't you know it would be like this trade center maybe you have security there but it doesn't necessarily mean that the security guards or the hotel would have been to support a bat a terrorist plane would crash into the tower just that there's a hotel and then there's a guest they don't want to lay out facts to support it's a conclusion that it was reasonably foreseeable that somebody would be attacked in her hotel room conduct which is not sexual sale but break ins but then when in this particular case we find with the court finds to see ability because the club should have been on notice about the break ins and sexual security guards were breaking into women's rooms using he cards without their permission there was that sort of forsee ability in that case because they were fired bacon's through the windows and and that's what happened
where a couple of things first of all i don't mean to necessarily cherry pick one statement in a conversation because there was numerous other statements that in detail about how he thought at one time they were illegal and th store i don't think you find him where he says he was in the back of the store sold no article that you would find in there but he had to walk through the front door yes still we would find him walking through the front door at about the time didn't he has to be aware is not necessarily proof beyond reasonable doubt and easy is we're saying or i think you're saying everything he knows about these he just needs he has to know it's there's a problem with it site i would say trying to comply with the law that we don't have that in this case correct correct but just to post a bit in this case we have your client agree the lease in the future to sell cannabis to the undercover officer to testify that this was an analog on it and therefore you know this is the state had to prove heavenly through expert testimony that this was even in your words like i do people knew they asked for it and people were coming into the stores in trying to tell and saying you know teenagers are coming in saying yeah that's enough i mean very similar to here where you know there are certainly red
and it was completely opposite in her statement to the detective and i think most importantly she testified that defendant was or she testified if it was not really trying to get an answer that after the three that discussion that went on to you know or does the record kate i don't believe it indicate i do know why during her testimony when she started looking and saying oh i'm not sure that's quite exactly true i don't remember what i
result of well repetitive activity for an employer but the carpal tunnel off of does not require shirts or even the carpal tunnel on it's not require any medical care whatsoever and the employee leaves th she didn't have adequate examination for that that's that's their test that you know could be the case it could also be a case of she could have been running a vacuum cleaner and that could have been have any insurance now testimony from dr martin was that she she didn't feel she needed any medical care fisher never w don't think there's any question about the events of november twenty eighth aggravating something or other whether it was a preexisting condition which is most likely the pain that would be cool so what about the doctrine of the claimant is arguing while the employment need only be a point was made already by justice here that what we have here at the very least is an aggravation of a preexisting condition so she had a preexisting carpal tunnel she never needed medical care in my opinion the record reflects that she never had medical care or condition was ever so bad that she sought medical care until after she did this work for a family dollar a loving twenty zero two that caused her to get medical care that is clear from the records to me anyway but when she went to the e r eleven twenty three  responsible for paying medical bills for treatment or paying for t t d or paying for the permanency related to that surgery because she had precipitating activity working for a new employer which caused her to go seek that medical you're not denying that you are full she had a condition when she left your wrist the response mccloy right i think the medical i mean there is nothing i don't have anything that says that she didn't their i suppose they have trouble with this because people seem to believe that manifest which means there's only one right answer and that's not true i mean if the commission had gone the other way and he had decided this along molly nations over time it's also interesting to note when dr fletcher carried out his physical examination a little bit over two years later i think it was in june of two thousand five hundred also found
clients to run themselves if we throw out the matching contributions for a moment just assume those are put to one side what do we have a new record on that compares t participants of barnes and noble those cases fail because the plate is the critical step and that's just what happened here the plaintiffs go from criticisms about process that the plaint better than the ones that i don't have a fee so you would expect to see some due diligence done to seem to tease out the extra feed to all the penna fisheries are going to be triage and what we're told is nothing was done and they took caused by such a defect cation is to say well suppose they had picked the high price one without having the justification that in the absence of a justification they just took the index funds happened and pomerantz is capsulated that and basically he simply say here's another fund that can to do better we could always pick another fund that happens to do better that doesn't tell you whether it would cost the the fund it was in the play and rose imprudent the way worth anything i buy the higher price one come back and the evidence shows the other feature produces no value to you rub me the sweetly damages the two percent of the regard that's the bases of the district judge decision which is entirely correct thank you