MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
polls that have an employee a coworker or whatever you want to call them who departs and then represents work or has customers of clients that were formerly with the it appears to be a claim based on rich a contract or more precisely an effort to enforce this this provision of a contract that has a minor terry penalty when you  on clients that he'd generated so they gave him some increased compensation and maybe they increased this salary and they claim he finds these were benefits of membership but when you go to the definition of member read the definition you've got to come to conclusion he was not a member therefore he was not subject to this agreement now the interesting thing again when you read the opposition's br so so so why are you talking about any provision of of the contract if that's the figure really doesn't make any sense but when you get to the unadjusted region there a just lead and that's the way it goes when they come on the stand said yes that's the way it goes well that's the way it goes in this case because there was no agreement and even the judge said if they don't remember saying this then that's that's what i would like to address even out the technical defense are based on reading of certain provisions of mr lest i just talked about the definition of this in the definition of that but when you really read this document as a whole which is he never accepted the one and only benefit that with which mr no reply is ratification he never said that he was never offered the opportunity to become a member and the fact that its name was put on a list which says that he has a zero interest doesn't make him a member of that document assessed at the top of the left it's just cancelled contributions of common members and then you go do them under article ten section ten point three and then the difference will be pay enough that you never fit the definition of a member so so so there is no place for any of this and
review the discrimination and i think both of his use title seven but in this case it's a relocation act because the title seven procedures are applicable but it reviews the discrimination claim in the district court on the de novo standard the problem in that the plaintiff contended that he was entitled to fifteen thousand dollars in relocation fees for missed transfer of the last and got oregon there's nothing in the body of the petition nor in the and i didn't century length that they gave him some extra time in which to file that's one hundred eight hundred twenty day period i believe that that hundred twenty period was missed even before this petition was filed he knew about it on the on the that and that may or may
seem to be saying that a federal court can only and force provide specific performance for that promise if the federal first foreign arbitrator is likely to be arbitration as to the ultimate merits which seems to can i ask you about something else concern in this case it's the interplay between the district court's injunction and the overlapping arbitration proceedings and i appreciate that the judgments that we made that i made in the district court arbitration if you pursue it in the district court and our task when contrasted with the declaratory judgment action was to try to balance those interests and form the court does best we could about how the law said there should be balance the past  is not accurate most of it is publicly available on the record in essence yes mr ball did say in december of the first hearing room an arbitration in ninety days but then in the next breath he began arguing for depositions and is now has submitted five motions of a pretrial nature and the consensus is that we couldn't have the arbitration decided within ninety days once it got started i think and again i might miss a not sort seventeen there were in the state court because it had been two years since the state court entered its two thousand and fourteen injunctions and they wanted to know what was happening and mr burke said to them i think this is a page three hundred eighty eight of the appendix is the
are left with basically circumstantial evidence or evidence of negative disparities statement made by that individual to others and so basically by taking all excluded as you could say coming through the ranks and going to the program and understanding what it takes to recruit understanding what you need to put out proper and adequate suppl  by captain edwards that is correct but what we would have liked to have been presented is show that in other instances when there were qualified nonwhite applicants who  mr obree get on a list that was terminated we know this happened with regard to rights but how many times was he put on a list and then when it came down it did take in all the folks that you top qualifier that they stopped the process from restarting years then claim is the fact is that they stopped after they finished looking at the white africans with but the locals as they put in the email they would not go below the things that we can't rely on that we want to add this influx from the outside now if that's the case as judged by the sad your discrimination has to be based upon that job they were not applying for production exactly and because of the relative qualifications of the people in that line had to do with the production of yeah that's right ok let's say you have about two and a half minutes yes window they stopped the process now that seems to be a harder thing to deal with then this thing you're dealing with with the with the harmless error because he recovers is evidence and so we're sort of stopped you in other words why did you throw me out i'm going to track even though others were were rated higher so there's got to be an overarching with an argument with which may be that within the process that i should have my evidence and so we can go to thing that when he looked at the evidence he thought not the statistical method but what he was doing was just because it didn't it didn't have the reliability because we don't know what the qualifications are most people were his client of those other three folks go back to where i was talking about these lines that were developed because when reg when a job came open for supervisory position there's a recommendation one two three four five people and not only did all read but all these other folks got in these lines of recommendation and they always were low on the line they worked for the duff and if i if the record supports what i thought counsel said when ever went over you got in the line the moment they finished checking out the the white folks and offering them the job and they all declined it they stopped the process and to take what he's trying to say an adult the record supports of the taint they happen to these other three so their evidence would come in to show his overarching if you will that they would not go below the level of the white folks when they got to the locals and i was supported by that by the e mails now that seems to be two different ways that you have to analyze including when you get to the harmless
moments when you think about what the find you model of the moment when the doctor said alex as a as a parent you're expected to have all the answers but when your child has autism there are very few answers to be had can you tell me what i'm doing w supposed to be doing because i don't know that's why thousands across the country have come together online to give researchers the insight that only families can provide join the e n project we all have questions together will find the answers like all new parents my husband and i want what's best for our baby when it came to me as asians and one of the facts very carefully researched vaccines talking to pediatricians and other experts and asking tough questions answered was obvious seems like those against measles and influenza are not only a good idea they could save our daughter's life take the time to get the facts  victims especially women like most americans i didn't know how life threatening that this could be until my sister was diagnosed it's time to do something about it for more information about lupus contact  it for future times so heels of you would give us remarks absolutely we started this twenty five years ago actually when the first senior games began with been doing it every year except for last year and we decided not to do it anymore because we're all getting older so i mean some of us not me you know and so we thought well welcome back to the twenty fifth anniversary of the senior games what better time would it be to then to come back for the senior games to put on our final show so that's why we're here so many members are there in your group right now i think we have twenty one and one at one time we have forty two and as they left the group for one reason or another they were not getting course the newer ones were younger ones but that's that's to be expected there they're all busy working and what have you so but we're having a great time with it and the line dancers keep on on dancing tuesdays and i
attorney general the process of reviewing and deciding
and the plaintiff so his statement on that would have to be taken into consideration because of that relationship secondly he admitted lying to get her to come to his house on that day so the police knew that  evidence the training that was given to these officers said that the shirt had to be taken into evidence the police chief said he would have taken the shirt into evidence even if the state's attorney had said don't take that into  reser that's very sad i mean he said he was cut with a razor and but later they found this knife after they were left alone in the house together but the knife was no blood on it and that's the only weapon the car lent caree bars in the area most of the police officers knew him new threats past because you've previously complained about his child custody arrangement with courtland well right and what the clinton county sheriff's itself is enough just stop the investigation to find probable cause and turn it over to the state's attorney which was ultimately done in this case the police officer west seeking the circumstance about this night that was brought to the scene the testimony from a corleone i had never seen the knife i didn't bring it i didn't have anything to do with it it's not my knife
bar was very clear and i still from your argument is that a lawyer could have framed that issue differently than it was actually brain when she was pro you have to come out the other way but it would be within the discretion of an i j to come out the other way and if it came out the other way we would reverse and if you can make an argument that on this record a warrior would have been able to present things
going to get that's the implication that what they like everybody to have that implication because you join the going to get it yeah one of the representatives that nobody has to sign the early agreement some people sign others do they unlikely hypothetical situation you have here a company where the workers are assembling steel frame structures and getting paid for ten twelve dollars an hour or something like that and they can be organized  get paid ten or twelve dollars an hour going to get paid thirty dollars an hour doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how this company works and so and the whole discussion after that seems the opposite is never neverland in terms of what's not going to happen instead of manager's reaction to say well we don't have to carefully calculated the business of say ten or twelve dollars an hour to make it up we're now paying thirty dollars an hour and so the calculus seems kind of strange that it's not like it's going to take very copulation it is the whole snap thing take it you're saying that they in fact do feed on each other that it's a pattern of spread so that even if it's the case in a later episode that either the evidence is compelling
no no no no no no no  you they should go to the who say they should go to meet up dot com slash and roll dash city dash archer's talk how nice i
can talk a little bit about testing the waters he would be very much a far reaching decision for any govt to say that someone was testing the water when it wasn't even the hallett and then a motion for substitution was seven days afterwards it just four days after the state sought in order so we are talking about a long period of so walking through a lot of those issues did it assist the jury with more knowledge than the average person would have about have found just testified to that aspect of the case as well could knowing that there were closing on closing argument asked the scene when you have specially when you have conflicting experts coming in there giving them varying explanation on a scientific methodology then you have to consider whether a fry hearing is necessary because it has to be thoroughly tossed at but that is not required in every case there is an expert because not every expert is basing their opinion in this case both in the motion eliminated and again at trial and there is as your honor pointed out there is no requirement that one must be have medical training or to be a forensic pathologist probative value versus prejudicial effect and especially in light of the defense here that there was an insufficient proof that kathleen a criminal agency why was this not highly prejudicial issue of course any evidence leading to the inference that it was a defendant is going to be prejudicial your honor that it is not highly prejudicial because the based on the overall evidence in this case that was not the only added ends that was leading to his conviction and that's it and that's part state never going to do so any evidence that the man or the body was the same is found in the residence record doesn't contain any reference to any you know it was in the record the house dressed as she was to go out for a run or otherwise there is i can think of no reasonable explanation why a woman would leave the phone data was obtained contrary to the fourth amendment and the right to privacy that is also a challenge that was raised so between both addressing it and th that was that instead of a court order to get a warrant yes oh that's so hard because something soon it was the equivalent of a motion to suppress the argue the constitutional challenge raised by a defendant in this case on the quality of that it is presented to that meet the standard of the statute so while we may not have the landmark case under which this falls the people assert that this is closer
i can't say the word and it was used for sure but the interview in chino state prison with that inter county sure of the partment and the prosecutors from ventura my impression of the record is that there was no challenge to the identification at the at the time of the original trial trial mr cruz my strategy was to not give anybody out to try to keep everybody as far as specially my cousin as far away as being mentioned as possible his name even being and i was trying to keep him as far away from my lips as possible question and you were doing that even though you knew he was the one thing that fired the gun and kill the individual act that's it's not untypical in an my point is that witnesses were available that the reports were made available to the to mr cruise the witnesses were there they chose now to use them that's consistent with m honesty he could not do that thing that lawyers can learn to do can i prove that i specifically turned that document over i turned everything over but now at this point in hindsight i can't prove that i  he also says i didn't i didn't interview those two sisters as part of the investigation i was trying to they were mere overtly racist sisters i was trying to get euro to turn himself in and i went to i knew where i could that they weren't looking for justice they were looking for a conviction
he increase in his criminal history for cocaine was charged the jury was instructed that it was a detectable amount of a certain drug and you couldn't really be sure then whether you know what the jury the dagger the dank in this case and it doesn't appear to me that even if it doesn't appear to me that these pleas can be used against the defendant in a pled guilty to the conspiracy charge involving quite hundred grams or more of cocaine and in addition defendant agree as part of the greed of the stipulated facts of the case that he knew that both parcels contained cocaine
accountability and if i do that they have to be held responsible for each other's actions equally because that's where the law of accountability works the cases that counts are cites the
that's not the case with  where in which the congress the united states said the submerged lands was property are under the control of the commonwealth and the commonwealth agreed to accept control of the lands it would not be out from under the covenant right well it was really the unique situation only because she congress congress was prepared to give a three mile limit as it has done with the states and the commonwealth rejected on the united states obligations of any fancy he loved from the trust the trust has terminated so many terms of the trust are no longer applicable right there were no here and indian tribes in the united states within the continental united states have incidents of sovereignty the sovereign in this case is the united states not the commonwealth that's the agreement are treated like they treated why they want to call it a commonwealth that's fine that's what they call it but the covenant specifically says the sovereignty is is in the united states and our and property specifically described by me some grounds or area four square miles or whatever there's monuments there's none of that and in the covenant i'm not sure why but  done with all of the other understood that they were getting all the real problems from the first surgery and that included merge plans in it for national defense see the states have all have some amount of of ocean commonwealth are quite satisfied with the arrangement with the government united states government and the way it works right yes but what i would say i've never talked to anyone has seen my who hasn't shown total disbelief to the sovereignty statement of the of the covenant well i think you know i put up with a lot of things in this takes government you won't believe it but i'm not always happy with what they do in congress either in one regard or another but i don't want to leave this country i don't want a change of the form of government of this country i'll just continue to live my life and work around it the best i can and i think that's exactly what normally we have it when we have contracts between private parties and one party has a different understanding of a special term than another we sometimes say if there's been no meeting of  case is for a different type of reading with these two over then it is here because of the well established long time doctrine of the press relationship and reading is in favor of  as an international plot is settling the the problems that were created by world war two and the united states agreed voluntarily under certain terms and conditions expressed in the co to interfere in the affairs of what's now called the commonwealth why does the prior history not merge into the voluntary mutual agreement of the parties and that's as far as we need love well
position that especially when there's a scientifically conducted public opinion survey that demonstrates this type of adverse impact of publicity that the court should look at that in fact the government had a chance to green and other experts on that methodology of doing that publicly and in serving in the courts that actually granted a change of venue when we consider that in this particular case we wanted to court to consider the measure  impact in this community here in acreage but it probably wouldn't have had nearly impact and parametric you know because the nature of this case and i think that i want to illustrate the the nature the factual nature of the publicity is that really an issue in this case because we're not concerned about the publicity about the charges of making false statement demonstrate that it is i think difficult in a federal courtroom with a judge conducted where do your really get to the basis of what have you heard about this case what do you think about m conducted scientifically with the same cool people that would be here jury duty where they can openly share with their feelings are what they know about this case and i think that's enough reason not to be hear from the experts that we're trying to measure this impact is the and i think that that public opinion survey demonstrated a number of things first of all twice and i think both because we also were had to really struggle and hustle to get a financial expert to come in and testify about the nature of these financial statements and we had some scheduling conflicts where and measures the impact on the community on those who might be available for jury duty and if you were to conduct any type of a business and want to know what the community feelings were the particular extraordinary circumstances in this case and all the remedies and alternatives that we suggested that were denied the fact that there was no compelling reason to deny those or to go forward in the defendant were called it if i look over the record it looks to me that tendency to jurors had some sort of recollection many of them could remember what it was they were called but they they thought heard something that this time it was under suspicion for another crime was being investigated and to do that he was being investigated that the his risk of flight was a monkey i pad was a legitimate point for normally having a defendant's you know prior criminal background or even a sex criminal background is not enough for a change of venue and there are cases where i'm wondering here the difference is most of those cases  our motion for a change of venue before we even had the final report filed and then the judge reviewed it later in and basically says i hope i don't change my mind but i think that we had the opportunity to
and let me just finish and i would assume that you were protecting families well these two children period i mean under ten years old or at least at the time of this particular divorce under nafta and you're absolutely  have to do that job in spite of what other people do so why don't you start on just you just saying it's an impossibility that you bet your defense at this point it's in  divorce action initially relieving the estate of a debt which you can't pay and settling it on is are going well not only be of no benefit to the state wouldn't be a severe detriment to my clients which unfortunately is probably what this the s king family has always provided for the chill other than the twenty two thousand dollars payment that came in prior to the divorce action being filed what  against her since two thousand and fourteen to care for her children and was there any effort on the part of your client to somehow bring them in and the parties or other issues here we looked into a judge and i think it would have
we have mr siegel and ms newman and you're dividing your argument you may proceed counsel it now i asked you to question what was the remedy if there's a failure to give notice and you said that really was to send it back i was looking for something in the statute that suggested a remotely is there any such suggestion in statute but are you asking us to do with the trial judge should have done all right the fact of justice turner's point isn't this a matter for the trial court to dispose of if we say you are  which struggle to meet expenses don't have to sit in these exemptions and all because they're not eligible to receive