MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
i have the stated really with carlos of the ultimate outcome in this case i think there are three important questions that this court needs to consider should a short period of time dangerous want to follow it's nice to know who you're talking to it's nice to know whether the people you're talking to are saved this was it was dark when this occurred and it was important for them to know and so he's got two things going on here right now he's also got a car that is not just out of state but this is basically crossing three states  that in his experience people who would use a search usually have something and i think that's one of the things i mentioned here that that i think this court needs to consider because i don't know that can be an inference regarding the state of mind that i believe that it's reasonable when you take the extreme nervousness when you taking the drug history when you take the into this video the police officer says he's really really there and then he says it approximately seven minutes and twenty three seconds he's coming from kansas back  the officer announces it at thirty five minutes i think the reason for the stop is not interior because it was because of right headlights so maybe less intrusive this is a better choice  the fact that this was a reasonable nervous there there's plenty of case law that nervousness is not it does not rise to the level of something that is a reason to a standard st
pointed to like the expert the two thousand letter and then they also made a couple of of course of performance type arguments to say that even though the one thousand nine hundred agreement didn't transfer rights to the formulation the parties treated the well they're not it is a matter of law they're not incorrect about that it is possible to transfer the rights to a future invention that hasn't been invented yet but this agreement didn't  the parties the parties knew well how to transfer future rights or rights to future inventions because they did exactly that they did it in section seven point four of the agreement which is on page seventy five  yanis they agreed to have in the farming area so long as as the past there wasn't already negotiating with others to do the same thing that's right that's right that's right and so section seven points or says been you know there might have been good wording on the technology and patent side but not on the tax side is that this is a gotcha case because it seems that the parties contemplated in nine hundred ninety eight that if he develops a marketable products the two point one point two that yes at least not that we know of from the couple of years that are issue in the record but that's right it is but that and that goes to our our second point which is that even if you to farmers to use in harvesting their crops in exchange in exchange for royalties that were based on a percentage of the crops harvested that doesn't mean that the patent holder to the machine had knowing that some products may not sell anything some products may not even be successful enough to put out it and put it on the market but that was that was really that was just what they chose how they were going to measure
excuse me the most inexpensive and the right way to go generally the
care of the children absolutely there's nothing about this it was a terminations proceeding absolutely not to discuss issues here and so i mean the parents still have the opportunity to correct whatever conditions caused the children to be placed over them in concerns and rightly so of interest ability to parent any of her children probation case does he have a mailing address is the probation case he listed his mailing address and that's the an address which was the scene on which i'm sure i didn't hear you and in his probation case he submitted to
grosses flying back and forth as to what she should do that she was unable to interpret what would have been back and he's been unable to respond to that question except to say that issue is that the veterans court improperly made findings of fact concerning prejudicial air fast like to point out that that issue was not raised until  there may be a separate constitutional issue certainly it's not about constitutional issue first of all because there is no property interest but this part doesn't even need to reach that issue because even if there were a property of protected
we have been
kinds and there's a constellation of some old none of which apply this to this case not what i think this is the case for the very first time visitors directly to the court these issues of the inappropriate in this case there are a number of reasons one and we addressed it in our brief even though plaintiff takes the position that it is now this case is not alleged wrongful death common cause of action this claim is a claim on behalf of the estate of laura deal that's the way it was originally filed that's the way it was decided we know from the oregon supreme court and its clear decision in storm versus mcclung that a claim for wrongful death under florida's thirty two zero can be limited in any way the answer is clearly given there's no open question about that issue in oregon at the moment certainly plaintiffs make the argument that the law may have been incorrectly decided or that the law should be changed but the this panel has already pointed out that that's an argument that might be appropriate for the organ supreme court it doesn't bear on whether or not the law that exists has been clearly decided  dismiss that you're correct about their releases but there's another issue that i think needs to court needs to be aware of the organ statute has within it clear language that  which is something that the plaintiffs agreed with in the district court before judge king he didn't rely on the death in washington but he agreed that the injury occurred in oregon injury occurred in oregon the conduct occurred in oregon the issue is medical care is provided in create that would require a separate interest analysis and that might be correct because once you decide that washington the statute of limitations of then you've got the interest of washington language was adopted that's not a new rule in oregon and from the point of injury has been the issue that's been before the court in numerous wrongful sex cases for a number of years and you look at case in which the person who who allegedly received the misdiagnosis this knew about the harm knew about the injury of the boil cancer for many years know because the claim was already the claim was also barred by the limitations period sets and that is written into the statute three years from the date the injury or should have discovered the injury or discovery of the injury so the claim was already part of the wrongful death claim was already fired by application of the limitations provision of the statute counting from the misdiagnosis which was not discovered until one thousand nine hundred six i think the point is that there were three years from the discovery about judge and silly the analysis in that regard i was distracted by another argument but when i referenced previously that the court has discretion to determine that a statute is unfair and we went off on another direction in this case the court over again for me
that's like and there's a bunch of people involved and he names a bunch of people and doesn't in one state man named this person and then later on and says oh yeah he was there to me is that true inconsistency and i take it from the fact that there was a conviction that the jury believed those witnesses ye respond the standard you've got to me this is fairly high it's a little bit like getting on a high hurdle race and finding they put high jump mars everywhere and you've got to show that the testimony if the right which certainly gives them a reason to go along with the government yes but it also doesn't mean you throw out their testimony automatically or altogether you certainly walk into it with skepticism and i think the jury were told that ye thousand pounds so let's assume that you're correct from the one that you object to here why is it harmless given the other things they were told and the specific findings  and the fact that the jury was allowed to find no no i'm sorry what i mean to say is you were asking questions about i think one of the judges was asking questions about how you go about the core of the strikes and whether it was done how it was done i know that that's done in a court but i don't think seven i find it well this is a quote i find that when people indicate they have a problem being fair and impartial which they indicate that on the questionnaire and they explain the reasoning and explain the reason that ordinarily that is an adequate basis for excusing them because if i don't excuse them they just repeat that when they come to court because they were being candid with us the first time that the district court experience and knowledge as to how this happens in front of the district court i would also have second i think that if there was any error here a which i have gained during a geneticist testimony at which point patient maddox was talking about he and steven have driving the places that he's never been before that he had no knowledge of and this was the first time he was seeing
you ask up blessing on the meaning of fathers we come to you today we're thankful for the privilege of being here we're thankful for these who are willing to serve in this capacity and we ask that you would be with our department pray particularly for those whom bore out on the room today pray for your blessing of safety pray for those who are civilian employees and i ask i'd also like to recognize the idea working knowledge of what they do and so i can you know better than that to support them and look at ideas of we can move in the future to improve things but i'm fortunate to have a command it is absolutely a privilege to be  show the highlights in december i'm sure a couple that happened in the last couple weeks in django since i took over the first one being in january six at about ten forty three p m officers uncle road vehicle veered off the north short of the roadway collided into a rock and banged out of the vehicle to flip over coming to rest on the passenger side the vehicle became engulfed in flames the operator basically had expired at the scene last few years i have to tell you the truth is it's for the young kids express the underprivileged kids to have an opportunity to have something to give during the christmas holiday season and you would think that they you know you see their faces they get so much out of this that the families are so appreciative the parents will push it by tell you what the piece at the most of that officers and i can speak for myself that i look forward to every year to see the smiles on their faces i get a smile on my face and it's still rewarding for us as officers to be part of that program and so i did think not only the officers and the staff who shows up but the groups that make for a family member a brother or sister or a parent and we know we tried to tell them this is all for you give twenty get you know so they you want but it's encouraging to see that their spirit is to give back to their confirmed that there are four members not on february fourth february fifteenth if there is anybody else who is not going to be here or maybe we should change
of the founding of one of the most infamous the state assembly was in the midst of a heated debate when the young negroes armed with loaded rifles shotguns and pistols marched into the capital iconic that look y'know the big afro the leather jacket the shades politically sophisticated mothafuckin history in the united snakes a growing awareness of police brutality and systematic racism has been thrust into the mainstream by the black lives matter movement while street level rebellions to white supremacist police terror have been lighting up urban city center the panther's emerged during a similarly tumultuous era at a time when the reformist discourse of the southern rural based civil rights movement was rapidly giving way to the righteous anger and militancy of the primarily urban based black power movement back in the summer  sixty four fifty years before ferguson pigs shot and killed fifteen year old black youth james powell leading to six nights of intense fucking riots in harlem and fifty years before baltimore came the watts rebellion an even more intense six days of rioting which in the nights following the assassination of martin luther king jr with incendiary riots breaking out in over one hundred cities across the united snakes in what remains to this day the largest display of popular unrest seen in the country since the civil war the panthers effectively seized  organized into dozens of chapters across the country they say a black panther is born every minute in the ghetto throw in the fact that the united snakes was at the time engaged in a deeply unpopular and socially polarizing war in vietnam in which thousands of soldiers were going  most terrified by the panther's so called survival pending revolution programs such as their free breakfast for poor school children we feed about ten thousand across the country each day today they are most widely remembered for their militaristic regalia and their embrace of armed self defense and community patrols which they carried out as a self defense measure against racist pigs intense corporate and social media saturation in which black led urban uprisings are again becoming a frequent response to rampant police killings white reaction is once more rearing its ugly fucking head with many pointing to the administration of barack hussein obama either as proof that the mindless criminals their collective shock and indignant confusion over why black youth would be angry enough to loot or burn down shops speaks fucking volumes the fact of the matter is that the race war has been raging for hundreds of years ever since white europeans brought the first  that kind of
how that can be responsible for applying principles of law and science that hadn't yet been developed and that was the case here in this case we have to figure out that i think you're right i mean in this case the judge to ok we're going to just let it go by and we're giving him the chance to get out so well how does a judge to determine this at this time of sentencing there is no way i missed this special way where i can take your blood and because that sentence did not allow for sufficient consideration of the various factors related to that individual minors so larry you're saying that there is pending bill which would address that indirectly which is probably what i'm also the thing he could be according to what you're just telling me a modification of what you see in that legislation is he could be considered hand to hand for through their heads that needs to be considered for to be parole either by based on which use of the legislation or by a deal see or a judge entering in order that he be reviewed after twenty five of the fifty years to be considered they're making a decision on what to do with somebody when he has no basis in reality other than a game banger who's sitting there and says oh i'm going to be good now and then you put him in jail for the same legislature cutting that budget so now the man even though they have the opportunity to be rehab because the legislature spending the money that they're passing legislation that says going to help them so it's all feel good good behavior and character improvement are immaterial there's no incentive to reform his conduct is no incentive to rehab it is basically either to die or die in prison or to live a life of extreme poverty outside of prison with no job prospects no housing prospects no friends future scenario the same position has been proposed every session for the last five or six sessions it has never been adapted so i'm not sure the significance of well some people believe is an appropriate  arguing here today that the resolution doesn't have the power to set a mandatory minimum when it's involving a juvenile offender and yes of course the the only constitution applies in that regard but it doesn't it will overcome the opportunity to so we instead what we have is we have powers he traces made by the legislature followed by the courts if him to by the courts in every single clue it's because again as i said there's not one case which is said at the firm a five year mandatory minimum or a fifty
elements are will determine whether a broker is an employee or an independent contractor section two twelve provides that in thirty years michel that its workers are a fee for this direction and control in the performance  into the business and in marketing and that's not how it would have been set out to the public and we've seen evidence suggesting that there's any real separation between the two using movers described itself as a full service soon business and its customers pay e and let the drivers   three or so fake they talked about explicitly without specific reference to the code and then passing references to others i think that the need there the clear there was that they didn't go through a listen develop and develop th general questions but that can be applied to each each decision i think that was good rationale behind both the creation of that west and the supreme court's decisions that they should be a proud it provides a brother through a checklist for the director to go through case just disappeared you know made passing reference to the so about twenty five factors but then didn't specify which twenty of those factors in their decision making it's the same as here been incredible and they also addressed that the appellate court didn't go through that list individual and went through their findings that was spencer a clear indication that that's that's the marketing side of the business and they are and they are drivers and drivers helpers id physical side of the movie business the marketing consisted of advertising you know through that through various means including the tracks themselves unemployment insurance and why not i mean title the sole of my business lead to a one to the exclusion of considering these people that show up every day  perform for anyone professional general public who wish to friend from sales of the service so there's so many factual or can't manufacture something for somebody in the general public unless they provide one of those parts here it's in your example it's the business that's providing all those parts here are the drivers and drivers helpers can can physically move stuff you know true with the general public it can't without an easy mover truck that can't without valley's it can't without cuts standard is is positing carful and which draws upon the rich folks on the degree of economic independence from which could survive a particular relationship between the individuals and the the business in question which is the d the circuit court's decision any further questions your honor
case and that's a lot and i know it's a lot and but it was necessary on itself to show the entire picture of the facts that were presented and the history of what dallas and eight hundred to six thousand eight hundred gallons gallons of fuel spill onto the we're going to northern santa fe right away what kind if you diesel fuel any which is right next to the property line and right next to well fourteen that there was found to be number two fuel oil report he goes on later in the in two thousand we were doing some excavation within our building in order to install some machinery and discovered whe was part of it there had been other soil borings done prior to their time but the big concern was what had moved underneath the building and so they had some of the the point i was trying to get enough and if you can just have a history of heavy industrial use isn't enough you've got to show me something specific you know a specific truth over a specific use and they were never able to do that test yes so without moving into damages i am going to tell you that we think the logic and the record just asking for you to do here today thank you you have an opportunity for me but thank you contamination that they complained of on their property came from the one two ninety three he was really in the trial court was really concerned that or are placed a lot of weight on the fact that neither witness either expert witness could deal with or explain a half way to the to the sight of her and i can't remember the names of those witnesses but that was significant but why is it so run from the fact that that is you know that's an element of the evidence judge murphy i think but found no way  because he there are two different curves you can use based on whether the sample is deep or shallow the shallow curve he created by doing an experiment in his garden in oklahoma of breaks that connection i'm looking for the right analogy i'm drawing a blank but it's that's an omen just based on judge murphy's analysis of the testimony exacerbation the witnesses his forget the name of the first company that was hired right after shortly after the spill or accident said that this is who is should be removed contaminants or should be removed but it never happened is that a fact it's a fact that they would be the source of migration off the property that the investigation the concern about migration the concern about you know what would potentially could surface i didn't just see it when i can think of i could run out there with a really good rate it just taken off the surface are we going down inches feet whatever what is considered surf intent i mean if you're asking me that would be like the top you know the tops but yeah it's on the right so whether you go in there with a backhoe over a shovel you have to stop rail traffic that's you know another element to judge murphy reference that he did you know are going to warm walks through it but he he laid out this the support for his conclusions on all of these major topics and
hundred dollars for the best research on the force and we're going to pay twenty four hours a day and three hundred sixty five days a year and you end up with the hundred seventy six thousand dollars salary what's the difference between that and what the fifty  did not pass an appropriations or and that's what addresses a hundred or eight hundred fifty dollars therefore that would not be subject to a pension if they are correct in that in that they didn't pass your preparations or that's it would not be the responsibility of that they had been running based upon a statute based upon except apparently met based on it and a decision by the pension board itself that they have been receiving a pension the constitution clearly allows them to maintain their right to receive that matters that said thirty five days period is over that individual that's receiving that pension does have a right to continue that potential and that would include betty hundred three hundred fifty dollars person etc but the city is the city