MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
of these errors is the use of the word intentional during closing arguments at the outset of the trial the plaintiff's in motion in limine buying the use of the route intentional drink opening and closing arguments present counsel did not object to this in it to my point as your townsend's conduct was one of the most clear pieces of evidence the jury heard regarding the same rotten conduct when the jury heard the defense attorney refer to that conduct is not done intentionally did testify that she would give permission but she did not testify space she actually said had she been asked to write and more information she would not have given it and that's what we're talking about here these instances of abuse happened when he was a  whether or not the child was there with the commission or without the permission of the mother that opportunity would still be in effect is that yes or no either indifference been shown or the actual or deliberate intention to harm and shown and meet the will from one standard i believe the other and difference has been shown in the conscious disregard of the safety and menace because these rules were in place for a reason and f in favor of a bit of education and they also indicated on the record that the jury had found in favorite of introspect five and was there any discussion of the words oh wait a minute there's some open lines here there's no assessment of damages we did couldn't consent like you're suggesting that the jury didn't believe her in terms of her testimony three years yes i think that's possible that they didn't believe her because she was impeach heard other testimony future and the mother didn't seek any counseling for her after april of twenty thirteen so she quit counseling early she has no medical expenses because the children's advocacy center gave her counseling for free she really the three years before the trial her mother didn't arrange for any counseling for her and that shows i think that that the jury's finding that the damage here was the minimus was accurate and they ask you to affirm that for
miss miller raul and then jane orders to assess the vocational element under the definition of disability under the pension code they hired a vocational consultant but they ignored the physical therapy records which said that she had a fair pharmacist and was moderately disabled experienced constant pain with motion and hand limited ability finally in two thousand and fifteen they're continuing to try to improve her condition miss miller when tsunami patients serapis the occupational therapy records are documented in a very practical form and over the course of three months and times to get in this mill or even to be able to complete her regular activities of daily living and they're also in conclusion was that in addition to the pain which will be her ability to function smoothly over a consistent basis she also was had difficult problems in trying to recreate a work environment with memory understanding new concepts  combined with the the pain medication just had an overall difficult time getting through the day all that objective medical opinion from people who actually treated miss miller who  m but the social security requirements are that you have to be able to have an amount of income that is under their rules and under the honor of their goods mom without  again while the board has great latitude to use these experts going wrong in their opinions and we believe that again they have to show their work and to have a rational basis it's hard but in this case they're just simply isn't one they came to a conclusion based upon one zero and one record and ignored the substantial evidence to the point of the other direction and didn't meet their responsibility to explain having problems for memory she was on a great deal of medication she was under severe pain that was her primary care physician records it was in a questionnaire completed by a primary care physician it was a beyond patient therapy records where they were trying to see what types of jobs if any she could even do she couldn't do it because she was in pain she also couldn't do it because she was having a hard time learning new things i'm assuming that's all part of the education
frequently have the video to rely on in addition to testimony of the of the officer and i painfully watched all sixty minutes of that tape last night and i would say that there was the opportunity and i'm sure that the judge watch portions of it as well i think there is very much room for  conclude that a crime been committed and in this case i believe that those factors do weighing in favor of the trooper's determination that something else was going on here the quickest way for him to determine whether or not there were drugs in  did not focus on what factors lead reasonable suspicion but instead just looked at the time to be with the drop off to get there it concluded that fifteen minutes just was too warm but this is for the people versus  is putting them back on governor this is over like it was probably up and i guess it was a forty something minutes until the dog arrived and there was a case of them taking sunglasses off i wreck described so that's the answer to that question i would like to begin by addressing the question of whether the initial stop was all the quests the answer that pointed out also there was no evidence that this particular questioner was in this particular driver's line of vision so when there's no evidence that the object was in the driver's line of vision how can anybody say that the object materially obstructed the driver's  to say that this have the effect of being multiple is kind of misleading because they were back to back so they basically were no different than having one i believe that's exactly what happened here ok but it is there's a second district case
i wouldn't say that
company they knew which company was making the kickbacks they knew which drugs both were mentioned in both so if one were told to run as you refer to aspect of the scheme i think not directly involved in the fraudulent schemes correct charity you learned about it secondarily one might say one and two individuals who were directly involved in  of whether mr benn again is a direct source of the allegations and or the facts underlying allegations that you know pranks and russell crowe and i come to address them in a different order i will address substantial similarity and then direct knowledge particular attention to the original source question and the direct force out completely from the analysis along with so isn't that precisely the person that congress rants to go running off to the authorities and say let me tell you what i just found out i would suggest that i is an example of an individual within the company to exactly what congress had a moral right to to expose these false claims practices why would we want to disqualify him as a virtual source under those circumstances
really we're supposed to do in that situation it's really hard to articulate some sort of standard which captures the middle ground case like a standard of review kind of sort of talismanic sort of statement that you could rel ways we've dealt with that i've gone back to fish is we say well we've actually got an example where the state did can force the statute in a drunk driving case so here i think one of the problems you have to set aside your standing one hundred years no one can find any example of a case like a drunk driving case that actually crystallizes the application of this in the way that the district court be a problem for aca purposes this is i'm trying to put those two pieces together which is you go out of state which produces uncertainty about the federal statute and statute would cause us to read just naturally and so i think the question is is there any evil entity type doctrine that could be a substitute for that type of statute as i said i have not seen the let me just very briefly return to the initial question about what sort of standard should be for the level of certainty that you need to make the legal determination it's the closest definition of a list a crime in a federal statute requires more than the application of legal imagination to a state's state statutes language it requires a realistic probability not a theoretical possibility possible route if you do decide to go down that route we would just ask you to consider providing the supreme court with the briefing of the parties in this case that they are not starting just from scratch that they
conduct in this conviction should be upheld as to count one charging obstruction that jury verdict should be reinstated i'd like to focus on count one to let me st address the arguments that on the other side has judge because i think that the nail on the head this is thousand and one prosecute the core question was was the statements that the defendant made were they forced or not and in fact to be clear these statements were not just at the time of hiring in fact the statement on count question this is simply a was that statement true or false there's no there's no need to interpret a house rule and in any event rostand has to ask this question about whether the rules ambiguous or not the defendants and the government stipulation as the bill foreclose it a question as to its ambiguity rostenkowski is in essence a pre trial challenge to the indictment a justice or ability challenge saying we're not really sure whether the allegations in the indictment are sufficiently clear we're talking about a different type of employee so federal dollars the kind person who will work for various different and come in and especially give political campaign type of help jason miller who was a communications person came and said he's not somebody who's in the official staff and he's basically has this sort of compelled requirement to volunteer these are consultants that come in specifically for a campaign maybe it's a different question we're talking about somebody who is an official in the staff you know on the staff and then just this something that's out of the blue in fact in many ways it's no different from any investigative agency getting underway and starting early often it's invitation shooting out maybe a grand jury subpoena and the o c e letter both to the congressional office where you have to be careful here office of the house is very careful to say that that's not a house or committee this is not a house this is not a meeting this is this is true but what it is is an investigation are in we've got the house is happening it is by the house it's not even done on behalf of the house i think there were again would be a partner argument for us a colleague of mine in the future maybe ok but what's the relationship between the work it's done by the u c even the house ethics committee so the o c was created in two thousand and eight was to recommend it makes recommendation when the house under house resolution created in the house the o c it did so as part of an investigation or in into house ethics matters and therefore any time that there is a properly duly initiated put in our brief was the was the product of a careful negotiation between the house and the senate and so it was not the part of the prohibition that in one thousand and one a wind it was part of coming back and states applying sort of the reach of one thousand and frankly obstruction statute carries more weight i think that there is there is greater punishment that attaches to it but the congress has indicated that it feels that a structure of conduct is is worthy of that
very similar to this case where the judge did not look at the circumstances and underlying facts the fiction there was no discussion in the analysis of what happened with this case like conviction or how that he had committed a particularly serious crime i disagree with that and the immigration judge victoria young looked at numerous factors and one of the first things that there was no question in this case that mr entered the united states briefly in one thousand nine hundred one we turned in one thousand nine hundred two worry it came to college education and has a college degree from the united states he received high school education in his words in the best schools in london he was a very very wealthy commercial property and as time went on it's also clear there was oil on that land and shell and exxon dealing with his father for the rights to work on that land for the oil the government at the same time was  comment that even so whole family members mutilation theory it's the most populous country it has two hundred fifty ethnic and it's still trying to create a democracy sixty percent of the population is below the poverty level there are huge number  rival and social issues in the issue of land and particularly the natural resources has created it is a pull from from violence in that country the it may be that everybody else for one thing that from let's me and i get in there you know for the number of general platitudes about what you have to do and then he picks two or three pieces of evidence one for example that them to the government even a part from the blind i approached you with your honor guy and i want to go through each of the exhibits that mr manley presented and what we have is that in his initial report to the police after he was rescued if you look at that exhibit with with the a r seven thirteen he reports that he was kidnapped by quote some social group or secret cult quote unquote and then referred to them as hoodlums and he made the same report to the police there was no connection there with the political party and your honor and with all respect if under care if all of a person has to do  with that your honor because if that's the burden of proof under care that all i have that you know that he makes a connection and that because he says there's a connection with a political party then there is one then the burden cases and i apologize i wish i knew the answer to that but if you don't i wish i knew the answer four state reports and i did a number of summaries of them they referred to the party boys and they are true vigilante groups going after criminals there is no connection with nothing no reference but they said that these reports me i agree your honor and i also question if it were we landed wouldn't the immigration judge also be able to find that mr manley needs aggravated felony in particular serious crime would also present the can't claim as hoodlums there is nothing in the evidence that he presented at the time the kidnapping the murder took place that list have any connection with the p d p or political parties nothing and if you look at all the state department reports every
all it does us toward it does us to fox raps you know if the allegations if i mean at least there's some allegations there but i'm having difficulty with the other players as to how there's any allegation even that would come what really was wrong with what mr huff was doing as a matter of law in other words you can say there's no rational basis for their conduct but if you know there were violations of laws and maybe  ok thank you you must be very rich against these defendants as to how he was being sworn in and i don't know perhaps you know when the pleadings date you will come up with whatever legitimate purpose there is but it appears from the pleading that there was is in the complaint i have is replete with out with assertions as to how it was wrong now you get your day in court as to whether there's anything to them but based upon the allegations are the defendants withdraw the suit or withdraw from i mean and that's just what's a lash and so you wondered if you were property owner and your neighbor was causing all these things to happen and it's alleged that fox was self dealing in making money off this escrow i mean these are allegations but you can't just characterize them and say you know it's just a couple of phone calls to the police so our allegations are and i'm not saying you know i'm just trying to figure out
be happy to do so i think with the water issue i want to talk about the factual dispute st and i think that because we're talking about some of the judgments that if there t i think it's not just that i didn't see whether he had something in his hand it is i did not see something in his hand there's a distinction there and that the testimony that goes in either direction really should go to the jury to decide the simple fact of the issue being in dispute is we called it sufficient to put this in front of a jury whether there was but if you defectors whether he was advancing towards the officer right ok so the only question is given the context in which the advancing is occurring which also seems to be understood of the highway he and i understand your points but i think that was just the thing that is difficult it is you have a clearly established standard and you have these factual and i just not quite sure how to think through the i'm struggling with the with the notion that that an officer in the senate could not reasonably could form the belief that he was threat well i think that that determined it it would be clear he could not reasonably have thought he was a threat so a couple of things we've already mentioned on his arm the other is that he did not actually making a verbal threats the other is that the nature of how he was walking toward him that that is an objective fact that could be found by the jury and the jury can also find the circumstances in which this interaction occurred if you have one what's the evidence that he wasn't get out of his car and start please she put it please him back and forth everywhere he went to the trunk of his car he went in and out of his car recalling the minute circumstances changed between the kind she spoke to him and couldn't was no evidence about how he was speaking to her or if he was speaking to her whether there's evidence that he spoke to her in that she didn't understand what i'm saying when they directly interact as opposed to when he was walking around with her but the window outside so she couldn't really hear him describe it so i'm so i'm trying to figure out that she when she directly interacted with him is there anything in the record about how he was speaking at that time only she couldn't understand him ok or a cross examination in the complaint simply does not abide any prior constitutional rights violations by name of carnarvon subordinates were any prior constitutional rights violation even ever occurring in massachusetts they complain and on these lines i'm sorry is this it are you saying then that it has to be something generic to massachusetts for him to have a responsibility if it is a widespread national problem known to him yes  certain phenomena which we norway and think of as being national problems and if if we're dealing with one of those problems why should there have to be localized
that you knew the word was not manufactured correctly because he's put out these same manufacturers buildings before and he knew when he looked at it that it had been milled and correctly and then he put it up anyway  contract whatever or in this concrete regardless of the circumstances there was an agreement entered into for this five thousand two hundred twenty seven dollars and thirty four cents it was performed and performed to his satisfaction not so that's my question you would agree that he should get the rupee bargained for we know you've got a better route so much does the evidence show your client had to pay to get what
possibility of a performance based on the issue of not licensure and the arguments that have been raised in the motion for reconsideration are all new arguments that were never raised in that part of the record the fact it now counsel is basic for example that the performance of the that if you have a hundred agents working for you and you've got the wrong person designated to represent the south of the property it doesn't prohibit the other ninety nine people from bringing in the buyer so the legislature says through protect the brokerage
going to the commission on the commission affirms that decision and fisher appeals that to the circuit court in my estimation what what the central determination is is is the order that language for any you know all appropriate action he feels is is appropriate so you could've said something where we could hear i mean i think these things happen because you don't you know look at hindsight  opinion for the claim they were not the order to enter an opinion for the claimant so how do we know that the busy didn't simply just we have to enter it so here's a governess that would support it if we were to go that direction if they was correct so if we look at this order in a vacuum rather than simply the procedural posture of the entire case what you're saying could be true yes however judges were just earnings finding they were not instructed to do so and they actually  the commission decision has basically two parts of it that are conflicting so whether or not we know whether they were struck to do so which we know is not accurate based on judge murray's remember they were not instructed to do so however they did go through a long tail says of the conflict in medical evidence
official duties and as justice rather pointed out i just think that that is fair to bread every standard because protect and serve as no clear boundaries doesn't but the average individual really defend in this case and notice as to the type of
to force and a motion to modify here on september eighth twenty seventeen the robinson township filed a motion to modify disguised as a motion to enforce and again fact and it also included new direction in orders there it included and other action in the east timely filed a motion to modify that prior to ten october tenth twenty seventy would have prevented robinson township the ability to go away  pay real estate of variables and such as the direction to the clerk of the circuit court to require the order all of these findings and all of these i that october tenth twenty seventeen of the order that added additional findings of fact and supplied additional direction that were not contained in the twenty twelve final judgments the state is not