MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
tauriel doesn't what the result the result we see is not to inform the customer of the day we see to model the year promise to go custom so that's the new function in a more effective way than has been done before so it's this is the effect on human psyche you turn your page to get a fresh with every day and then a psychological effect as achieved no this is this patent were granted and i had a calendar that had you know the greater insurance company motif on the top and then your tearaway each day why wouldn't it be infringement for  is displayed along with the today on my calendar face to infringe your patent well the concept here is that you would tune out the thing that was there it would be when you which in that case had gotten other claims on that matter but there was no physical connection which there was a good one and there was no functional in a relationship either one would perform without the other it's possible if your product will allow it that's not of a very well you want just one of the skill in the arts and then then why if we're in the art of advertising why wouldn't want to skill say yeah with that name as often as you can and as many places as you can put it on every day well i always had that kind of an obvious printer that was not appreciated in fact there's no came back with the credit matter and basically said no more the printer better because there's no functional relationship so the issue that the court now have is it's not really that it's just imus on general grounds and on each day or each is particular day and date in addition on paper and you'll see there are other print there's other printed matter other than that advertise them in there so we've got the same printed matter in terms of the day and date we've got additional printed matter in terms of the history of his workplace every guy the advertising function already display
point i'm home but it must have just been a dream wow i feel like i suffer all whole month i must of been really tired i better get ready for school i wonder what ted will be wearing today oh my god i see your face in the mirror i can barely tell it's my my body has changed and it's so strange like my childhood has reached the finish what will everybody i told you i'm not ready yet ok ready could he be serious i know he tried to kill me and all but it seems like a minute change maybe i shouldn't terrorist throw it out after all what a dilemma i understand tad if you want we can wait
to on the stand on the stand she said i heard him say correct you know he borrowed a hundred dollars but but what the officer said was he told her that it was a part of it was inaudible she heard me out of dollars and so this hearsay statement that's inconsistent with that explanation the defense counsel's already stuck with how does it promote his explaining why they were fighting or what the motive was or anything like that  a situation where and this goes back to the first allegation about pyrrus out we're facing a situation where the evidence that does come in is going to show that my defendant or that my client is messing around with drugs and messing around with
working during this time period that all's going on he's working out of town with an employer and staying in hotels at the mercy of his employer to drive him out of town to bring him back so he's not just blowing off these things and all he's just and if you look at the probation order in r c forty six you'll see that number two says and this is not a let's let's beat our minds this is defended shall report to the county probation department on this date and here accurate times in the manner directed by the department folks who person and right there not having to make an agreement with the defendant about when he can come they assigned to twenty sacks and at that point in time they board only agreed upon the next meeting and that would be march twenty second and so he he had me know we know what a rec nose and said yes i'm back there was a meeting scheduled for the twenty second of march and the defendant did not show up and that that that meeting had been scheduled  twenty six when the defendant was in the office and had tested positive for in a field test for cannabis so the court found that notice were set to the correct address the defendant had he didn't claim he didn't get the notices in the mail he did he just claimed that his sister was on vacation and she picked him up two days late and so he didn't get notice in time now also in the probation or under order entered t m c the defendant is required to complete the debt additional evaluations and counseling as may be required by the written confirmation that he had obtained counseling and had done it by march twenty sixth and he did not do  d but he didn't back he did not fact that he admitted in this testimony that he did not pursue even beginning to arrange for substance abuse camp so that's clearly a battery fails if there was no subsequent conviction and if in fact this court should find that he has to show completion theory and if that that is order and that not merely showing and we know clearly that he knew about why in time to show up for it because if it happened on february twenty sixth and it was scheduled for march twenty second so for any of those reasons as for that for that
used then why would we even need anybody's testimony write it off and then we have a standard review here manifest weight of the evidence and here the i think there's a underlying concern here i think at least certainly mr blair would argue that this means being punished because he's not playing ball with the department human services he refuses treatment and they're not going l sexually violent person this act now he's has an indefinite commitment and he's now seventy he's been the de da just how long to you or something like that i mean we have to have a concern here about
requires the offense to be one which the police officer is required to take the defendant the person arrested before a judge for correct correction but that he's
day and the reason that we're here today but our emperors here are not really about the granite edifice or the plaque or the monument it's really about  sixty during which time me earned a master's degree in business administration of harvard nineteen seventeen a da just forty five he joined the british army as an av disease from those rooms in december a month after the war ended he was awarded the distinguished service cross and is buried here in the belmont cemetery william harvey smith also enlisted in the mass national guard into ninety and sixty and we can imagine that they probably knew each other he served on the mexican border before being deployed overseas in september nine hundred seventy three served as a mechanic this monument the memorial to that time on this memorial day we thank you and praise you for veterans living and dead from belmont and around the country in the world who
chief and then one complex criminal prosecution prosecution that did not involve a conspiracy and was not a particularly complex matter involving  if the government was able to establish that point in the southern california area there were there what could i think in this part for even less of a price that he purchased in addition as the corners where the the fundamental number of incriminating statement is post moran i also went to him to these narcotics and finally there was an expert testimony presented limit hand and ask for testimony about unknowing drug couriers on the other hand regarding expert testimony involving drug trafficking organizations the cases that are quite clear that the government cannot  present that expert testimony which shows the compartmentalise nature of these international drug trafficking organizations which typically are located in mexico and a lot of these cases arose out of the southern district on  or may not have any connection to such an organization had knowledge versus on the other hand the maria campos in cordoba cordoba line of cases where this court has approved on our drug courier testimony and i'd like to direct the court again to the record specifically are the questions asked to the expert because i grew those questions directly from real at the government's excerpts of record at pages two thirty one through two thirty nine i think it should be but people found at methamphetamine labs to claim they were just on the premises just kind of on that here's another one here it's ninety and ninety seven case and just in this was one of the reasons i debated whether or not to put it on a trial was one of the things the x for opined was that a drug trafficker one who didn't was an underling troyer would not use the proper level of care with regard to the of cooperation after he started talking he sounded very garrulous to me he told the age of about everything they wanted to know except i guess he didn't know where foresees gang which actually has the nexus of the murder in that case because they did a drive by shooting any member of that gang so i found it not credible his denial of membership and then after he had proffered when we came the opinion and i'm looking at fifty five after eleven seventy seven where we talked about this whole issue of trial was where the defendant knew that the car he was driving contained drugs and that the expert testimony which is  it all goes to the same defense you know i didn't know there were drugs in the car your defense was i didn't know there were drugs in the package i thought i was ordering a gearbox but i just i hear
you heard history on alcohol enough was good news are you taking the position that it would not be possible for the court to find that she was not fit
of assistance of counsel on direct appeal when we have no idea the fact there was a problem with the chain of custody get reversed conviction of the speculation that gee maybe wouldn't
preparing for today went through all my notes and everything and looking at a brief i acknowledge that we did not inform the trial court with degree of specificity perhaps we should have asked burden of proof and even probably  claim for recision as a matter of law to get to that point of alleged fraud procuring the deed and its complaints that allege that the property is worth five times that what the defendants were to pay for in its complaint specifically they the value of the property was forty thousand dollars for the value of the property it was wholly insufficient we don't know that or the trucker didn't know that because they didn't have the admissible evidence before to make that determination and shouldn't have considered any other  sixteen years back from one nine hundred ninety nine to two thousand and fifteen if further acknowledged to its trust officer and on appeal that it made no attempt to pay the taxes itself and it made no request to pay the would take away all the trappings of this case it's really quite simple a son entered into an agreement with his mother and there were other five other subjects by the way the son was the oldest there was discussion a few months after that agreement was made which was overheard by his siblings and others then about a year later his mother died  the allegation or the suggestion that we did fraud or the property was undervalued all that is irrelevant we didn't care we knew that it was worth more than the forty thousand but that didn't make any difference we just said the show that he didn't make any payments and the real question should be to the straw is why do you think you should become the sole this property when you failed to make the i i certainly were rescissions an equitable room right if it's a breach and it's a breach of a contract why should you be complaints and verify complaint which we contended was improper a written appraisal performed by deborah lewis we have filed a motion to strike that from there this lewis and plaintiffs could have called this it was a trial subject to cross examination it could contract amount owed ten years later to me it's true that we chose not to accept that we want to rescind the contract and two years before that they say they tender they believe yours was your attorney and he to project i don't know how the defendant would order to show decision there has to be the breach has to be so substantial that the party seeking rescission would not have entered into the arena but for that condition take place here the evidence presented work or to set aside the deed during that over a year between the deed being signed and her past and all of my research all the cases state that's it person to set aside to be this personal to the great work that is not
he does and doesn't want to get involved in that type of situation and it's not going to get to him for the worse because he says that i don't know the answer that question you guys ever deal with of text messages must have been for two years mine testified that these kind of incidences happen all the time doris testified that bit this was just the way her dad was and that had been building through the last two years and that she would other contact on dad the father could have tried to do counseling try to do counseling with daughter and i understand daughter said now i don't you know i don't think that will help but that just goes for the show but the jail wasn't just listening to at the circuit level so now things happen at the circuit level during the pendency of this deal because father filed it he'll he could have came in a day thirty five instead you know we try we have these  the fact that the the short stack as they were are going to be in front of the judge would have given him the opportunity to ask for more on and it's and we've always been able to tell the court this is what's happened in the last thirty five days and certain things happen to us not thirty five days that we would have been able to tell the court to deal with the way we have you know the relationship was i think that our council also wants to talk about the power to limited a parent's time with the child if there's been a significant impairment of the town's emotional development that is not the same as severe endangerment of their physical health and may be foun
let me give you the concern that's behind that question may be the reason why there's generally not a right of action under a federal spending condition asking if the remedy for washington's violating us federal program is to cut off federal medicaid fines how can that possibly help your clients to give and give them standing to raise this issue state regulation even though there's no private right of action consumer and argue that the street regulation our stance or something is preemptive federally b we were to do that so how does that square with the regulations under the supposed to turn s s i supplemental payments for regulations that say that if the state takes over the administration of the wasn't eligible after apple at that love that he wasn't but more than fifteen thousand of the class members were because the classes and i think this is a point worth making the class is essential individual beneficiaries cannot be diminished and if it takes more than twenty nine million to do that because the state has now expanded the class of potential beneficiaries in the state is going to have to have to kick in more money to say we're going to alex twenty nine twenty eight point nine million dollars whatever the number of twenty nine million views around it number but we're only going to pay s s people humans to the board and we're not go commissioner then said ok and that's something that commissioner i supposed to do but my point being that the commissioner didn't have this eldredge they didn't have the records in front of them the in october of two thousand and three earlier in october before the district court ruled that mr approves the logic of the plan and that is in a record it was before the district court however class of cases where there may be no identifiable statutory cause of action no civil rights claim but that nonetheless a party man both the supremacy clause if he or she is otherwise particularly difficult in times of declining resources and increasing the ban which is precisely what the washington legislature was faced with in two thousand and two there was a one point two five billion dollars budget shortfall a legislature first can simply discontinued all n saying that two state regulations don't comply with the federal law which will necessarily switch well there that means that about sixteen billion dollars that
same period was an excess of three hundred thousand dollars the court went on to say misuse in chemistry for the past five years is a strong indicator that he will continue to enjoy significant income into the future no parent of we had financing that was done even using marital property as collateral and the courthouse in the clearance case that using that marital property as collateral did not that marital property so we have to really get even more extreme situation than ours and it provides great support that these clubs but the personal guarantee i a waiver arguing mess because it was not brought up at the trial court as far as i was distributing more than fifty percent until the claim to the mo emerges from all of those cases is not how big it was with what it was a relation to what the other party was going to get i mean you hear about going back to the ethics of case which i think is the first case that the base principles hard to do but she was there all the way helping while he was making all that money taking care of things that he didn't have to worry about so he could go off and make all that money and if she were the consideration to hear not just the idea that he
was credible in all aspects of her testimony it's also not a question about whether or not there's a social group because the immigration judge found that they belonged to a particular social group and that was a parents who are i gather three people who are it's an argument for saying that if you find the sum is a member of the group and that he is the victim then that goes for the parents as well exactly and there is a bar for that and the board for example on the female genital mutilation cases has found that because the daughters designed to be sent back to the country and this is going to happen to her that there is a persecution of the parents and they because of your physical condition it is a pattern a practice of the government or as their policy i think that any other kind of social group or any other individual were treated as medical waste per that would be persecution and the record is replete with information about how children who are handicapped in russia are tended to their parents are not treated humanely and they're not treated in a way that will help them to live they're compelled to do stuff that's pretty from their parents and institutionalized i think that any other kind of person treated that way w is a result of the fact that the respondents are a member of a particular social group described above watch in the record shows that these are not necessarily the most economical way to treat handicapped children so it's not a budgetary issue in russia it's a social and political decision but they want these ok all right let me ask you another question  that the board can you know do a short statement ted opinion i'm agreeing with the immigration judge and therefore can be in essence relying on the analysis and findings of the immigration judge sort of but sort of the precursor  twenty more seconds and actually like to get to the point of the judges ruling it out persecution if i mean i can continue on on a social group but i have used most of the time on that and i do think it's very important to recognise that know if i don't think it's necessary to tell us it's heartbreaking and said what can you when you don't plan on doing anything about it or you don't care so what it does matter to the government whether it's heartbreaking well you tell court might say it is and might say it's compel depending on what you believe the term persecution means well i think in this case the judge has applied actually said a humanitarian grounds he would grant pence but he felt constrained it's near discrimination or whether it does down the line after line to persecution and that's something we have to decide it is and i think it's also important here that an element for
does not compete is unbeatable in scope and not narrowly tailored to precisely protect only protect the interest of c d s that's the standard under the state of rhode island's law and requires strict increased over the years or changed it and other enterprise and so their enterprise other businesses their enterprise that's a circumstance where you still may have to get to the actual employee  my view is that that's not a bad or miniscule or some very minor amount of robotics its effects so significantly over abroad that there is no way to consider or scaling it back we don't believe that that's the case on the an activity restriction the definition of competition and the definition of competition essentially makes clear that a person can go to a competitor to one of these competitors and one of the defined rise of businesses if the job that they're doing is not the same or similar in function or purpose or if it's not likely going to going to result in disclosure of use of confidential information our view is that that substantially narrows reasonable range and ties to a legitimate business interest the not the or the emphasize that we're not saying that nobody has ever taken a position in this case that mr glavin was barred from being a negotiator in any context for any company but on the nd on that the issue was as found very difficult was that the job he was competitor looking out or whether it's unlikely that confidential information would be disclosed if that if the person joins a competitor the ask him a case gets at that at that issue with the course here or maybe factual finding that that is the case that competitor because our confidential information is at stake there's no there's no basis to conclude in a record that this company has done that in in similar cases and with respect to the example on that  no confidential information that and possesses from the job that he did it at c v s that would be placed at risk there are there are lines that can be drawn based on this one which it doesn't appear that the company car wants to say in any instance any employee has confidential information that would be at risk of going to another job perhaps i misunderstood what you said or perhaps i misunderstood i went to congress and you said the finding is not challenged and it underpins the conclusion that the provision was there would be narrowly tailored to protect confidential information and should be should be enforced in this case information that would make it to the retail business and that rick be related to the c v s enterprise generally so it's not reasonable in the circumstances of a case like this with a high levels executive who is working in areas other than the area for the definition of competition are competitor to be broader than just the specific division that he was nominally assigned to and again those are factual conclusions that that the court contracts that are characteristic of consumers right comes because that so that's a basis for the eighteen months to ration that is right around of the contracts are one and two years in duration so it's in