MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
multiple surveillance videos which were not offered into evidence and were not and for which no foundation was laid is or evidence that they overthrew did review those who are afraid or order they be produced to her and and then there's nothing else on the record about that fact that was her or her that they be refuted think there were some discussions off the record that were not documented well  event that they should he didn't can be an impediment you could've introduced them neither of you did well the problem is your own or without any number one without any foundation there can be question as to whether the person depicted is even  basically arguing that what the trial judge excusing what the arbitrator reviewed that you say shouldn't have been reviewed was video that was favorable to that somehow spun it mentally different then the attorneys tendering the tape but i think you have a distinction without a difference what's the difference in the mind of the judge reviewing it how the judge he or she came into possession of the thing because you know that there was testimony potentially as to you know ex parte conversations that the investigator has with the petitioner i think this full if the all beings are going to be received into evidence i think it's only fair that the full circumstances behind them also be put into evidence in the way it was done instead is that there's eight minutes that goes of that evidence and then an unspecified amount of time over a nine month period that only the arbitrator gets to  i think that the problem here is that this is a different situation than that typical because the arbitrator now has this information  factual dispute information other videos and so you can't really undermine that as opposed to where that presumption typically arises where there's just for all the evidence that's injected into the record he did a little bit of the stretch because the bottom line is in both instances the judge is hearing something that perhaps is a protection of all but the judge is presumed to call out with his relevant  ible of what feels right and again i think the other the other difference being in that situation it's one party or another but at least attempts to inject this information into the trial court and in the trial court as it would effect on  judge they're hearing it they decide what's relevant it isn't so in their past aren't they arguably considering irrelevant prejudicial information that they don't allow to go to the other side of it but certainly can't so you're saying the judge in any instance  which council has mentioned in these issues presented as a side note but is not really argued and it remains defend its position in this case that whatever put your thumb over the video evidence whether it's in a missile or not in you saw the arbitrator of you some of them correct there was about ten twenty minutes and i'm sorry because i read through your briefs where does that come from are you is that something outside the record that you're telling us to
rebecca despite the fact that the medical examiner testified that the scene was not bad immediately from the bullets that struck  record and what i think any reasonable person looks at this record if you want me to make a statement to your client you have an obligation to do some homework you have an obligation to look at the medical reaction because the pennsylvania superior court call that claim nonsensical that's not my term that's the truth used by the police or the supreme court so we're looking into whether or not mr a defense of others defen testimony at trial for the first time he said i know i can tell that the heart was still beating blood pumping when the time that the second bullet hit hot therefore establishing the heart was alive at the time of of course you would look at whatever you want to look at but i do believe that he has to be bound by what he presents and it's not fair for us to have to defend against a new marquee meant on appeal that we were put on any truly had not said what he said that there's no way you can be convicted he would have accepted that offer right and i think it puts it in the same position as the affidavit that was supplied you know against the apollo rules at this three points your honor first jewish where it is it's absolutely true the tribal council made no opening statement not before the state's case began and even when defense lawyers sometimes reserve their open  well the defense counsel in which by the medical examiner's testimony i don't think it was inconsistent i think it was certainly the additional trial counsel has an obligation before providing that
history where in this case offering to the court in exclusion how it affected his decision he believed that there were most of the consequences as a practical matter in terms of how much time he we don't know until after the trial is permissive consecutive sentencing would be appropriate i think it's down america where it is it's appropriate it's a matter of whether it was a possibility and it was a possibility to this defendant from the get of judge filner for a jury waiver and that was fully done you know only it's true it was voluntary and at the end of that they're talking about scheduling the bench trial next week and and in a previous scheduled meeting i think this is two seventy six judgement here and indicated that in the jury trial week she won't be available for the first part so somebody  issued trial very gradually after that the defendant guilty to two other offenses so we've only remaining charges are the weapons charges which he had previously severed from the jury sentence or consecutive sentencing based on protection of the public is based only on the facts and circumstances of the case which he had to be determined until after the trial so that perhaps the court should not have
hi i'm david the bruce and they are ok we continue to take a look at some of the sound d's from the past yes you know i just thought we'd take a break from looking at some of the contemporary musicians with their original music and take a look at some of the great artists of the past and where i'm picking up the  a lot of the latin favorites now back in the day when these were popular latin lovers were really the thing think of i love lucy where she married desi arnaz he was a cuban so there was quite a latin craze way back when in the early fifty's late forty's and that's when most of these were made and these showcase artists that i'm sure you've never heard of but they contributed to the art of latin music latin jive latin swing yeah is sure they have their own versions of it and these are really delightful so point this is a blast from the past year so you know get sure that and where you call those things that you shake you know to get your tambourines and your what do you call that i forget man come on what do you call them get those out because man we're going to have really a lot of fun here we go sound these latin i'm david the bruce your watching wro you more than just
some plane and she didn't know what it was right which was located about one foot from the hypothetical given the way you describe it as being interact with one person who stood up from the bales and took a step around as the flames get higher or lower for example the perimeter may have been set up one way but the st person that comes in to sit around the fire may move his or her veil back three or four feet or up forward three or four feet we do know for sure the purpose of her standing up with her back to the fire was to make sure the fire was behind her so that we be in the picture right there again i did this that often provided
and sharon
what the issue is a question whether or not dr shekhar made an invention but as the office kept stressing if in fact your claims appear to read on prior art this is the time in which you should make the more precise more exact and so i'm not really sure what it is being argued about that's really an invitation to be specific to have the  enforce the stand for other than free hand but why not put is there or is there something that precluded up major client just putting that word in to resolve this issue we wouldn't be here i presume arguably that was offices is that the breadth of the claim seems to reach into the space as you mentioned until you got to the primary but to say i claim everything that's not in the prior requires a supporti save the rest of your time
car next to the defendant and it was right on the floor in the definitive accident the car a police officer found there or the police officer infer since that was in a car pool by the defendant the fitting had just been and the broke out of like a bill of sale transfer whatever of all these guns and she did it over to her husband and wound up being the defendant on this case and it was much much much later that she came forward and said for her he said or they both said all this is a situation where i don't believe that you can say that he owned a home there or he had access to everything because he was the homeowner the whole and its credibility determination and these were the good ones they were given back to him by the state who condone so i believe that it's against the manifest weight of the evidence in the hotel the entire picture if you look at this for the court
buy this equipment you're not buying it for fair weather of us you have to have a butler for the worst case scenario you know that it's got a well it's a snowstorm  my recollection is that last week there were no comments from anybody there had been nothing about the plan that has changed so on the proposed resolution is for but i do know that there are some time constraints and steve is looking to move this forward i know he would have been here had i not been for surgery today he's probably home at this point  still a little bit under the effects of the image the
little bit more of a burden on them and getting bills apart a reason for the two ways is having to run things through fee schedule which we complied so councils citation of never to cure a case has actually been complied with in this case there is no surgeon that did the surgery prior to trial they were aware of these medical providers they were surprised by them in any regard there were balances remaining at the point that we went to trial with a problem may twenty third the arbitrator decision or in those bills that were made at issue at trial those bills were tendered to respondent by way of the stick sheet requesting payment of petitioners exhibits five through nine they were all nor said that point in time clearly they did do anything th after the award to pay those bills the commission used the june twenty third date in calculating the hundred and sixty four day delay as the date that responded would have received the commission's decision and
all in your standard review you don't mention anything about body you case small talks about the red cross motions for summary judgment morning indicated any time in your argument that there was an issue with regard to the cross
said with respect to this left hand injury no i occasionally file therefore it doesn't exist there is no issue of long that wasn't based on any legal precedent statute or case they basically said there is no merit with respect to your left hand claim one set happens there's nothing to remain and to an arbitrator or the commission to make a decision on the merits because the commission has already made a decision on the of the merits being it's as if this claim never existed it defeated and dismissed without prejudice which gives me something to and i know like paul it's going to bring up because you will read the brief and you will see things about this leads to claim it in a procedural never never land and it violates some other case law which indicates applications for adjustment of players should be malleable in other words we should be a little looser with them because we're trying to  now work the commission to say this is dismissed with prejudice based on such and such a law and such and such facts or statute or case it said are a problem you're having this conversation but the very fact the commission said the left hand claim doesn't exist for intents and purposes they threw it out it's gone these new facts for the for the circuit court to decide the circuit court sit back and said consider that a no no because they have a standard in the manifest way to the evidence when it comes to the facts and my argument to you into this body is that when the commission says determination is not the final order in the absence of the final order we don't hear jurisdiction you're going to get to the merits of your case after the commission does what he ordered them to do and it comes up here the second time that under advisement then to instruct obviously that your honour's purview as well as the courts above to instruct the circuit court judges and the commissions to make those things a little more understandable for us when it comes to their  so i don't really want to argue anymore about jurisdiction because i believe you've said it all that this order is final and appeal of all they're not magic words if it isn't final it's not final whether you say it or not other issue then is if the court finds and has jurisdiction you have to look to the manifest weight of the evidence argument as it pertains to the right hand i want to get into that you don't well then i really would like to speak with  guardedly motion to dismiss was touched upon that was not i believe counsel indicated she did file it was filed by somebody else the other crafts that the motion to dismiss would
defense was that the defendant's property correct with this someone had taken a measuring stick and measured out they may have been able to discover that the real two private individuals and in this circumstance where public trust was vacated and the two do it for building or whatever it is but what you're saying is there in order for you when you have to go before two thousand and so you can't win with making some kind freshman a spell it doesn't have to do something within twenty years otherwise you're going to risk that they have there's a good question but i think that the question is true whenever you have a case of adverse possession adverse possession isn't something that happens overnight it's some
discharge based on a neutral absenteeism policy you know is not retaliatory discharge in effect well not now so so they come forward and they say we have this neutral absenteeism policy  if you can't come back to work in a year we can we can discharge without violating your rights don't you have to produce something then to show that there is some retaliatory mody or workers comp if there's no proof of any modi beyond following the policy then is there a genuine issue of material fact for the court track i mean domingo's you have to show for example you know in the last ten years twenty people have been discharged under this policy and nineteen of them had filed worker's comp important conversation claims or you know so and so who w discharged into the policy had been hurt in an auto accident rather than worker's comp and they didn't discharge that say and yet you know i mean if you've got anything like bad then you know there's an issue there is an inference could be drawn that are people who have been injured or work that one hundred percent now i don't know if that is there any evidence that that's true well it is easy to get into things usually in these kind of cases where it's a question of whether it's a statistical significant number based on the number of employees and so forth i know it's one hundred percent of of everybody who's this policy has been applied to the busy body for example like i said earlier it is there are employees it will be given the bill to the side whether or not this policy is valid in a business just for taking on so are you essentially saying that there should never be a summary judgment that there could never
is that in two thousand and five the length he was putting the matter over to february fifth two thousand and fourteen so that you would have time to review the petition twenty one he denied the defendant's motion to meet him i think it was clear at that point that the judge did intend to dismiss the position as the documentary or flacks that he did intend to dismiss this petition at that point mildly but the fact of the matter is the judge intended to dismiss this fish with fission and the defendant had the chance to appeal that people would submit that what i don't i guess i don't know what else would be required besides you
revere regarding the judgment that was in your favor that you felt wasn't fully satisfying or didn't give you full satisfaction but you couldn't appeal as you are doing right now a judgment that was rendered in your favor and this cage was rendered in your favor to the extent that the pointers lost their time and you hence went without a day meaning you didn't have to come back to court again now the trial court granted you relief to the extent that he said there was a push through the reasoning but he also said something that you didn't like which was the nature and extent of established the probability of success on the merits and in which case the judge is supposed to dismiss the cause and grant summary judgment to the defendant if that was the appropriate summary judgment motion how does it have anything to do with what you're arguing here which suggests that if he denied the summary judgment motion you're making arguments that are not germane to the merits of his denial or grant of your portion for s addition or to if you filed a motion claim that you had as a matter of right to a summary judgment based on a prescriptive easement but didn't indicate what the with the problem then why don't you file a new cause of action claiming that you have a prescriptive easement and based upon a prescriptive easement you are entitled to something more than what the trial court gave you now whether or
mystery crime in may and they filed the lawsuit in july right but they didn't serve it until december and it appears that in deciding that that was a proper case the  the rapid and russia time and this if you don't mind the only thing i would say was that was not an issue and you know it may have happened but was what was the issue was the dismissal and the family grief within six months after the question on that part of the case what we assume that there is jurisdiction to do it that twenty six twenty five a is a procedural bar rather than a jurisdictional statute is that the district court abused its discretion in determining to gran its answer in a truthful and specific way now the government knew at the time that it that the boss was found three days early and when you look at their denial it's their denial as one from lack of information and believe it's an untr the government doesn't saying why the government doesn't say for failure to comply with twenty six seventy five anyway they cite nothing i don't know what that means but i do know what it says the complaint is barred on the basis of latches well if we its answer gave us notice that the complaint was filed here early then they knew the day in august of zero zero the government knew what the situation was and then the government played a little game with everyone the engaged in discovery they took and the possibility of finding a second one that's why i disagree maybe we should turn ourselves to the matter i mean in terms of as a practical matter as a solution to th three months or i don't want to mcalpine then then we're in the same situation where it is because i haven't quite got there yet but jersey isn't yours doesn't bind this court in following her  twenty four one that's the statute that says you have to file your claim within two years when your cause of action accrues the second is the six month waiting period that's twenty six seventy five day and then the third block is the other half of twenty four o in twenty six seventy five we reject i'm reading directly now from this court's opinion in blair we rejected the government's argument the principles of sovereign immunity require just recourse to dismiss court says waivers of immunity should be from ours it's statutory defiance the court statement of the law has since evolved in the ten years since jurors the court is now putting a different policy a different purpose a different interpretation  district court that i don't recall but i don't know the answer to your question i have a question if we were to think that our famous tried circa mediation office might be helpful would you be willing to consider note was correct there but if you look at the whole decision it was never
item was the subdivision for right away for the turning lane the parking thing was a secondary issue that came up in the minutes made it sound like that was being approved while was being approved was the some division with them right away turning away so i wanted that clarified and then the third thing under miscellaneous was related to the comment about returning a public road to privately i'm wanting to make sure that  of seventy five hundred dollars for the purchase of a snowball in free and that's because the one truck they want is you can get no this this actually is not the this is this is a separate pickup truck processed in his unable to fill any truck orders that they would have normally for this pickup would have ordered a dodge as well and they key and so this is not on the truck that we've already ordered this is a different this is turns out so this is actually slightly cheaper than that purchasing the doj the other thing you know why it's a good thing that that media factory facilities come in thought is made a factory facilities coming back to detroit before truck she should know things that require you to visibly do things that she was very much we're just going to be so sure we said should we start advertising for a new student rev of this point i think we can but i don't know whether it makes sense to do that the products that can be recycled under the new contract are going to that that list is going to be reduced and that that has to do with the problem with the markets for recycled materials they'll no longer be able to take the class may i submit to mr loughner some suggestions about recommendations for more membership and qualifications and trying to establish a little bit more formal outline of when people who need to be there should at you know it's one thing we cancel the program we should refund the money but really if it's people who are signing up and signing up early just for the sole purpose of saving a spot to someone else they can't use and then backing out of the program we really ought to just consider giving them a credit for that money rather than refunding it that makes sense to be wrong i don't know what i can tell you how much of that is people deciding not to do the program and how much of that is us can i have to talk talk with michelle my understanding is that what we have done is allow you to come to a program and make a determination as to whether or not it's what you want and then give you a chance then to back out of the program  and styrofoam containers i'm wondering do we have that capability from a local level
favorite of so many as a matter of fact i think we're going to do this in two episodes so this will be the first of our two betty boop was a very popular flapper  gal and then in the thirty's she had to give up her flapper ways showing her garter and her short skirt and being rather spicy i have the screen sometimes even topless too went public domain i can't believe that such great work did that but anyways on today's show and then our next episode you're going to see some of that betty boop