MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
actually some of the time that matter to me for the property but after that since coming here would eventually have it that money when they did eventually get around to finishing the plant they did it off ok so now the issue is the only issue is the eighteen million dollars which was clauses that require jones to be cooperated and actively paragraph six point eight in the contract for example the required us to cooperate in getting the plant done because jones had knowledge of the permits and things like that so what we lost both parties were completely on track with the idea a particular version of dictionary and we went into the public library and actually managed to find the same version of the truck or another shelf in chambers and we notice that another definition of the same word was intended so since mutual intent everyone we develop even more in our second reason or first for it in quite large and these are that even if the parties never sat down and talked about this issue about whether help why has them discretionary right to avoid making the payments simply by stopping construction for some months and that's turning it up again view that's correct and there are there is a case in the landlord tenant contest which talks about the duty of good faith attaching to you and a term that's written in the contract but we would argue a that i think that contemplating something is different than agreeing to it is is kind of the base level response which is what the truck work also believes and i think the second thing is that ultimately i think i guess when i was responding to those questions from the trial court fellow i had in mind that that maybe what the planet had in mind was some oral agreement outside the contract that as mr jones and happened representative of walking out of the you know the law high and if we can make the summer market then we're going to make more a lot more than two hundred thousand dollars a day during the summer so if we can do that then i'll share some of that with you mr jones but if we can't get energy prices go down you revealing what the court really said was look at this contract other good you can make or title and you didn't do it so you've reached the contract and there's language in there about the condition precedent but i don't think that's based on was the case  interfered with the approval of the buyer's application to be a member of the country club which was a condition precedent of the purchase he went out and interfered with he voted against that on the board and members act this way to others on the board of a guest of course or look if you've got to interfere said that they agreed is that enough to at least alleging agreement to go forward their their papers make clear of eight or nine of their briefing book on it makes clear that the only agreement they're talking about is the purchase agreement they're not talking about anything else
is consistent with that case and the distinction between bad case and most of the other cases that are severed in the party's briefs the distinction being we look at it who it is sad to say exactly and the intervene so it takes away from that the fact that since that q e recognises the potential for coverage for which it needed to get a declaration that it wasn't be the equitable contribution argument which is where q e says or not the same res exactly that there would be covered for that under under right we believe to be the current state of long we don't think that it stands for the principle but there is absolutely no coverage for property damage on any construction site it on the allegations the complaint in this case it should have been found that a curio did a duty to defend and and should have defended taken roache as cincinnati did the second point on appeal and again did the court's ruling in their running and in fact it never will be the dangling case settles back before it went to trial in terms of actual determination of who had liability and run the actual damages occurred so we're stuck with that but since it's a duty to defend analysis suggested i think we present evidence of the crude we could say and get an affirmative really here's the complaint it appears to put these years of issue at those years since nobody had this much coverage of those years acuity had that much coverage split whatever it is fifty if you look at home vs cincinnati the ring there and i believe contribution was really driven by the fact that it was determined that one piracy was excess on the other primary and that's the reason why they didn't have a concurrent application to defend because as we all know the primary
dot org i'm buff stovall and in today's news almost half of the idaho marilyn mines workers have been laid off in a restructuring that will put the company's first proposed ceramic tile plant outside of grass in one or two months if the funding is landed the restriction also means that the first commercial ceramics plant generated from rock waste from the mine will open in another area where environmental reviews are not on the table the plan is to build a production plant here but old bear can start elsewhere right away said watkins the president some business parks outside the area have expressed an interest in the ceramics operation bu pollution largely brown from sacramento devils the city and they set a regional summit on the issue of polluted air it's a good idea but they deferred voting on the matter until later this month citing concerns about some strongly worded and possibly misleading statements in the proposed resolution i know of feith families who want to leave leave here because they don't want to raise their families in this poor quality said arena quality i want to make a stand here and bring together virtually all of our county and added plus some it could include federal state local and regional offices fishel who would educate people about the problem and propose after pleading guilty this week to felony charges of invading an officer and resisting officer with force and violence over nevada county district attorney's office ronald baker age forty three is also suspected to a repeat into the incident when a large said camel guards submitted to a blood test to determine whether any drugs or alcohol were in his system at the time of the shooting test came up negative guard was also put on  accounting superior court that's right it's time for the police blotter with the man earlier in the day just south of nevada county line ran after an accident the man had a misdemeanor warn for drunken driving he was considered our wednesday twelve thirty seven a m a caller from the ever to block state authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions turning general brown joining thirteen states in the city of new york and spending and sending a letter to the house speaker nancy pelosi pushing strong opposition into the trouble thirty two is h r twenty nine point seven brown said california could be crippled by the brazen attempt to preempt our state's emission standards i mean history is working to sabotage california's landmark greenhouse gas earthquake and we realize the bridge was collapsing jamie said boom boom and we were just dropping dropping dropping behind the wheels dennis one guard thought to keep their houston family's chrysler
so that it's funny but i don't think we're permuting them to deliver at seven thirty in the morning when we dropped my children off at school trying to get through the senate and i don't know who the trucks are about to go up and say where are the specifications and requirements and have our board orders this is not supposed to be those double double parked eighteen wheelers delivering food even on a saturday morning so i know that's to be the
message to all the world i believe in the sacredness and dignity of the individual i believe that all men derive the right to freedom equal a from god i pledge to resist aggression and tyranny wherever they appear on earth i am proud to enlist in the crusade for freedom i am proud to help make the freedom bell possible for the assigner this declaration of freedom i have my name included as a permanent part of the freedom shrine in berlin to join with the millions of people throughout the world  hold the cause of freedom sacred granger's if you haven't signed the freedom scroll and join the crusade for freedom check the crusade committee in your town ask how you can join hands with millions of your fellow americans in this crusade eagerness do not just like killing that's what you mean as not to be blinded by the dutch well when you're travelling along in my brain to use common sense x is a pretty important when healed and i just see where you're going and the same time it keeps you from getting splattered by the mud of prejudice i suppose you've made cows or some fella maybe goes to a curate's that's different from yours or his boats come from a different country all your skin is of a different color well these differences get in your way of course not back you know what he's like inside you know it's fun to be with you like the same games and those are the same hobbies and sticks up for you like a real clown what i tell your common sense x is a when she or grangers as long as you use it no one can throw
well to not be within you have to be without which means you have to cross it right there's also public policy concerns here from a commonsense point of standpoint a reasonable lease officer observing
arguable claim of prejudice if trial counsel engaged in a course of conduct i acquiesced to that jury instruction which of them negated any possible which was how the state charged is never right and the follow follow them through to its logical conclusion because the court gave the instruction under any and sort of under siege therefore he doesn't get the self defense and if he had got the self defense because the court had given the instruction consistent with how the case was char's it appears as though he would've gotten
about just wanted to address a few points that fate is that this is not a trust reformation or a trust construction action i know that though a great deal of the argument that was just given addressed this problem underneath those
they have a i'm sorry were you finished bill a question with regard to the sentencing if i understand the state's argument is that the jeopardy never attached because although the judge that the ability for him to remain there was was prohibited yes in that room or in the room itself would have that yes so there is a lawsuit there is that that point she wants them and i'm getting a scenario where he's having an overcorrection with his mother ok and so when was he
minotaur twenty twelve with a business proposal and then business proposal was initiated by the showing a proposal of a confidentiality agreement between that when a broker providing real estate broker services to a purchaser of the brokerage that deprived a commission merely because the purchaser completed the sale without the brokers direct them when the broker introduced the parties the sale and theory is then you have to bring in the limited liability company but nobody would know about this until the title is taken some people form their companies just at that moment but this was left is achieved so specific activities as well as the opportunity as well as actually completed deal to purchase the property is what makes up the value of those services and when the evidence at trial already established that well and this ronson said yes that's what the buyer would be paid under the circumstances and sitting with the evidence show was that each one there's a term brokers to a transaction one for a buyer and one for a seller but each paid a percentage of the sale price  fifty thousand dollars and in the same sense that's why the buyer's broker would be under that would be worth the value worth  asking him to be involved in the transaction so as not to say that you jamieson had no role in this whatsoever the fact matter is this whole transaction really deal with jamieson both parties agreed in their testimony that another brokerage jam bad mr colossal was also a vice president of jamison real estate so was being correct to say that jamison just suddenly appeared out of nowhere at some point in transaction expected a brokerage commission and the three april two thousand and thirteen through the time the transaction was completed to him to act on what he believed the commission was old language he didn't know who was the buyer rise until there was till he had knowledge later in november of two both discarding mr swansons testimony but he's also relying on mr swanson testified that he was a real estate broker who are forty eight years of experience to act as it is a court appointed receiver he was certain had the experience wherewithal and know how to testify how much the value of a real estate broker services are worth in this particular transaction and he testified to that and that testimony was all about it and it was one contradicted the evidence in
reduction in sentence only within a lowered guidelines range based on an amendment to the guidelines that this court held in my quote neither the district court nor this court is free to interact in a proceeding pursuant to eighteen argument having nothing to do with the proceeding below or being raised ok thank you papers at this time very good thank you very much yes it's not a brand new claim it's a claim that was raised before this court back in two thousand and it was really and it was not raised in the district court below and there was no w try to fill this if i was just curious if if your argument is correct doesn't that mean that any any defendant who was sentenced before bowker and who could not raise a book or claim because because not retroactive such a defendant if he gets a new judgment under three thousand five hundred and eighty two motion cannot erase a book and citing the benzenes decision that you way he's in a film with playing if you don't raise it at the st opportunity you have to raise it when you have the opportunity and incentives to do so  sense before booker was decided whether or not he raised that i mean if he couldn't if he couldn't raise it because it was premature that's not a meaning for opportunity to raise it but if he was sentenced before booker and he gets  two adjustments now in your view he can raise a poker claim i am not prepared to accept the premise of your question that such a defendant would have would be able to do so because he didn't have a meaningful so mr mr brass wears a veil themselves of that opportunity of a picnic so i think you can leave open a don't need to sign today in this case whether or not every other defendant and under what circumstances every other any
and that they can get away with malpractise and that's ok
classified employee and that's this did not occur in this situation what if we say they're not exempt employee they're just not exempt employees what kind of employees can we  analysis but my question to you is were they not regular employees in title and hearing before they got fired well the answer again i view it probably
reasons st heitman and all federal courts have concluded that one like mr brown who has a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence conviction and is not obtained a pardon and has not had a civil rights restored cannot possess firearms under got this individual has a pardon from the governor of the state on excusing from the state of california yes from california and california law under the united states supreme court's president and united states versus the cha speaking about the firearm rights in california is and members are well so so from my understanding in california there is a part and procedure and potentially  's judgment that the rest or potential for domestic violence not the likelihood probability or certainty of that violence is sufficient and the th circuit has been joined  examine the circumstances regarding the criminal conviction the applicant's overall criminal history and his reputation to see it that he would act in a manner dangerous to public safety and sections hence ether theory requires the circuit  as shown barnstead in fisher help these sorts of individualized determinations are all very inappropriate back as applied challenges and when one is still have been ed under federal law under this court opposite of what the law is which is if you are going to relieve under the statute then you address the constitutional issue and it's also the exact opposite of what happened or men for that matter and jonathan reason johnson case which is of before the i don't believe that actually hasn't been funded in twenty five years so we can call the see if you know but if it is the federal i guess so even though apparently that would be qualify as restoring gun rights and it's futile were there's no money for initially thought it meant one question is could he actually go back reopen it and say i actually want to be sentenced in jail one more one day eighteen years after the fact i was there one day in jail then i come domestic battery doesn't mean they lose all rights row the question is intermediate scrutiny or the burden of proof is on the government and the poor in quote court noted there is no power the st still do not
plea please get a little closer
the reason that we have this control group limitation is that if it were in there this would essentially be an absolute ball discovery rolled material and we're trying to find a broad discovery which is social record that's correct that's correct i am limited a minute in what documents i have access to obviously if there is a claim of privilege documents i
counsel in their briefs that usually refer to the phrase you know tenure i don't think there's nothing what we do know is that they didn't do anything to change the bridge there for an entire period of time from its installation on they had problems w actually that that type of risk wasn't sufficient to put someone on notice water flow underneath and the steel structure of the superstructure of the bridge and almost cursory talks about the bridge surface doesn't know measurements whatsoever about this little resistance to it and that's the c g feature that we're talking about here the condition of the wood what you have is the forces at play at that location so when you have protested when you have bicyclists who have to make that sharp turn where if they were going straight ahead they wouldn't have an issue with it so it's  be responsive to your question i'm not trying to dodge your question counsel in the course into a lot of extra paperwork because no one has really wrestled with what those words mean or the definition of in i'm thrown out utter indifference to or turn to conscious disregard for the safety where is that the allegation which rise above or very negligence and the last thing i want to say on there is when we're talking about a true we in the current everything are there at least  clearly it's well established the court of the issue of the legal issue about things like ability one three one five is properly before the court there's no prejudice to the defendant it's been fully addressed in their response refit
council in the in the products liability action should be provided what happens if the defense costs exceed or what happens when disclosure of the documents from the foundations that that's the analysis that the court has to do their matter what in separate from this case that's you know they have to make the privilege analysis in that case and they don't share a common interest none of those cases has an element when the founding she knew they were going to be sued that's not an issue in those cases they don't care about that i think the question is their conduct now but they do when they are into this court here that's particularly suited to today because here because you don't have
none of that so we respond by saying that there are a lot of people that are culpable in this matter but i do not excuse the officer i am and let's get into that because for the life of me i do not see how the ends and the public defender issued in its water that there was i quote clearly sufficient probable cause to file the criminal complaint and pursue the matter this is after the judge reviewed all of the materials with respect to competency waiver and everything else and so yes that issue of probable cause is one thing looking at the border as the basis for it and that's country to that to to take a case to trial even if there is sufficient probable cause there could be you know worries about suppression of evidence that might compromise their case regardless of what the issues are there's no requirement that a case proceed to trial once there's been an initial finding  motions and with respect to the district court's opinion and would agree that in this context that doctrine got applied because the issue here is that the plane just challenged the process of the state courts and and continued fin what is the record show was the participation of health authorities at their faith county level during the course of this prosecution i mean that's a pretty limited  purportedly challenge the probable cause and finding which opposed none of the doctors who treated mr if it were called on or deposed i do understand that a state hospital making did find him early in the process i think and that is particularly troubling to me as i got involved in this case as well and he was it was just was assigned a public defender who fairly promptly filed to hate me as motion challenging but nothing to exaggerate nothing happened and then preclude the district court from or hearing the competency growlings and the process that had mr jenison place i mean basically what that claim would ask the district court to do is to address the ha issue and it doesn't go directly to the chief cox i'd be happy to address those particular question since we didn't flush it out in the grief if we would like my pappy to do that but with respect to the amendment of the complaint t participation of mr genesis health care that is not a record in this case i don't think a single deposition was taken by the plaintiffs in this case those records were not detailed in the record that we had at the summary judgment stage and again mean mr cox was involved detective cox i was involved up to the point of the arrest he didn't have anything to do with that he wasn't involved in the treatment and care and that was really not an issue in summary judgment process so that record that's as  wasn't put in his trial rights when you talk to him he said i didn't do it which is what everybody says she spilled the police which is what everybody says she did run but first of all there was a store to evidence from the file which she had been demanding for years a tragic case in numerous ways
was actually one you know this is not of the record but what it does make is your city cabs are a lot friendlier they're cheaper they ask for your input and it gets the system seems like it's a whole different system it's it's a wonder where it's cheaper people are friendlier and so what's that sounds like to me that's pro competitive what you're probably going back to two thousand and four cars became  and we're not yet at the place where somebody controls the only you know we told people to the bridge and therefore has the monopoly and we don't have any indication that there is  it might be there i just couldn't find