MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
issue of the type commonly used as the output units for desktop computer systems you likely didn't want to do your own office or you may have wanted home with your desktop computer system and  see the but you seem to be arguing as if this was a principle use question you seem to be arguing this same carborundum factors and arguing that the no less the difference is there isn't really only a small difference and i don't think it makes that much difference in this appeal the only difference is price for use up looks at the class or kind of archer not its principal function looks  specific margin niceish and i believe that the evidence that was before the undisputed evidence that was before the court of international trade in this particular case and this before this court right now of video monitor i think the custom service now u s customs and border protection is more or less bit disingenuous by turning to general a three city and site you don't recognize who has a computer monitor proper instructions from this floor off i still think it could be decided on cross questions for summary judgment i don't see this case being remanded and a trial being necessary again because i think if  without going any farther an impact here it is a massive difference and it is what this entire case is about principles functioning while never actually been ruled on by a court has been feeling to regard with and then once we and way you figure out the type of goods that is fungible which is you have to compare the expectations of the consumer how they're sold how they're designed you can see are these conflict there's no reason to do that because no three by its very language says you're not supposed to it says at last contact so why squire here in the contest is not otherwise required so speak so lightly of the remember it would decide decided on summary judgment and possibly be backed up here on a legal issue which is the court has to know review of that legal issue so essentially it w using its hands and same things and remember this is two thousand and four this is not down looking and looking at this good in the eyes of six seven years later it's not fair because electronics change so much we have no idea what happened in two thousand four what is the physical description of every morning to make a man we don't know there is no evidence on it and that's the critical thing here is they introduce fifty percent of the evidence they need and when you only introduce fifty percent you have to live  fine i can find go as a class or guide is multi function mild as the next category that i think would be appropriate would be multi function
petition alleges in part the active assistance of post conviction counsel the public defender is appointed the matter shall be set free view on january twenty ninth twenty one fifteen for the purpose of the scheduling filing of motion sickness response continuances later i mailed thirteen to twenty eleven the state specifically told judge stephen corey who replaced saturday that the proceedings were in the second stage that assertion was repeated several times them twenty fourteen the court order reflected that judge brown said the petition for a second stage hearing the state never questioned the validity of the proceedings even in its motion to dismiss which was filed august fourteenth twenty fourte judge brown stated that he would not be ruling on the motion to withdraw because lisa filed had not been granted in the first place only after judge brown raised this issue to the state make the claim that mr timothy's motion had not been granted so there are three primary points that i want to go over with this case first and that's good successive post conviction petition statute is a gatekeeping statute the second is that judge you probably preempted all of that to the crown should have gone through the proper stages this was in place at the granted it should have had a second stage hearing it should have had an opportunity for had issued a more comprehensive order but from there on alex the continuance is after continuance as be lack of communication between mr sheets and my clients there were so many missed opportunities here that it just dragged along situation is consistent in logic and equity but it's exercised to defend its detriment when applying the provisions under twelve dash one zero five eight which is the quota civil procedure for privileged lawsuits filed mr timothy did that eat everything he was supposed to and he had no reason to expect that anything had gone awry well after five years and after both sides understanding it to be at the second stage there was no objections from the states be it doesn't serve the purpose of the statu counsel and the prejudice in this petition is that he was denied that opportunity it because of the extreme errors from the first place conviction counsel and because of errors by the trial attorneys in not calling there are any more questions on that i wanted to move on with yes a little inclusion i just wanted to ask the court to consider holding off on this decision  looking at the statute and we start working out supreme court rules today it seems as though a lot of things are going on we want strict compliance there and since this is a gate keeping function of the mo procedurally correct because judge seven years earlier sure because this had been going on for so long because everyone the state had never objected that it was at the second stage and as part of the motion to withdraw from
view and look the records like this morning to justice chapman is not present although as you know in these matters are being audio tapes so she will be available and they will be available we don't have depositions or anything like that at this point we're just hearing the pleadings and so is there anything in the record that would reflect where the other whether or not this more will develop gradually over a period from how it was disseminated those things because you do have the landlord taking responsibility for certain things the roof the air conditioning the bush or whatever which seems to that here the contract says maintain certain things in good condition and in the absence of it specifically saying remediation of mold the landlord has not assume spreading throughout the whole place and then the issue is did they if they are patients to maintain the air conditioning system in good condition is it in good condition if it's creating mo
and remove all references to guns got drugs and gangs after this minor social media platforms and in fact  specifically says no gain contact or activity so we go back to just simon's big beginning questions which is what this context is it means you know walking up to somebody and saying hi does it mean for them does that mean specifically no game can take or activity can take to me is very broad i agree it's needed to be brought in a case where we're dealing with a juvenile delinquent was a word of the court possibility and that's that's unfortunately not a rare occasion right but she did tell the probation officer who did the investigation that she had hoped that this responded would get on a better path but she didn't knock the negative influences in his life i think that's clearly an indication that those negative influences the very guns drugs and games that led him into the juvenile court and he acknowledged that he was afraid to go to school as a religious absolutely he'd been shot he'd been shot  size five months one by non staff to this very close friend sean downey was shot in a game related shooting and respondants mother told the police after responding had been shot in training at the hospital that he was not cooperative he was not going to cooperate with the write of this fact sort of celebrating the fact that this juvenile was charged with a criminal offense in juvenile court it is the entirety of the circumstances that are facing the juvenile court judge who needs these absolutely to ensure that these miners follow the conditions of probation and the statutory condition of probation no guns no drugs no gang contact it's easy to say  of communication restriction to which does not always give them the most heightened strict scrutiny but let's assume this is considered content based we meet the compelling state interest proof the constitutional merit of this probation condition just because there's a content based restriction does not automatically mean that it is in all cases unconstitutional when there is a compelling state interest which of course is the rehabilitation of this minor and the safety of this
you need under your theory is something under montana law that says that there is a dog and obligation to see a day to third parties to give would appear indicate that ok thank you thank you thank you hit which the plaintiffs claim they're going to base their claims on provides if one provides services for another there can be a basis of liability three situations one is if you make the situation worse which there's now allegations we did hear specifically undertake the employer's duty here to warn people which we didn't our contract specifically said in the language you pointed out that we didn't have that duty and third is that if people were right on us to do this there's no allegations here in the complaints that anyone will ride on us and it's hard to believe that general members of for maybe community would have a wider employers liability sure to inspect the plant so we believe that if these claims are allowed to go that that is the core function of what insurance company does that is the provision of insurance you have to figure out the premiums and you have to figure out things the insured continue to lower its losses and lower claims against the insur employers liability policy where not identified on exhibit five of the plan he said five only identified their c d s and their access policies in our case we identified all the policies listed in our infringement just because somebody does something wrong doesn't mean it can't be indirect liability in the copyright infringement case you're held indirectly rival if you continue to direct infringement but you've done something wrong the second part of it be exempt from liability just for people who were injured by me and bill products prowlers had been sued by people claiming they were injured by dozens or hundreds of different products and they were trying to leverage their relationship with categories there just for the slow be claims and claim it's representatives with well aware of these types of claims that the more intent upon his her now making and in fact part of your people these were national workers compensation policies under your theory anyone living anywhere near any grace point could try to make this kind of claim and so in future clinton's representative made sure that he settled and got money to disclose at least to the employees what you find when you go onto the property of grace and discover problems  property no obligation of our borns doing so and we don't have you my ability to you ensure nor to any third party but you do go on and once you do with  discover significant problems and under my example you did discuss them with grace and it's decided that we are just not going to tell anybody see it is not happy about that site isn't that a cases where you have contractor a subcontractor another subcontractor in the you contract between the two subcontractors and in that situation if this guy's made widget and it injures this guy so what is the duty
all right sounds good and  and that was there you're saying it's good that the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond i was beyond a reasonable doubt we can also talk about but but then at least generally about harmless error you still have two officers who saw this ability to answer would you agree not necessarily in this case you're going to because this is a transaction but heard very quickly we have an officer approaching the defendant and the exchange not something the insignificant that's it's not like i have a family it's something that most people would be able to observe if you're going to identify somebody from a part of the graph and you're going to make a at this point there's nothing in there that the indicating that backs have to looks like hard to get away if it even showed up very well on the defendant there's nothing to indicate in the record outside of what defense counsel is stating that there's any type of obvious t because that would occur under the same circumstances as this transaction with because now the officer after doing it in third with the defendant and having you know testimony in the banter back and forth is now obviously aware identification of this defendant so it's reasonable to assume that in that very short period of time we're talking about seconds that he would have been focusing on the defendant state to see the scars it was a very short amount of time that he was a fr why wasn't there any response by the state but the state is responding at this time that we think that we believe this trial court is not biased allow the police officer to stay at the same level as the defendant the police officer could have directed the defendant to position himself exactly as he was on the day in question you know saying distance him everything he put his arm  only way what i'm asking you is my question wouldn't it would be more relevant for the officer to see whether he can see the defendant's tattoos when the defendant is the exactly the same position as he was on the during the fight vs the judge reading over from above saying i can't see was trying to get out whether the whether the officers actually sounded it sounds like they didn't see it that way because they both swore that under oath and in their records but the question that the defense was trying to the point the defense i think was trying to establish was that you should have been
presumption at all and there is some evidence in the way given your style such as that he was not persuaded of the singling out and some things on pages eight into a thirteen of the record that the presumption diseases it doesn't link the compounds to the diseases why isn't judge farnan right that there's undue experimentation at a minimum would be necessary to somehow determine which compound is linked to which disease and  does the nine forty pattern teach one to use rises all to treat a l s i mean that that would seem to be in looking at you know i looked at this this  case that seems to be what i gather there it said enablement requires the part must teach one of ordinary skill to carry out the claimed invention so transposing that language to what we have here a method claim is am i correct  bit of it's kind of easier to understand when you're talking about a machine but when you're talking about a method claim what i came up with from looking at the cases is that the inquiry is does in this case does the nine four  pattern teach one to use rises all to treat a lesson what is wrong with that construct leaving aside what the facts are why is that the wrong analytical framework i think to the extent you talk compounds are new apartments and there is nothing at all in this pattern which would indicate to you somehow that will is all as opposed to all these other related compounds will be affected in fact if you look at the paragraph skill and they are pretty quickly narrowing hung those hundreds of thousands down what meets the eighteen and maybe even further as suggested by mr must crawl if we factor in the knowledge and skill and they are what are we really talking fact i'm sharing most would not the water or very skilled they are to conclude that really is all could be used to treat any disease any specific disease little to treat a collapse because those references are specifically excludes rusal so there is no information in the four corners of the car as to what effect of a model result is because this was a disease with no known treatment at the prior art as a skin benefit ingredient and that is what that is the type of disclosure that is strikingly abscessed prior post there is no to school that
example you would i mean if in fact the complaint is a week after the event occurred would you have much of a case well on the on the back five pages or so from the point that you were referencing is to on page eleven through twelve the administrative judge runs now on the law of sexual harassment in blood as i read through it i thought it was a pretty comprehensive accurate statement clothing a reference to the well of the requirements of king and helen saying that it has to be both objective and subjective but that you look at it from the perspective of the victim that is to say a reasonable person under all the circumstances in the victim's shoes subordinate in the situation which is in which she subject to the control of day to day control of the you can as person i read correct me if you think this is a misreading but i read the summary on eleven through twelve of the pertinent evidence not to be not was not severe it counters no because basically if you look at what happened there after she brought her daughter to work with her she was working significant work when its workers with another much dispute between those larry's version of this event and mr synagogues i mean you can you know basically there's not a dispute as to what physically happened at the at the center your argument is that whatever was the severity of that event we have to conclude that it did not create an abusive work environment given the series of the effect on the working environment for the victim how long does there have to be an adverse effect on the working environment before you have an actual sexual harassment suppos in other in other words to take the facts of this case for two weeks things were very tough for her and would have been let's say arguably for anyone in that situation but after the two weeks you know one gets over things over actually don't want you to to specifically quote i want a more general answer to the question of whether you can have a sexual harassment for a short period of time that is actionable even if later it turns out that things started work there but i think that at least what happened here seems to me to go beyond a lack of civility if you if a person could reasonably react very period of time it's a my two weeks that by having finding the environment to be very not made very much more difficult that work would that satisfy sexual harassment even to didn't continue for the entire tenure the this a point come where notwithstanding the colloquy between judge bryce and mr hackett where the complaint is launched so long after the incident that one has to conclude that it's difficult yourself subjected to during the hearing that was one of the reasons that she didn't go back but she did and i think this weighs in the other and the other side although she did week before she went to complain through official channels she complained very soon way of getting at what really happened you would think this sort of thing the natural charge would be that there was a single incident of serious battery of the sexual nature
for a long time quite a while so we didn't hear about probably four thirty eight very little by that time we were putting together a response in terms of figuring out how many people were trapped there and what their presence over here so they're using concentration for the same command but they also open up a separate area for the public to be able to come to charge their cell phone because that kind of became a big lifeline for folks some of the towers were still up while the generators were still running so people were able to get information on their cell phones and to give you orders but not so that was one of the thing t clear you know all the fire incidents was there  we we have an opportunity to provide all the changes necessary by the end of april and it will be reviewed during the month september and october that if we  point in our budget in the process is that it does take some commitment in funds that will help us provide that fix those thirty one items always show that there will be forward so that becomes the what is the benefits of this process of accrediting and we've learnt so much through that process even though we went through all the books if everything in the class is all prior to this it was it could it be much clearer wants extremely important for the department to push forward intuitionist process usage because it it also allows us to provide that information and all that's got it it's needed for our budgets as well so this would see about fifteen percent his falls and fifty percent his budget for example there they brought up to take care so that's something they wanted to put together just we don't have the resources you know with me as four people that we need to add to our department we have three hundred seventy so this was one of the items that it pointed out and we already knew that that would be ok but it helps us articulate that to to everybody that provides the funds to us and what is important and what is i departments play across the country that don't face them so excellent question i was brought up as part of that i don't believe it's so it's bits and pieces of thirty one item to make it personal to their jurisdiction in most cases anybody that goes over a thousand square miles of response that's quite a bit more response resource whereas in our case we built so those are some of the challenges time travel to certain periods and what have you but those are the things that will be put in that group so i'm really glad that we did that because our
person hold it against that person twenty five years later the twenty five years ago he was falsely accused of doing these two things i can certainly certainly certainly not entirely  should that have been considered as as a true fact if he had met with mr john and that he had said x y and z  to take up positions on these people and see what we have you know listen to your argument i think it's interesting that your your it's not just the the authorized the school year of the profit which again on its face he was falsely accused twenty five years ago and has you know  seem to be with one of the allegations actually a couple of the allegations in the complaint are that he was falsely accused of so if the public  dissemination of private facts requires that the facts be true it's falsely causing a problem here that they were falsely it apparently did for the trial judge is it is it really a twenty five years ago weasel very issue for the trier of fact whether or not they heard about them again no because it's not clear who the complaint that there was a public disclosure of private facts what we have on the plate the adds what would be the purpose of doing this work and we have depositions from the arkansas case it has become part of this case about what people did and making telephone calls and either way it was a relationship where it is john and while it was mr cancer had benefited financially from the relationship that you know  contact if you can even make that that distinction she had nothing to do with the state she wasn't asking for information in the state she was a party to the custody dispute in arkansas there was some question  context there is nothing wrong in filing a motion to dismiss a complaint with the allegation with statements of an affidavit which conflict with the allegations in the in the complaint with the up there for just one acknowledge that there were some conversations there's no question there were conversations however it is perfectly proper to bring a motion to dismiss under two six one nine for lack of jurisdiction or to have the affidavit attached which can contradict illinois for religious conferences those go to the claim then the others go to the ultimate fact of whether there was a conspiracy and it appears he did piers from the record that the judge