MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
hi my name as i welcome to the b m c talent show today lucas will be showing us his tally going up lucas i thank you so much guys that was amazing was amazing ben ben tell us where you learned to do that music wow that was great thank you so much ben and now back and now we'll be right back after this short commercial have you ever had any t v problems both this  house awesome he broke his thumb guys oh ill be right back after this commercial thank you so like and basically practice every day she got better all right so she learned how to hula hoop from a camp and practice and show us what you g cool anything else you want us to know about you do still modes that you can play in survival and creative creative is  and now we have a live by the next town what are you doing for taliban knock knock jokes knock knock jokes knock knock that's very impressive wow
member they are not allowed to be directors of his association except for the fact that they believed they could be ok so what authority do they have to settle the insurance and to demolish he tells them from you know that's not the declaration you know that that doesn't govern your commercial units and your record on your commercial units at that time in two thousand and seven that's a fraud and that's what just i'm a capitalist so answer this question was a detriment
don't think that that's pushing the envelope too far
questioning that at all here what they are questioning is whether you've met the burden of proving the facts that are required to justify a correct that's correct ok can you just most of the time he was on lockdown he made many requests to speak to an immigration officer and never had the opportunity to not immigration officer the government is not as i understand the government's argument is making clear they're not  united states in fact the ninth circuit in that case determines that that no showing of wrongful conduct by a third party is necessary for an equitable tolling finding the court went on to say that the only thing that the circumstances that constrain your ability to learn more about law they do everything in their power yet the relevant law is still deeply buried or at least so inaccessible to them that they don't learn about it until too late because he did not know that that's what he was looking for at the time and so it is mostly reopened if he was still under the perception that promulgating of the regulations have even  files is not reopen that there was nothing in the san pedro or not the federal register and nothing else that alerted him to the time period necessary to farm will there be equitable tolling you can say with the position the government might take on this question kern county jail not where he was of san pedro so even if the federal register had been at san pedro he wasn't there to read it unless he went back many many months searching through thousands and thousands of pages of the federal register which is about the densest most boring thing you could ever read so i mean how could you possibly hold him to such a standard the court has held to standards of confusing confusing but do you agree that the that the current federal register that would have publicized this particular window period that we're talking about would have come out while he was in current county jail ye in san pedro therefore if you want to allege that engaged in a letter writing campaign he certainly could have done so but this year in fact and didn't warn statements whatsoever before the board's immigration appeals all  no because he did not allow it to get there weren't other sources available in the library where he might have been able to find him no no i'm responding only to your question that he didn't do your statement he didn't identify the book the one book and therefore representing doing it sounds to me at least a decent job and we're putting upon him requirements that i think are realistically speaking impossible to fulfill it may very well be that that's what the law when when did you what did you learn from them i mean wouldn't it have been better to have completed the record here so that we're not guessing about what was available to him because that's what we're doing here there was something there obviously he did file a petition after he got th decision would have put them on notice at the very least and that would not require any research and to fill in the last federal register documents or even any additional any additional representation
offense of aggravated driving a late license revoked three parts to this appeal the st part is that the trial court erred in denying the defendant a policy motion to suppress the evidence and failing to under the supreme court cases it's it's not the proper chain it's a piece of paper testified over to by doctors gave them this state it's there they have the power to do this prove all the of evidence yes but there's still a certain the foundation to this is that they were drawn in the ordinary course of business and that that and that profit they were very direct and that the proper standard so here you have a piece of paper dr gates or testifies office piece of paper but there's nothing to show that it was done within proper standards and it kept an ordinary course of business is a piece of paper and therefore yes it's hearsay yes i think not i understand the rule by implication so therefore i believe the rule conflicts with this statute and then he evidence should not have been admitted because there wasn't proper foundation even for a  i'm going to use the last few minutes to say that the evidence of the testimony regarding the asian business record goes to trustworthiness trustworthiness then the business record being offered in the position of myself or my client is that it is may not be a bit it is an exception to the hearsay believe that the record although hearsay lacks the proper trustworthiness and therefore should not have been made it on her eight  that was cracked trustworthy and asking the court would report he's going to discuss this issue this business records that they are not is this record is not trustworthy as presented by the state and therefore asking that the decision be reversed because the document
home store bought insurance policies designed intact intended to protect it and its individual directors and officers against the very real prospect that they might be sued because of misstatements in their financial having such insurance in place is extremely important it is essential to any thinking person's decision to volunteer to serve a company to serve on the board of directors or the service a senior problem here that the insurance policy required the attachment of the ten q's and these were labeled representations are are we on the same track so hard yes that's that's what that is all true all right so any misrepresentation in their representation can be taken into account well that's the way it's structured and intentionally given well under the policy we have here and that's the point i was about to to get the point here the insurers are making is when an individual who signs the application does it and here we have that the chief financial officer knew that pillar two when you look at california cases involving multiple insurance most policies have one history that we look at the cases we have with multiple insured you will see that the california supreme court starting with har the seventy's and courts of appeal since have gone to great lengths to say that if you are going to look to the wrongdoing or the misrepresentation one of the in order to deprive other co insurance of their insurance cover clause only goes to the individuals and lay person might conclude that first of all because the provision of self starts out talking about representations made with an actual intent to deceive interpretation and the main the main point on what we focused on in terms of the actual languages in the second clause which preserves covers for individual directors and officers and reserves coverage i agree that the insurance companies are quote innocent parties who were misled by mr issue i would say in the next breath that the insurance industry as they point out in their brief briefs and we point out in our reply are perfectly willing to issue insurance policies that protect innocent directors when asked to go crook fools both the insurance companies and their innocent directors we're not talking about no one in their right mind would ever issue not to go to her or him as in the prior clause he or she didn't know about a flaw that's what this policy sense i'm not saying it says it clearly i'm not saying you don't have to think about
that is not disputed by the other side secondly mr sumpter has in a timely manner filed his claims his objections his heels that is not  up to me ok well it's sort of assuming that in any event mr sumpter is one of a handful of members of class four that have not been paid scores if not hundreds of other creditors in class four have been paid and mr sumpter whose claim is in class four and that's not disputed has not been paid both of his claims are me both of us claims both of them neither of  any money at all i mean i we don't know what the outcome of all that litigation is going to be against mr blitzer you know you talked about the fact that here we are five years later and what's going on five years later my plan of the seat unethical this is your question about the wage claim for specifically he said well mr mr something doesn't need to worry about not being in the trade credit are fine because he's going to be paid when they make a recovery against mr  understand my client purchased the club the club it had been in chapter eleven in the middle of the recession there were trade creditors who were unpaid these remembers the local community who would help construct that club and whose work was necessary to complete  such creditors as a result of the financial problems of the yellowstone club that was the process that was put in place it was well known to mr sumter was well known to all the creditors the plan first plan was confirmed on june twenty sixth two thousand and nine mr potts sumpter didn't they were included among the trade creditors yaar well  the comment that the trade creditors were local merchants and so forth is really not completely true it involved as you noted noted mr ladd who is a sales person and then sales staff who were with he says another company but it was a captured company they sold the property at the yellowstone club that's all they did but on the predators committee was a man by the name of phil griffin phil griffin was a senior vice president of the club just like mr sumpter was mr griffin got paid mr griffin had lived in south carolina by that time he was not a local trade creditor but he got paid and every clad not a trade creditor but he got paid all their comment was it said that when cross harbor pays some of those claims and buys them it then girls into class for as a sort of a superclass for a priority they have to be paid back all the money they paid out before any remaining creditors like mr sumpter gets paid anything and you on the issue of of equitable mutinous we feel that this is just like
he was required to register in september rather than all he lived in this state how i mean if if we say that this is a mistake of fact it's a matter of law we're saying that he did not know just remember served beck to you you left out one phrase he knew he had to do the report is only part of it he knew he had to do to report within ninety days is the issue correct  report i know that in your book what if you said you know i didn't realize i had to report that would be possibly a mistake of fact when you're under the statute i didn't know i was required to report proposed because i really didn't need hands in preparation for today because it wasn't until about three minutes ago when i got on this bench that i figured out what it was and i'm supposed to know that the defendant proposition three that the defendant was not mistaken as to a matter of fact that would show he did not have the knowledge necessary for the offense charge how much the jury going to figure that out in the limited time i mean they didn't have two months of preparation when i did on this case how are they going to feed them out when it when you what are they supposed to think that means  i would understand what it suppose it would mean to a juror and it seems to me that maybe the word now should not be in that the defendant was mistaken as to a matter of fact that would show you have any case that stands out in your lawyer that supports this idea that confusion  that they were acting in violation of the statute was not sufficient to a few criminal knowledge because that was a  unless as i've suggested that somebody has been traumatized and has memory loss or has been douches through medicine gnosis or something else that would wipe from one's me just dispense and i asked earlier if suggested earlier that the language is important here we all make mistakes it doesn't necessarily mean we made a mistake a fair as a legal in this case the point being if i get a notice of a traffic ticket or yes in this case he got a notice of a given date even if he claims that he can't breeding english would it be fair to one where for instance there was going to be a closing in on a real real estate contract someone didn't show up and they were off founding gre i don't remember ever seen such an argument made which was all the arguments were i got an email i got a letter the date on the contract the date only the mortgage papers the date on the closing papers th on the escrow papers said this aide and i went on that date but unfortunately it was the wrong date that is the typical situations situation scenario it is not situation where someone says a mistake the fact occurred because i forgot and when i asked you about nash i was hoping that you'd be able to tell me if there was a case that said that mis remembering forgetting whatever mis reading something would be a mystic effect and i don't know of any case law anywhere that says that your proposition is has any  your honor based on my research there doesn't seem to be any other story on this issue in general that is never did really raise before to be determined by
was regarding the valuation of some form women of the parties during the marriage and the second thing was a an assessment finding of a direct civil contempt and the associated assessment of battles and do the man there was ninety two thousand six hundred dollars but so on and i don't think the record tell us is that from my recollection someone in britain one hundred sixty one thousand dollars through may and he only refers to the base for the payment whereas the ritual active the application to may fourteenth two thousand and fourteen do nothing else nor will it will continue until further here because we have a factual allegation in motion and we haven't disputed that factual allegation of the law is clear from my client should have been given an opportunity for formal fair evidence really theory and to prove by a preponderance of she got paid for nine months and didn't get paid for three months the support was higher given the summer months there were no and played in the temporary order as they were commonly isn't because pym good recorders run into the record it was the final judgment did but as a reasonable person it had to do one or the other at that point and it fell back in total was more accurate or had a higher probability of being accurate i guess than a piece of equipment and the only thing i sixty one thousand dollars about him that's not the case we don't have any evidence from the record to suggest who might have written one hundred sixty one thousand dollar figure it certainly wasn't my client because he's asserting that the values are reflected in the in the list of the equivalent that told me two thousand six hundred dollars not the one hundred sixty one thousand dollars and we will know who wrote that and we what what is worse is we don't know why the trial court would have taken
that that money was privately conveying the truck for one thing as though the power hate and then the assets from the sale real estate and personal property and pervade that to himself as well there was
that afternoon your honors may please the court my name is derek wall and i represent the same day and tell him to robert wolf i would like to reserve four minutes of my time for a bottle you'll have to keep track of your time  in the southern district of california collateral seats against opposing counsel such as this one are disfavored under california law for various important policy reasons counsel let me get right to the heart of the piece of this cues that is of concern to me and that is the extent of the lady geisha privilege that covers the latter such as on if they are simply appended to something that has to do with litigation no matter how completely unrelated and is that really california law and when you answer judge  falsely stated that the plaintiff had been in prison for violently beating is one of which was turned out not to be true at all well that the factual question assigned him seems to be your  communications twitched of a geisha including attaches sure but the question is what happens when the settlement discussion has attached to it or leaves in it something entirely on the label then i know you have an argument about what the court of appeal had to say in that case is that really regardless of how outrageous or improper the communication might be a public policy  communication to determine if that line or clause is specifically related to the litigation yes dear fall in have to examine every attorney communication line by line caused by clause to determine whether each individual ahs for example would be related to the objects of the litigation  reasonable limits should and do exist on the typing character of premedication states which are protected by the privilege certainly the court that wrote that opinion so that distinction is very critical it's called up twice in the  scoble in deciding on the request for discovery put forth by mr poe asked mr wolf to clarify the basis of the anti slap motion where if fits within the text  both counsel
and so there's a very narrowly conception you can get video footage i think is a narrow exception when it involves an interrogation in a murder case because the statute does require those t v court they are your to have to be that post in vision home there's no reason not to bring home the walls so you're asking us to write an exception into the criminal that i don't use an exception i mean asking you to do that because  oh i don't know whether it's the front of the tip when i do think that i mean i don't agree with you that it's totally on me an
by an administrative agency just savoring jurisdiction over an administrative motion to reopen in the context of a credible fear review directly shooting for a review of the underlying or here we are considering for review of the denial of the motion to reopen and if the court looks counsel if if we were to if we were to think that we could get past the the jurisdictional bar so what's what's your argument on the on the merits on the merits of the up not the merits of they've got an affair but the credit the merits of the jurisdiction  to to to look at something that is blatantly unconstitutional or extra statutory that's that's judge collins question to you nobody no we're not interested in looking at the merits of this and johnson's baby pretty clear not asking us to do that just asking us to look at the jurisdictional question and that looks like that might be with the goal fifty two a two d which is which provides a different a different avenue for us to review statutory and constitutional questions this court has further held that when the i and he does not provide an independent facts or a basis for jurisdiction over a motion to reopen and said our jurisdiction over a motion to reopen is the relative of our jurisdiction over the such for a view as taught in district court in not in appellate courts twelve feet soon allows for judicial review of any determination made under the extradited removals that  based on this court small and the supreme court's decision and bears to this court does not have jurisdiction to review a most the motions to reopen  this according to the fifty two a we have the notwithstanding any other provision of law and no courts will have jurisdiction to review and then we haven't except except as provided in subsection e and that tells us that no court shall have jurisdiction to review any individual determination to entertain a cause arising from or relating to that very very broad language the judge stearns part of due to so i just i'm just sort of thinking about the except as provided in subsection e language if i turn to  does allow for challenges to the validity of the system and provides a general exception for a class action to challenge either the constitutionality or the regulations or a written policy directive but it must be or well if they're if they're citing that and that regulation as does the authority for for that white again why can't you bring a class action suit in d c why isn't that your remedy  now i think that you would know you have two different i j c r you're you've got you know you've got the interesting case that it's not just a one off it's a it may be a two off but it's but that's twice as many as a one off so you've got some pattern here and that certainly  collaterally attack the underlying expedited removal order are rather obvious she was challenging the outcome of the reasonable theater determination meet during the recent statement proceedings not during the original underlying
something while you're on the government's argument is that matter of
plaintiff's first that award were unsupported by any time records of any sort and that here the entries were insufficient to give the trial judge an ability case with them i didn't feel that it was that also let's not even allow this one hour to both present their case and whatever i had to present and as a result the i was coming for a close and i didn't want to the counsel if she had any you know any time allowed for the three different issues that were presented to your honor something of the first appeal and i could not determine whether time was spent  much thank you for the
and i'm a little confused about this this word search argument that you're making so i thought the language used that deposition was terminated there is one question where after a series of questions about be about  i agree with you the record shows that what ma it i can i don't see in the statute any requirement that that sort of information be conveyed the statu were saying that there is no clear air in the district court's finding that the sum total of the statements who needed to the grand tour and to others possible intermediaries rd parties did not amount to an only deposition that they were not on speaking terms and they did not discuss terminating the current attorney he repeated that type is it that bad testimony in a bayer deposition he said he wouldn't return my calls he wouldn't speak to me and there is no clear error and gentle moves finding that the power of attorney really in effect the positive and unequivocal i quit reading it out i am no longer after your best interests i am in response to the argument that the scope of the power of attorney was limited because carlton did not tell him to file tax returns the power of attorney specifically authorized him to file tax returns it did not require that carlton make that request of him indeed if we were to assume that he was financially disabled and stop selling it and mentioned earlier he would have lack the capacity to make that request the statute of the power of attorney agreement in writing authorized last effort to file tax returns to claim tax refunds and to manage a much greater range of financial affairs it didn't even specifically have to