MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
loan which would require a ninety pounds of pressure to pull on eight hoke to release the pin and she was pulling on this walk to release the p and the pain went straight into her intestines now it took time for her to get out or something which was in the semi she crawled over to him she was very healthy put her in the family put her in the in the sleeper of the of the pain never went away it was excruciating pain all the way when she got out to wyoming her son said i can't go longer drive you have to drive a little bit and she said i'll try she drive for less than two hours and she nearly passed out they had to pull the semi over her husband her son had to call nine one one to go with emergency room which they went in and things to hospital in wyoming they took around she was delirious quote that a chain of events which demonstrates a previous condition of good health and accident and the subsequent condition of ill being resulting in disability may be sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove a causal the problem as you know the way i look at this case is you know there is definitely a connection we all know there's a connection everybody looking at this case nosers connection but we got dr pruitt coming in here saying well it's not enough trauma case based on who you say what is wrong in an area that she goes if they'd hours yes you know what sheet she drove less than two hours when she passed out at the wheel and pulled the semi over and that's when they had to call nine one one and go right into the emergency room and do the emergency surgery which she didn't drive immediately after that you know she didn't drive for almost twenty hours she sat in the back of the truck and never ate incredible as to what whether them says unworthy you know you can't and necessarily believe her story i'm sure that she probably did fall backwards and when on her mother's yeah yeah there's no doubt in my mind about that ok but whether that the rule book versus industrial nation where the chain of events demonstrates that this was apparent causation coupled with dr barry fisher coupled with the inconsistenc
justified that he looked at the porch and he saw the men coming off the porch then he turned to grant away who testified the reason he ran was to defend the man from his father it testified if there was going to be any more education i'd rather eat between me and them now my father i weapon or two minutes in that be charged with a gun offense that they don't have the proper license to share but i think the proper situation that would apply these facts is the defense of necessity which was not yesterday when he left his own property and entered the public way but the other option would have been the stay there with these three gentlemen or believe they g reducing the amount of gun violence and having guns they want to open on the street now under these circumstances never assume it is something as walking down the street in a fight a weapon and the street shows he was guilty put those that serve the public purse opus in and the purpose of the statute is to prosecute somebody under these specs are the facts i suggested about feigning and for individuals from the porch followed him for they've been stepping off the porch there was no evidence that they had chased him down the street there was no evidence that he was actively freeing from people chasing him it was his fault that they may have been chasing him it was his intent to drive them off the course but there was defense and then i guess back to the set first element there was no danger at seventy fifth across half that from the scene of the arrest and therefore that in danger there was absolutely no reason for the defense to arm themselves and the just briefly here there is no evidence that the defendant saw any of the gentlemen on the porch actually pull a gun he thought there may have been a gun although he never actually saw them it's an interesting argument because  have a suspicion that the person may be armed with a weapon you know i mean we're talking about a civilian looking at another civilian thinks he sees a belgian police or to be a worker you know think are a little bit different on that elements and especially are number one of the person claiming the defense was without blame an occasion on developing the situation and number two at this person reasonably believed this conduct was necessary to avoid a greater public or private injury ya might be a kind of necessity however necessity is an affirmative defense which is it's necessary for the affirmative defense of necessity to be raised a lot in this case it was not
unusual case in which this court should not just for the decision of the board of immigration appeals because this decision was marked by a failure to appreciate the legal significance of the uncontested evidence a failure to apply the controlling law factor which underpinned the average credibility for mission i think that's revealed by page thirty five of the administrative record and i'm going to quote the final paragraph an applicant's failure to make any reference on initial asylum application to experiences which he remember that exact has the letters if anything demonstrates that he did not create those at that time or fabricate those at the time if he had fabricated them just part of the year and then he would have had a better memory of what the contents were more overt the will be i was discussing condition yes and the fact that his family apparently had been living down there through all of this and it never been molested or bothered in any way yes that's right was that was another point that i was going to get to the government or you will be hard that's it it has nothing whatsoever about our work with us help us get the last information because now we've found out that you were in intelligence letter says nothing at all about what he testified to and that's exactly what the facts finder principly relied upon and what was mentioned by the court this morning and argument the testimony had nothing to do with what  uses the word himself in testimony find times he says collaborate collaborate elaborate collaborate collaborate and has it really cannot get from him or leading him to that apparently as i read the record my colleagues make me me really differently but it looks to me that maybe he found that even yes even enough that this was not fabricated the letter was true that al received were some threats not not that they were inconsequential but that he wasn't actually persecuted for any other basis which would cost me a legally sufficient grounds for asylum those really all the further findings which transfer it is true that there is a conflict in this court's case law as to whether exactly right standing alone constitute persecution but the definition of refugee requires a showing of persecution or a well founded fear of future persecution and there
jurisdictional jurisdiction there's no such thing as being half pregnant or full pregnant i mean you either have jurisdiction or don't write w when we've we've said on many occasions authority and that authority usually means jurisdictional why wouldn't we consider the mandate jurisdictional issues that is how much power we've given to the district court to act  go on to my next question ordinarily and if there's a jurisdictional question were directed by the supreme court to address that first so by that we have to listen first before we got to the rule of mandate and the rule of the case more the case and if you are right then we would never get to the law of the case if you're right on the rule of mandate right the the way that council  with your response to that is what we've decided him or not is the mandate says do x what difference does it make whether we've done why i don't get your point an intervening supreme court case extends our jurisdiction issue you said except for an intervening supreme court case i don't understand why you say except for
johnson saw for the physical problems that she was in countering as a result of this discrimination then dr johnson realized that there might be more to it in the sense of psychological she goes to three of her team or her the members of her shift as it were you guys are all trained and they're not treating me at the executive level since speak would you provide  which she didn't have the time she she doesn't have a certification i believe from you know one of the schools that does it most community colleges today do that and she was fighting fires and learning almost on the job as  here but now all of these nutrients are coming in and they indeed were complaining that she didn't know what she was doing so she asked them for help and then turned around so what is it is it a matter of training or is it a matter of the fact that they are all male several doctors saying this she is disabled because of the circumstances in this department however she could go and work somewhere else and do this job so i mean certainly she could hopefully that if you question get into a local is it you need to make a determination about whether she was deceitful before you look into the cause of her disability and i would you have to work with people you have to be skilled you have to be able to climb a ladder you have to be able to lift a certain amount and encourage it was i can't trust that well you can trust the people you work but that doesn't mean you can't be a firefighter  though you have to look at how that statement relates to what she does so how does that statement i can't trust him really to running into a burning building that well look the question is is there anything bad that statement yeah she walked into the break room and they were talking about her for lack of training hour and you couldn't trust her and they couldn't trust her ok i think you're under with was her state of depression on a such the on the she vegetated i mean what what happened there was nothing on the jock that ever happened that anybody disabling to her that she couldn't do their job there was never any abaft record is absolutely silent right now i mean let's go to i don't know if he's a captain did the time of th recall the process and and the attorney and i don't know if it was you were one of your colleagues was with them and they went into executive just the session they discussed mr maguire's issue and i'm never bored and came back  when we talk about disability if you look at the statute it says disability to do the work in the department i asked the same question mr maguire is this a disability there are going to be determining  disability in any department or in the sugar grove fire department how i would argue that the intent of the statute is and did she report them and she did not and she testified the reason she did was be cool if she didn't want to hear situations you could get worse
releases are very different and very specific as to its construction defect claims and any claims prior to that turnover with respect to the comments that there's the declaration s to the declaration provide this is a contract between the parties the declaration provides that the parties agree to encourage the amicable resolution of disputes without your emotional and financial costs of litigation unfortunately in this case what happened is that the association didn't know the rules that they agreed upon and attempted to save themselves by affecting this amendment which i'll come back to just a minute but i do want to point out that the association admitted through its conduct that se everything else i read but then to jump to some arguments that we make in our cross appeal one of those arguments is that our clients should have been awarded some court's decision not to award one thirty seven relief similarly in this case or make the court to be aware that the very beginning within thirty days of being served with this complaint we sent a very the remarkable circumstance where it had an admission by a forty years prior to the basket being filed at the party with lives and yet they still seem best anyway our position is that the trial court should have considered whether our client should be association the issue really is whether or not the memorandum to other unit owners constituted notice my client that there was a claim that was going to be had me against him and to me reading plain english by saying you're going to sue my client and that you're going to look to the insurance company to pay for the damages i don't know how much clearer it can be that that's a claim especially when you use the notice provisions in the dac and that says you have to state the nature of the claim which it did it was the defects in the construction the legal basis of the claim that they wanted to sue my client and i obtained the insurance money the proposed remedy which was filing the lawsuit and the evidence that the pics the nature of the claim in the notice it says any street a locker room around the premises in the common area and it's clear as day with the damages so my client was put on notice and whatever or even in the briefs until councils reply brief so i just wanted to bring that to your attention and then the other thing i'd like to point out is there is a comment in your reply brief that under twelve a my client is that the spear resolutions don't apply any under twelve but twelve speeches right you have to get seventy five percent of the vote to file suit against my client in twelve point three it's clear that everything is subject to alternative dispute resolution my understanding is there was a management company that really was in charge of running up the association and the board worked with that  faith basis for proceeding with this claim and i would submit that to the extent that it was set up for that purpose that should certainly understood that there is no object of bad faith here in the filing of the
any money is taken from anyplace i've seen the trial nobody that's where they came from rare yes we have a situation in which there wasn't a specific reason other than he wanted to do so for james to change beneficiaries thirteen point three point one disclosure statement that was tendered by james there was some additional documentation which he testified he provided to his counsel which was on the disk but that this had been refuted that point in time because again this racing basically the edition of the testaments meet in this particular case we didn't really get to the issue of what would happen with the medical insurance for carrying the judge could be preserved if there was going to be any issue with disposing of the property issues after the bifurcation you know the idea that in the term the medical bag nurses is a good address the property and to educate the pap and to issues at a later date again there couldn't have been eight if frill hearing with regards to all issues because again i will bet discovery to she's had been related to the courts and i believe that there was conflicting testimony with regards to some of the issues and again without having all the evidence for that got to wait in addition to the testimony i don't believe that you can just write off and i don't see it say this is a site to counsel his off and his argument but you can just a truly sure discovery scheduled let's say you've got ten days or whatever the case may be given under the circumstances that he didn't have a lot of time with the health condition of the petitioner get the discovery di me get the information pass away shortly thereafter whatever it was three weeks i believe not a very long period of time and the argument that rail the pros able to protect the privacy interests when you talk about that the fact that james to take the actions that i was spoke to so i won't go back into detail on those and then just to clarify on this isn't the drug tax returns the purpose of even making that argument was that he's had a history of
diverse testimony seventy five seventy six seventy nine eighty three eighty four eighty five now misinformed about the risk of deportation and we also know that the lawyer says nothing about deportation the knesset effect when the lawyer doesn't actually form o there's any curves trailered perfect and so we all may make mistakes this was a mistake though the reality was is that it's hit and miss whether this person would be deported or that
role without ever seen or motions which is i mean some clerk failed to provide the judges of the court of corning's with all the documents th for davis but i'm not sure if you have to double check for them how could they be included in your appendix because you're only supposed to give us the state what kind of our record avis we submitted it to i believe we submitted to it here did you know the full record from the transcript of the proceedings the judge ruled strictly on the petition and the motion to dismiss in strictly on the petition and that and the record itself but they can't do that until the steps are followed in the first step is they must him the trial court must have a full record have a whole record in front of the claims stated in its order dismissing her claim that it was fully advised in the premises and there is a docket sheet in the record from the court of claims detailing how the argument she advance is considered by the tribunal where she passes them it does not guarantee any particular outcome as a result of that process the court of claims didn't rule on the question due process because that was not before it before the even if it said such a thing she had a duty to read the statute and comply with its requirements for bringing her right to seek remedy into existence because that notice provision is jurisdictional it is part of the act that created the  right just relieved and fixed the time limit and the matter with which actually true for right has to be brought if it's going to be at all compliance with the condition of liability itself and not just we recite what she said we weren't making admissions we're just sitting out what she said
complaint itself because it's the only thing that's at issue but the trial court is supposed to have an opportunity to correct a mistake if in fact the main one and in this case in the outline the trial court never even a no you don't get a chance to do that because you waited because you didn't raise it and there's as i cited i think fifteen cases that stand for that proposition that if you don't raise it in the appellate court you win it and it's the whole   it would be substantive and the it would resolve the pierre resolve the issue this is new for the discussion this six nineteen the issues were discussed here nothing in that first record and i have some familiarity with reason because i know having been for the appellate court and in the familiar with the law waiver that i've got to have somebody who wants something in order to get in front of the door and if i was on their position from a from a defense standpoint trying to preserve that also have another down from the senator district which is part of the record in which it says education water and sewer connection b to b and b and box no limited partnership that's one of every single connection permit that i have attached to my complain development that's all in ninety four agreed and so your point just as the issue was will get them to build it and then they're taking the risk if there are others who want to hook up to a bigger than didn't plan well then they can recapture that and i because i'm trying to figure out who's on first here i don't blame you the and the same story just trying to get that money back that's the theft that's going on they can talk all they want about agreements but they don't exist they're not part of the record and they get a motion to dismiss this occasion never have
i financed this expedition was to examine the contents of that tomb surely you're not going to be stopped by a native created superstitious nonsense that's what everybody said about the curse of king tax to a lot of them died real handle that belly will open the  the poses behind this stone remain hidden from the eyes of mankind for all time by the secret of the scorpion dynasty must guide me on this wall you see recorded the wisdom of solomon the strength of  curse upon your own head and my son repeat my name and return to the rescue of your friends how to arrange the lenses a sea only the sun's rays is needed to create and if we only knew the formula for making those lenses what difference would that make we've got these gentlemen do you realize that this goldens copy of makes us the richest and most powerful group in the world who are rich and are you suggesting that we destroy this coffee and think about scientific value i am thinking of that do you propose that the lenses be distributed among us that another take the scorpion itself and in that way the device could never be used without the consent of all but what about this role this puppy and his useless without it i suggest that billy batson be entrusted with the school but he's so young the how and this is of such best importance nevertheless billy is probably the only one among
or or
lower they say well of course that heat i mean
on the docket this morning is five seventeen zero four four six men versus southern illinois health care at all must have been cause the reasonable man says this is where i was asking about this probable cause business because they didn't design your standard they didn't want to keep her from committing suicide they were wanting her to see a counselor or as some as you say make sure they were liable in case she did so i'm trying to figure out how leaving because you didn't see a counsellor left the hospital i i didn't leave the hospital because of that still want isn't her testimony because they never would have restrained her bad for your guys testimony well th words that know what she's told afterwards again mammina of the moment my point is she's saying that the testimony of the doctor as to his reason for detaining the reason he went  so the fact that she says this never happened that you never asked me to do this but nobody ever prevented me from leaving until they came after me you don't stay detain and doesn't stop there is whether or not it was reasonable and it is not just that it's also been nature of the detention so it may have been minutes but keep in mind this is after she
in has been intimately involved in because it is
the time it was filed by at least as a moot point that the motion to dismiss dismiss everything was completed it was so clear that your case was frivolous but to continue forward is absolutely for the list and i'm going to allow the we certainly believe she would have been well in her rights to legally harass to give us fees back to game one in this case but she didn't and the question before the court is was in use her discretion to rule in that way and it's a strange position i think for mr damon to take say that because she didn't award fees for the whole case against me but somehow it was an unusual discretion to only awarded for a certain portion  we clearly happens he clearly was appropriate here there is no reversion prevention and i think that is the only way to look at it overall three seventy five years by express terms or imply what the federal statute allows has this next issue of does what we do thereafter change things and i would see how because the case law under section nine hundred eighty eight says if you get a feel then you have to also be able to collect your or in the first instance and that's all we get for just being we said if i was motion to reconsider it's a lot of things we should raise before but it cost us a lot of money to deal with and we should be entitled to get that otherwise it's a dollar for dollar or structure