MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
direction mr how the school board has to do this the clever to bar room and bring it in article four section twelve a provides for mediation of a faculty member if that faculty member is from satisfactory can in any one of the six categories being evaluated that's what causes the radiation to take place which is what happened here that's how it started for a start right they deficient areas is that correct that there is language to that effect in the play better doesn't direct how the evaluations to be done so there is language to that effect in the play so did he successfully complete with the did did he successfully completed the way they gave it to him yes look them up by way of the indicator of success well the question and the evaluation conducted all through are related to six categories that's what this is about there was no indication that there would be less than six categories until after you satisfactorily the hearing officer and mr salmond start dreaming too soon because if you go to the very next paragraph it says would you do if the remediation plan result these teachers included were extraneous matters filled out the entire form type a personalities i can only presume that the film compelled to fill out every fan but the truth is is that the make any sense to keep a teacher running could go get him for a night for years and never prove it important category he's saying that he has a certain amount of superficial logical appeal is maybe that doesn't seem logical but that's what the plan is there overall it isn't satisfactory because not all are satisfactory there's also a possible mean when you see overall because of the overall devaluation so it seems to me that your argument is when you say overall i'm satisfactory you are saying that if there is one category that he is not a media good then he has overall not areas under two categories he did not complete it when you say well overall are you saying categorically all i'm talking about the overall average of those two categories alone correct if you look at that reason fill up the entire form the end get when you look at all things even those items are matters that are not on target mediation then you're going to have a teacher there for the deficiencies will question why would a remediation plan include issues categories segments of categories that have already been evaluated as satisfactory there would be no reason at all the purpose of the plan is to improve teacher performance your honor they wouldn't include for them to achieve a satisfactory grade because it's never easy six categories we're talking about each as you go through documents you will see each of these six categories had many many s confining himself to that rather than to that six part it's closer to forty items in which he was being great a radical enough just to be even hearing all morning that the school district is thought by the c v a so are the teachers
section ordinance as part of the state will have protection program a church believes that the county is proper liable for such an ordinance and will not conflict or be super protection of public supply walls and their area determine the land area which provides the water to the public support walls identify the existing and potentially sources of contamination manage potential sources of contamination to minimize sort of threat to drinking water shortage and develop a continued suit plan to prepare for an emergency when well closing and to plan for future water supply  hawaii to delineate the overlay shelves and to estimate the relative susceptibility to contamination of each of the state's public trunk and water sources be sure it also provides funding to water incorporate this walk into their world protection program by the overlays so this is how the swap and well protection process wasn't version two were the swap was not intended to be an end of the road why place your controls on activities that occur within the overlays county government is proper level for implementing well have protection regulations developed in the state well the protection program to the local government or water system only the local governments and the fact relations making the county governments and why the law trickle agency to implement will have protection program ordinances cemetery to ensure safe drinking water current state federal regulation federal laws have made great strides in preventing contentment osha and approving the quality of growth was all remorse site and ground fuels transfer of storage or a very broad and complex and in many cases do not provide the detail level of regulation but it's necessary to ensure protection of roe for example the federal side to side punch that current environmental and safety regulations serve one purpose because they are critical to perfect in protecting human health and the environment the attempt oh now i will have protection ordinance is tool for the additional percent certainty uncertainty is not unique to groundwater modeling but is a component of any important process or decision however as with other important processes and decision the sources of uncertainty and groundwater a the balls are constantly balls are constantly revaluated every bars as appropriate compared to other states or why it takes more sophisticated all the resources of the individual water systems and this has the added benefit of development state wide groundwater flow balsa continues for other purposes such as assessing the human health and environmental regulations to protect groundwater supplies so i think oh i was a little bit ahead of california and the so in the realm of groundwater protection ev source of something
looking at the record i'm thinking to myself why are we talking about all these facts i don't see a motion for summary judgment and i don't see the answer and i see nothing but a motion just now from six one five  this core is bound by the wording of your complaint your first amended complaint and we have to determine whether under any circumstance you could plead and asked before us today second seven thirty five just for and after looking at that mr justice if they would need more time on i would be willing to give suggestion that you may be relying on the restatement which is a duty to protect endangered employees now it's my understanding that mr coleman was making the death threat against israel all right but it seems said there is a duty under the restatement to protect the danger employee if you know that the employee himself or herself is in danger  take notice of that at this point in time because it's not part of this motion i mean unless you can give me some authority that says i can do that you know it's not a summary judgment motion it's not   activities which you haven't denied yet i have to assume that they're true complaint and that's why i'm saying why why should i look at all these facts that are floating around these days i do and that's what that's confusing me think you tend to do the exceptions are very narrow very but in paragraph sixty three of their complaint they clean that j m m undertook gratuitously or for consideration to render services for the protection of safety of these individuals who are notices including the limited to rendering security services such as stationing security at the residence installing a security alarm installing surveillance equipment and then in their other paragraph sixty six they talk about all of the economic policies that you have in place and how you were negligent and family to do you know fifteen there  all these allegations that the ministry to put it simply was messing with his business i mean you're going to get counseling because you don't like he's having an affair you're going to provide security for disrespectful it just seems like they were really in this business so to say ok now we're we're going to do all this but we didn't undertake anything we did we didn't we didn't mean to undertake anything that's why i'm having a i'm i was trying to compare some of the public policy questions and they are and the court came down there in the negligence setting it was too much of a burden on the public are t
minutes that's right which suggests that the three outside independent directors and frankly five directors the two insiders also consistently thought what is best for the company and that each step  entered the complaint may be amended to conform the pleadings to the pros and this court's decision is incrementing to six sixteen are equally clear including the recent decisions and things like that make but hasn't yet made and concludes but those possible allegations also would not stated quite there is not a single decision of any court within the state that has ever held anything occasion with respect to the conclusions that they reached there's no there's no advice from us outside that pfizer with respect to the long term value of the shows is likely to be a reverse going to market elsewhere they complaint no motion to amend the complaint no proposal many complain nothing that's going to fix your first complaint your original complaint is your original complaint and their motion just with prejudice and i think you're asking us to say the tr asking for dismissal with presidents doesn't mean anything and i'm trying to asking whether or not you know you're suggesting that he should nothing in the motion to dismiss suggested you be allowed to making such argument they had the words with pres i expected that in the event the motion was granted that we have an opportunity to amend if we chose to do so because that that's the usual practice
there's no argument to the  better i guess i'm not calling you under sixty and eighty one where it says and or anyway any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter chapter to any consumer is liable that's what they do they go on the internet they hack people to even pay down so that be careful sending information that it says the term person means any individual partnership not government governmental subdivision her agency or other entity so you would like us to read out of the explicit definitional portion of this statute the words that you don't have to do is push the little forward button and send it to everybody in the world and your credit is in real trouble isn't it sir isn't everything in this sack use meant to protect you more jeopardy from your argument than it is from
to i think look out for the benefit of the child in school so there's no i mean i mean if if the mother were not the guardian here and it was magna bank regions and i don't think we'd be here attorneys for minor children are you aware of that obligated to appear to all the ethical rules governing attorneys in professional practice so i notice that you raise the ethical rule we did and in deed there's an illinois supreme court rule that says there is no duty of compliance you twenty one days subcommittee on that issue and counsel i'll grant you twenty one days to respond lawyer have to withdraw or seek relief from the court to get out i mean you and i both know that these cases can go on for a long time and the lawyers do nothing as a g a o so are they  and there's a future relationship and he goes to the mama and says why do you need this and she says well i've got all these commitments and this child is still of the tender age so to speak thirteen fourteen you still believe there's a duty to go even further serious speak to that child and that if you don't do that if you don't verify you can and in other words you cannot rely on the responsibility both duty versus breach right negligence so that your position is that he does not fulfill his duty breaches duty if he doesn't go beyond speaking to the guardian absolute did so it's different in this particular case because we don't have a specific order saying what the attorney the g a o was supposed to do w that you know as you pointed out at what age assuming there is a duty i mean once you talk to the mother who also has a produce sherry role because she point guardian of the state what way how far do you go i mean there's no bright line as to if your child is nine and you're talking about an annuity investment with a six hundred thousand dollar cas and she's really not but on the other hand i don't think that a rule of law should be banned on such intimate fact finding i think it's a general rule that we keep asking about and that is who was the representing what was he doing and it seems that he allowed himself to be continually involved as far as undertaking the duty to at least speak to mom but then the question is is that enough to give him immunity i mean do you agree that that situation and it's pretty much discretion on whether the judge feels that it would be helpful and render something useful whether it would just be detrimental to on  point in time she was seventeen and then there is the rare and how much money had already been depleted i mean cheney had one more year before she found out right there so for she was seventeen i'm much mom was lying obviously at what point does he have to make the switch can he rely on the guardian the guardian has to be so you're saying he
evidence presented by you in the form of expert testimony or otherwise not even a dictionary and when i went on line the only definition of that plate had to do with scuba diving here and it's clearly not relevant to this technology so i'm i don't see any evidence that would join all the way through is because you were claiming that earlier weren't you absolutely your honor and then they forced you to narrow your invention you couldn't claim for you could only claim one of the invention your chose the cuff reinforcement and that later in time you will limit tube limitation i didn't think that it was in direct response to the restriction apartment but i might be wrong so i want you to correct my recollection the prosecution history because i don't have it marked here and i don't remember which page invention and finally went with what is currently issues claims one one six but the general point is absolutely correct and it is should re to mention a choice was required to be made the initial  that passage is this to trolling well i would submit that he has not made such a radical brightening up his claims as the other side of that suggest and in fact that language does not support the notion that to join has been abandoned because its function is still present and in addition to the specifications very clear on this point with regard to the written description point what is how i'm going to hear it is that we have a scenario where there are why isn't that adequate that's not adequate because it doesn't actually teach either a structure that is detached from the back plate or a structure that is formed by the containment if you look at that session starting at homestead and it's a rich maybe effectively and  one of skill in the art would find this easy and frankly i find it easy and i'm not even of skill in the owner of time trying to figure out what it's connected to and i don't believe that there i think that there's there is a limit on it with regard to expert
untimely post to the relief from judgment in two thousand and two but that was denied so he's never perfected that up until up until this point he's never acted in a deal from
proceedings for hearings that were held on january sixth two thousand and eleven that is on your client's petition for retrieval of property and sheryl's emergency contempt attention we don't tan of the february first two thousand and eleven hearing on cheryl's fee petition and we don't have the transcript for christopher's motion to reconsider we don't have the october eighteenth transcript how can we court so i believe the court had the authority not only under our nischelle petition for our contribution they also have the authority under the petition color five to petition for a rule despite the petition of the contempt of a big brother five the way he did not specifically says he has five to eight was in that petition for contribution the other tissues the motion for the response to the petition for personal property the proceed under the filing fee which is very clear and in the known to the record there was never any objection by opposing counsel even in the response to the motion for contribution where they are seeking to strike or dismiss contended that his conduct was for wrestling in nature and requesting fees as well as the response to the motion to reconsider where we contend that there were no new issues being raised in the merely we are in the same issues that have been argued that allocated personal property and our contention was that he was seeking property that wasn't awarded to him under the guise of the greedy there was the a small asterisk at the bottom of the list that said the parties would  specified in exhibit a the delineating the specific personal property that was awarded to him was somehow also couched under degrees in our contention was not only was that an improper pleading in the top proper request seeking items documents and the court after hearing arguments noting that there was a prior order excusing the parties and noting that the documents requested world one i don't believe i ever requested previously in an informant discoveries would be of proper these attended to and i think clearly under true nineteen c the court had the authority i don't think it was seeking to punish mr over in terms of a factually discovery with all the cases seem to say is that if someone does something improper relative to over a year before the call to d c of buses etc in this story he went on to say in cooled and said that you told your wife they were going to continue to litigate it make it very expensive for the wife to litigate these matters the court made
interpreted the these cases have found they've been interpreting the confidentiality portion of the statutes and it's only in the medical studies that not the exception to the confidentiality now designed to protect the you know full disclosure so that there's impartial review without fear of reprisal however once you get to the exceptions under the statutes those exceptions exactly what it contemplates i think by its very nature it contemplates that if there is someone fairness or some wrong view in whatever may be without limitation other than the statutory language book right i believe that's correct that's what that's what the medical studies have said it's intended to do that it's intended to encourage physicians to make candid evaluations of their peers and those not appealing the hospital decision back in two thousand and nine from your perspective in there the procedure would have been for him to appeal that to the visit to the board of trustees or to the medical examiners committee or   justice let me judge we was correct to say that there is no there was no decision in this case credential decision and therefore the exception doesn't apply and then she was correct to say th credentials act which says that she could ensure the status shall be maintained confidential and as provided by law that she's to read the ruling of the medical studies act empowering material with the credentials act delay when the decision was made dr davis assuming that everything was on the up and up and that he you know there was a there was a valid reason for the denial it was only later that he found out about this possible misconduct so by way of this act it is simply the whole point of this lawsuit is simply to discover whether what he heard because he was not aware but there may have been it's some funny feelings going on and that's why he didn't go through the hospitals procedure and sport for challenging credential and so the outcomes of that would be too late under the the credentialing as far as any direct appeal so what he's seeking is simply information that was he and leader discovered sufficient he can he can pursue any remedy whether it be  by taking the position that he has a private action here that his seemingly never been recognized in any other cases you're in effect this thing for an expansion of fish the coverage of the long arduous and obviously expensive process of appeal in here chose pursue them but that's the choice emotionally if he wishes to pursue it if he was it would have been a cost benefit analysis that would have weighed in favor of him having known that he had a very strong
minute at the october hearing where attorney parrish appeared he was in a ball then because nothing had happened within that thirty days of august the twenty six did anyone ask for a default judgment was was cited by the defendant you could read it as saying once the court energy emotional withdraw and sets up this twenty one day time period the court cannot do anything except in the case on that twenty one day time period or within that twenty one day time period and year three with better disagree with that well i don't necessarily agree with that because that was that was  within the twenty one days and the party was supposed to get a new attorney appeared and said well i'm not ready for trial i thought i had twenty one day and then the