MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
before it happened and she approved the activity she put into the record in the trial or she started making demands on people to stop that closing so that you know and i don't know what she told you the record doesn't say i would knowledge to understand if she started making demands on other people to stop something from happening don't you think the affidavit of this is what demands you made to exactly whom you made them and when you did it i think certainly be a better you you know she could make me into a post me and she'd make me as of the guy i think at the grocery checkout but it doesn't seem to make any sense it seems to me if you're making demands of somebody and trying to stop something from happening trying to stop somebody from taking real property that you claim you  do that and i don't know why she didn't do that i certainly wasn't worth the time i would rush to do that but the fact that she didn't take one course of action that one and the purpose of the long run is to make sure that someone doesn't come into court and accuse people of things about which they have no evidence in this case this fall without any  fact i'm sorry a lot of whining and crying and complaining about how unfair life is and how she's poor and she's and poor health and all these people did it to or she complained about the court system she complained about the clips of the record with these  proposition that these statements in these two paragraphs are somehow saved by the larger context of everything else with a reasonable wider context everything else if you go to the passion  sal i also have a rule for the with the fact that this argument about these two paragraphs having some sort of inference of the l evidently if it had gone on further i think things would have gotten even worse for her for a lot of reasons but we reduced the narrow issue to get the case dismissed and i've been trying to stay on that in this case there's no evidence that they had a real estate broker if it were the case and they didn't have a broker it would have been the easiest thing in the world for the andersons to have submitted affidavit stated never broker and there's no such affidavit in the record  your status as a good faith or interest or you know be incumbent on you not only to prove your own personal lack of knowledge but that you know the nonexistence of agents knowledge could be imputed to you and they didn't they
as paolo construction in parallel structure or parallelism which is the hardest one to say and then tries with special force to a list a series of items and if you look at a activities that are set forth in a list and like most writers when the main legislature sets forth activities in a list it uses it in your issue between a second to last item and the last item on the list indeed according to the plaintiff's own side of the  justice scalia that's the way most legislatures write statutes and in fact the overtime statute issue here it seems five different lists and the main legislature used a conjunction before the final i don't want each and every one of those five list closely i think the other examples are a lot closer to this one then highly convoluted sentence that the plaintiffs point to in the definition of public employment agencies which which is a very complicated list with lots of injunctions and statute yes they pointed out that distribution is a different type of noun then the jury form of noun used for the other activities in the exemption it is a fair observation but there are two answers to it first i think relying on such a small grammar argument is pretty weak when there are such more obvious ground or problems with their reading of the statute but second of all we can't know for sure there is a basis in instantiates for finding that the legislature simply found it less awkward to refer to the distribution of the foods than to the distributing of perishable foods and the after distribution is the chairman form sound awkward and the legislature in fact overloaded that instruction in other statutory sections indeed we looked need look no further then the section the plaintiffs themselves cited to title twenty six chapter thirteen section one zero four three to see that the recall the exact words your honor but that case law say our brief makes clear that that just because there are two ways to read something doesn't make it legally ambiguous it just makes one of them and our argument is that there's only one reasonable way have anything to support i don't think any of their actual reading so with their best argument is to try to cast doubt on the way everybody else reads it including the three judges in maine and then declare that any downey's they win but this narrow construction arguments about
aggravating factor he didn't address the fact that the type of contacts that he was
right or not tell the council to amend this court in the ender's griefs that are filed here can reject those injuries and direct defense to brief certain
wal mart store it sounds like your argument is that even if the state doesn't prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that big doesn't the standard of review if a
and also for has because the record in this case to what happened was think anyone would agree someone is jointed in unusual i've been given ten minutes total for argued on this case well both of both dr eliot and dr morton gave their opinions again after the judge had already made his conclusion that he was going to consider that evidence and didn't but they question is whether or not he does there was no contention by the movement for summary judgment that her problems were caused by anything else there and she didn't have a burden seems scientific information going to tough and did find reliable was the argument by the defendant ok about the expert opinions in that other case alleged condition which may in fact not be recognized by medical science to exist but there was no explanation as to how they would be in the air could be inhaled whether in fact there was a fair opportunity on the part of his rossi to address the specific but for causation who sure it's because it was sponsored she did and again i would i would that in a transitory situation if i'm driving down the highway let's suppose the following that i live in a certain location rural location i get up every morning and i go through a routine a and i'm allergic to diesel three to potentially now a comeback can i demonstrate that i've driven past this point numerous times and the only time i get this allergic reaction is fact that multiple chemical sensitivity is not recognized as a diagnosis in the international classification of diseases and dr burton dependence expert has had occasion to research multiple chemical sensitivities and is not believe it can be a valid diagnosis of multiple chemical sensitivities is not a diagnosis recognized by the american medical association and we know that dr burton actually testified there w declaration is about had to have the date stated in their motion for summary judgment there's a genuine issue that there is no genuine issue of material fact but that for an individual with porfirio  her to her own declarations and declarations of her experts to the contrary but back contention was not me what was disputed was whether if there strayed two miles from her home and she never leaves her home whether they would affect her and she doesn't dispute that she has no evidence that they would although she may believe it but what her contention was in the complaint
maybe you do but i'd like to suggest that if there's any doubt in your minds after this argument about whether the trial judge would do the same thing given another chance missing in the court's ruling this time in the in the last time is that care for the minor child in the litigation that that hole was moved to in two years is that every time hollywood every few months she changes ac's primary care doctor she changes her daycare father and what that does is it prevents him from being able to access not of course but should be able to communicate with doctors and and educators and providers  issue of the primary care physician and even now being informed of the new primary care physician that was the stern preschool decision for him again hall did mention at one point that she was potentially considering
if it please the court name is scott hubbard i represent plaintiff in appellate joanne peters i know the courts read the briefs and it's familiar with the issues i'd like to make a brief statement answer any questions the court has and hopefully she identified that there wasn't any produce scale that she concluded that she could use my understanding and reading the record like that and they didn't mention it in a summary judgment motion my understanding is the lower  her letter and testimony said that she couldn't find a lower she didn't mean there was in the scale low enough for her to use what was the second part of your question judge tom well i think that probably answer the the case before you it's an important case and since the district court dockets are flooded with title three eighty eight cases right now and in fact on the record before the court here miss peters filed thirty similar complaints form complaint that was filed that essentially allege that oneto was in violation of the a b a with respect to everything in the parking lot everything inside within the store and inside the bathrooms and so forth it was twenty five different areas specific areas making fountains bathrooms check out stance and so forth that are very specific as to the requirements and the principle that provision that applies here thirteen different violations and ten to thirteen different violations ne of which the plaintiff didn't even know about and by the time you peel it down we filed a summary judgment motion attacking five five provisions detectable warnings th i'm aware of that deals with this for the first not frivolous mixter and that's the kuantan a case in the eleventh circuit they came out just what six weeks ago or so and in that case they actually articulated unlike the other cases the sanction modern work of attorneys fees under the standard articulated generally for these kinds of cases why don't you think a rule and sanction would have been adequate to provide to terms i think we have alternative to seventy eight she identifies having problems with the probie scale not enough disabled parking areas because it was blocked no safe path to travel unable to reach produce five five months before she filed a complaint there was no response they knew that this was what she was complaining about when we filed our complaint in september eighteenth we get mediately when defense my obviously from my position i would have to say that if you have something that is frivolous and non frivolous if i say you don't get fees under the a t f for filing a frivolous law case it's not not every issue in every case but we do we do important work we actually go through these these are but this record seems to disagree with that and says i'm talking about boilerplate compliance some compliance that aren't actual barriers to the particular plaint if it was around we would have done it even acknowledges in his opinion that it was the rule eleven sanction motion and he even acknowledged in his opinion that he instructed us to do this and we
being asked and battered by different lawyers to testify as to why did you have a gun to your gun are you sure it was a go so as we started he stated i was going around the corner to slow to break into my left side of my driver's side there was the finish and chris on the curb they ran into the sidecar start something in the window seemed like it was a gun to me and the crista meaning for me to get out of the car open up on the side of the door that was the first question he was asked in regard to this case it testified very quickly not acquaintances from class so how would they have this type of game they play it's also seems to be a little bit strange a game to the state additionally as counsel stated defendant called them to make sure that he knew he was not part of whatever the finding is that they did not know who the car belonged to when it drove around because there were no waves on the street and we go over this and there my reason that's not our in the states brief when the work relies on something
is listed in the orange broke it puts our competitors on notice of what happens to need to be on the lookout for as they are themselves trying to innovate and it creates incentives for them to innovate an additional incentive is that when the patent is invested in to do particular testing with respect to the drive mechanism claims here but i would also know as we mentioned earlier any argument there there could be antitrust consequences regardless of whether th leave it to the extra agency to resolve that ambiguity and i think that there are other mechanisms for improper going to the listings to be corrected those include among other things a counterclaim if there is
so the purpose for this appeal is to addressed again what we're claiming is the effect of denial of the right to have a hearing in the nature of temporary this is the nd time this or stated we have an issue an ethical issue that's before this court on the motions to disqualify possibly both terms that is paramount to reach a decision on that so i'm not going to go forward zero was in place by virtue of the the appeal of the parties scheduled cross motions to disqualify the other parties counsel with joy and and prior to that and that's when the that hearing motion at this point so it is simply in limbo and the rd motion to continue filed by mr golan states by grounds for  the supreme court has asked us every time we've been in front of them we've been in front of them several times since this appeal has gone up what's the status of this appeal apparently we are going to schedule those unions until this appeal is over court to say which one comes st because that is really the crux of this issue you know whether this is the schedule of the motion to disqualify a hearing st or the motion to appoint a receiver says the circuit court has control over its own docket that's of matter within the course discretion and where does that come from my comes from former chief justice  just another time the judge who was not on the side of this case set a date and i said ok but under mr prager's argument that this court has the power to determine scheduling what is the abuse of discretion the it means that it's got to be our major it's got to be fanciful or unreasonable or where no reasonable person could take the view adopted by the circuit court it's people versus told her we didn't undertake that lightly we took our time and that of course will put us up against the receivership here even are not the merits of the whether it is this is but this is a good this is not about the merits of those things this is just about scheduling that's what the notice of iraq torie appeal since that's what their words say this is about us scheduling is not about sucky and again that's been addressed in other places on schedule and the risk of having all these things piecemeal is that we wind up in the situation where the court has said i want to hear the motions to disqualify st and it's him strong because this is  the answer is because the proposed receiver is from the district immediately south of the district in which the dispensary operates and so there is no limitation on where the costumes go there is a limitation on where somebody can operate but there is absolutely no limitation on their customers to go so our position is that to put any person that can pete's in the position of receivership where they're going to have motion to appoint a receiver that's the true circuit course discretion this mid former chief justice rehnquist said it exactly that way the circuit courts and trial course are entrusted with a wide
well your honor i would submit that the court met thanks to over seven hours of testimony reviewed all of the schedule and let them cut up ordinary business between the party evaluated the financial capabilities of the data and the year before the bankruptcy in the three years  and the cost of not create an error on the bank in determining that you know of their preference payments were out of the ordinary course i think that we heard at the
prospect of litigation was insufficient to cover the work product doctrine and i think that goes really to the heart of where everything should stuff where right and then it is the confusion i believe of a business purpose produce them we filed a motion for the court to reconsider so her what we want to address here is the court's determination that these are all relevant at all and the subsequent adoption and the preparation of green court rules that would actually allow that kind of activity and you're saying that this would preclude the ability of an opposing counsel a consultant under two or one of the three is a person who has been retained especially in void into patient litigation or preparation for trial but who is not to be called a trial first many exponent scientists including the authors of somehow clear when we understand the despite his testimony the litigation plans on board if you look at what we can see based on the redacted documents these are bullet points these are individual words that hardly amenable to be litigation theory work product for attorneys or corporations to use as they please and then they publish it they publish it for the world to see and yet they are claiming that we're not allowed to look at the behind the scenes past the century what they're saying is we're going to show you work product we want you to see we're not going to show you on that you're not allowed to look at the map behind it and that is fundamentally unfair and against the illinois strong policy of full disclosure and  asking for from this court is transparency and judge shot twice looked at these documents in here and ruled that they were relevant and not privileged for multiple reasons so we're just
she looks great for a second he's sick thing is hair she continues at seven seconds she already beat her first time and she knows it oh she's way too excited about this she needs to focus pay attention come on ah she bumped into  generally rock back competition i don't know what you're talking about that was weak saws and we'll see how i did after a few videos i now have a real treat guys we have a band teacher from the band s i see i go for the more and times approach you know like water shells anyone with a badge volunteer firefighters anyone really who can you know be more from officialdom you know from one school i like that all right character you are it's a good thing champion and i bow to you how does this feel i had you know this is probably the greatest moment of my life i mean i you know i was expecting to win but you know i was not anyway so who do we got coming in here today please give it up for the memory you've all been waiting for hand high are you guys doing life on crazy going all around the world you know taking the broader stuff but not yeah we just got off a plane from tokyo you know doing that whole scene but we're is it like being in a clam were famous i see myself on billboards now on t v shows you know behind the music can do z all this stuff everybody loves me i don't know what to do all we do is you know you stop those are the pictures you know all the all the ladies love you know they messed with my
proposed recommended would have you call it investments to the account holder to buy that back triggers an obligation to disclose material information concerning that that surprises intern if that the moment you make that recommendation you've got a crew that in your home office working on the anticipated bankruptcy proceeding that you'll intice a page is going to be filed in a couple of days that's that seems
they were the first exhibits we had really presented to judge buyers the gross income fell for thirteen thousand two hundred forty three a significant drop the net income for our from one for you tonight three now again in domestic
that and we think that that situation is very now i guess to the situation where if the script there's a side that the misstep should applies retroactively and we're not saying it best but if you do find that that it should be sent back from a course we have that opportunity to follow that
somebody could be convicted of all the person did was fondling the victim that could support a conviction for sexual abuse but it not or if somebody penetrates the victim it could support a conviction for assault so if you committed both of those  one episode may be pressed beautiful more than one offense unless the charges are both precisely this thing physical act and that's what you are leaving out of the argument or the analysis here yes you're talking about a stain episode  the other not more they have to do than have the victim say this happened to me ten separate times she didn't quite say like this you just said ten how often you can say i was having an indictment supposed to allege that in the course of this episode it's one of five the founders of the victim it one ten the end of course with the victim and the you have to have a certain number of minutes saying they're running off is that what you're saying well i'm not going to say that but i don't want to say that well either either they were sloppy or these things happened simultaneously or they happened not sake of argument that these happened absolutely simultaneously explain to me how that is the same because under the six pounds pass which state also to the extent that only one part of the body was contacted a bit so in a way you're saying that your defendant is extraordinary in the sense that in would use that however the state maintains that the simultaneous nature your does not control as your honor what it's reading inside are up a little further into  convictions the same physical act and there are two different physical acts that took place here there is no prejudice the judge recognize that you have a sexual kind of tradition that supported both  language well is there a page one ninety four one ninety six where some other evidence was presented and what ninety four the victim indicates that the defendant got on top of her with his shirt state maintain the simultaneous the simultaneous nature is not what the trolls here while we have the six factories and well i would think there would have to be different press because if you put your hand over the a specifically found the victim's testimony credible found her after renaming the child after she was able to leave the home circumstances was unusual and rejected the defendants in court denials all of these arguments were made before the bench below and as the square should not really weigh any of th
legislation is there any discussion