MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
why isn't it obvious that you can retain information by taking a picture of the thing you want to be informed we'll see if that goes to at least a nice little help me understand ok it's it's not a question of a document the coupon does not exist but i'm still struggling to understand why in this day and age it wouldn't be obvious of one of the skill in the art to store data in many different ways in many different forms to take a picture of the whole playing divided up into categories i computers do this to show that no but they only have to show that one of skill and in the art would know how to do it they don't have to do it themselves they only have to show that one a skill in the art would know how to do it why doesn't want to feel they are now this you have to look at only the person's angle why didn't arc come up with this invention and say this is what it was supposed to do let's let's generated this way i mean there was absolutely no information voids the printing of that and he taps into the computer he doesn't tap into the printer so at that particular time the coupon data does not exist it must be created and that's why in the specification it says created and if you look at the drawer you will see that the coupon data is extracted from the computer and not from i think mr kelly started out by saying the vention defines the terms very broadly to encompass far more than in just pulling data out of own because it says the brain and i don't think it says i don't think it helps for you to say the patent office isn't following the law i'm i think the patent office is making every effort to follow the law well i'm i'm i'm trying to figure out your argument frankly ok you've told us if there's something invented even pulling data out of a stream i find that incredible in two thousand have a modicum of computer technological skill myself and i think i could do this but you know any priority any system i think it is within the knowledge of one of skill in the art what why why do you say that i can say the data and i can save it on floppy disks i can save it on a hard disk i can save it and i can save it in c d s or just depends upon which key i very it's i've read the patent it seemed very broad in town telling me anyway i say this is fine it's not because it has to be created from the reservation system for example but but the data is all there it's with regard to the reservation system you have to look at reservation system and that's with him mention later and there is no other prior or even with regard to generating specific specific
on fact in this particular case it appears that counsel attempted to crawl inside the mind of mr minor and he did a story about people that mr miner who was eighty five years i was just trying to say here it's just and the record shows that down immediately after mr minor fell one of the security people at the building came over to assist that the incident that an incident occurred that there was a slip and fall and that goes back to perhaps they should recognize as that incident reports were filed relating to that slip and fall but there is a ration should be enough to trigger an obligation to preserve that evidence preserve the the sharing and the court's ruling when the complaint was dismissed the one that made the allegation of these foliation of evidence that they claim that the judge made it very clear that he thought that the only way martin could be met would be if there was evidence that a formal request for preservation had been made prior to the destruction of the tape and we know that  that would have been the special circumstances or sufficient suppression circumstances i that would have required the defendants or preserve the tapes so thank you thank briefly just a couple of points once or dress some of the questions you had justice walker and i would agree that if there had been no incident reports in the first request or first age of the incident came through the letter that was sent in september there would be no special circumstances but i think that your work as well i believe in this circumstance were rhetorical question is you know that they had to be for the cameras there to provide them with information in the event they needed to protect themselves from some event occurring there so it seemed that if you're if
and what you are with your basic argument is that i think is that stand by counsel was appropriately appointed on the basis of some reason and then stand by counsel was allowed to withdraw correct and then a request was made for standby counsel even though in the colloquy of the request maybe i'll get private counsel but the defendant shows up to trial without private counsel did the defendant at that time renew the request  as we know that that's how it weighs just go up but basically allowed to withdraw and  talk and nothing to change in terms of his abilities or status that justify the point in the first place and so you're saying it was a error for the judge not to then appoint standby counsel for the tr him then the court said purposes of argument that this was a difficult defendant that everything that he did was some reasonable with regard to his decisions counsel stand by counsel is not a right that the defendant here is your standby counsel subtly for the benefit of the defendant or a standby counsel to a certain extent for the benefit of the court in the court system to try to factors are actually directed it looks like to determining whether or not whether the defendant has a right to counsel but whether it's possible to present for a person with given the complexity of the case the seriousness of the claim and the restrictions on his own particular skills he has the ability to present the information
four minutes again there's no evidence as to how long was there but most we can tell from this record he was there for a bit should he have known did or did he know in the protected party was present again no evidence of this twice but it two different ways if you're saying two different things i guess that's what i'm saying you're telling them twice but you're telling them two different things and and be based on the black and white here yeah i think that's the problem  all places and people so i think i mean obviously one would assume that you just used very specific language here and thought to stay with reason would feel allowed would allow someone here it's just it's not totally unnecessary it's totally superfluous i understand and there are situations where i mean basically to be you can put you can put you know the stores of person i say go to you could point you and by the way if she happens to be president don't go on the property right three hundred thousand feet if president gets a little bit more restrictive it's like going ever go on the  victims class schedule we don't want them to know when they are in a place and when they are not in a place because we are in texas to avoid abuse our intent is to reduce access victims so we want the defendant just stay away from certain areas sure she's there if you know she's the or don't go on the promises but if you're if you don't know that she's there don't even go to starbucks across the street right it seems like it would be the reverse it would be like you know if we know that she's there don't even when you look at how well the mistress massachusetts court interpreted their status which is obviously different than ours we're trying to avoid a situation where
make one announcement i mean as you can see justice moore is not here today he's had a gap in his family so he will be for dissipating in the opinion that's written but as you know  understand he's paid the taxes on the property and i agree with that i mean didn't so that your client didn't have to go into foreclosure only masking is that he's protecting your property aren't you your
insurance company going back and ultimately litigating what i call the coverage expert witnesses or investigators without getting approval of if he's going to look to the insurer to pay those fees but does it mean that he cannot accept a reasonable settlement offer knowing that in doing so in the face of a reservation of rights he may very well be stuck with having to pay whatever the settlement value is and as long as the insurer is given reasonable notice and an adequate amount of time to investigate and it chooses not to approve or participate in the settlement she's cooperated within the meaning of the law and now the insurer has to make a hard choice but  is that that's an obligation that he's assuming that the insurer asked to pay and i'm asking you is that what is that really an obligation within the meaning of the statute because if your right and you coverage defenses are valid you insured insurer or will never have to pay that obligation the obligation will be binding on the insured and he's going to have to satisfy that however he can but shirt agrees to it without the permission of the ensure that breaches the cooperation clause of the contract relieving the unsure of all further responsibility for the case and i'm trying to square that with the concept that independent counsel means independent it means that the lawyer has an obligation soley to the insured to represent the insured in his best interest and if a reasonably competent lawyer would decide that accepting three hundred thousand dollars is an appropriate settlement of this particular case and exercises that reasonable professional judgment that that nonetheless constitutes a breach of the cooperation cla relieving the insured of any novel the insurer of any obligation and i find that result would be very curious and inconsistent with the whole idea of why he needs  gives up the control of the insurance defense and all the insurance council to exercise his reasonable for factional judgement and accept a settlement and run the risk that it may ultimately have to pay that amount if it loses in the subsequent coverage litigation as a matter of policy what's wrong with that so it's the fact that the statute clearly provide own right i don't think you do i think the statute and the wording of the policy there are enough that we don't need to
move the same arguments in the motions for sanctions and i do not do not believe back that is what the quote really intense mr mccarthy should be granted an opportunity to be heard on the motion for sanctions as well as he was not given an opportunity to a the child you want to have an attorney to represent them if you disagree or agree that in the one thirty seven that they might have been entitled and i'm sure you were very
but at this time you cannot decide whether those claims have merit to be a reasonable s for failing to investigate and well known to testify at trial
credit for everything it would be six hundred but i don't think he says it's six hundred but when when you talk in your brief when you discuss you don't use amounts but so when it's modified in may confusion seems to have come is that you say you know what is set out and the acceleration ladder is that things do just from may at the modification those are things that are part of  and i think there's a perhaps a misconception about what the meaning of that is that they've opened they get this notice and the notice is so much greater than if they are starting with a zero told him over the phone but you know this is the insurance these are the taxes this is what your monthly payments going to be a so there's a total but don't pay they do the loan modification they get the document because they're required to sign that saying that you had knowledge that these are what these payments are for we are agreeing and we're going to make those payments that are behalf if you make them so is that document was attached to this so the mortgage and no of twenty ten and it seems like that's when the clock seems to reset that is all new at that time and that the loan is for three hundred fifty two thousand eight hundred
little bit how we got here the what we've done and what craft organization through their insurers agree to do is to to take the language of the  the maya law enforcement policy that defines personal injury where your civil rights coverage is is contained and in effect a grafter that into the great good offices there are a few few minor changes which we talked about need to do so but the most important thing is that the the great divide policy is going to provide law enforcement civil rights coverage for the box for a police department when they are engaged in  five they do have a number of policy that provides four million above that so that they do get to the right numbers the issue with respect to the umbrella policy was that that if that contained a  large force an exclusion so it would not be protective of the time to talk pro in the event of a civil right so what they have done is they've gone to their insurer and they are going to eliminate that exclusion so that the couple of phrases in here that were inadvertently added that need to be cleaned up and that's going to be done and certainly we need to count the signatures for it to the personnel to confirm that this is part of the plot but i with the post the hotline phone number in the local newspaper and mike and i and chief stillman will meet and talk about a bearable message board somewhere it was for up to the chiefs discretion for their common letting them know about the show audience on the fact that it was a saturday concert on the fact that liquor sales were not going to be served any later than normal they would be cut off the beginning of the main event which is normal for the stadium and that an a on that commission account sparrow had the ability to control and lower the sound that we felt that it was nine to one felt in favor of allowing it for this one special event based on those four criteria i don't want  they're going to have to deal with that like say a candle drive here tonight representing five or six of the you satellite lots and we have no problem staying open this to forty five minutes if it helps the event from the numbers of them all because we have a meeting
you can consider assets that you have access to and this was arguably an abscess he had access to that his his take on the judge in the in the record just that i ok when they signed her she signed with a bond or put up the cash was informed that that money was not always going to come back to her right there was never does choice and i think just scored arrest that question as to choice is it really just counsel i mean he was denied here arguing it was fair to deny him so h bond money unless it is the bond was released or discharged given back to the phone you know of the party how many times have you heard of my money being used to pay for the journey before you know a conviction or something you know but buying money can be used for fine v i mean it just as justice would reach that the people who post the bond are informed right then and there in illinois the consequences of posting  ask for more posting himself well that is that the public defender that is that been representing yourself so all he could i mean how is that any different than then he chose well i guess we'll take some of this on money this is sign and get this is turning but isn't there a chilling effect are you thinking you know this is my parents money and where i'm not going to i don't don't hire  that's more money don't do this don't do that trying to manage the amount of money that spending is that there are a chilling effect that's possible there it's possible but in this case jury they'll post bond and then subsequent to that after that it's been going on going on for a while they end up by getting the public defender appointed for them have you seen cases like that yes there are others and those are cases where surveys been posting by so there was a bond out there like twenty five thousand dollars but because of subsequent events even with that bond in place or are you saying that had it been told that the bond was posted by his mother that he would have made a different decision is that what you're saying  cash and he could he personally assign that bond himself to an attorney walking down the hall and say represent me i've given a sign of the cash he can't do it himself mine assignment of one posted by someone else that notice goes to the person posting the bond saying these are the risks hugh today and this money but if it's taken bond posted by a third party as an asset to determine indigency is that i'm still struggling with i think that's a yes it was no it is the earth question
well and welcome to the friday show i am tape man and i am veselin and we are here to host the friday show because then they are helping us out and they're saving the world today so looks like me and lastly men are going to take it over jack straw she looks so beautiful today and so soft spring dress she's feisty too i love the way she slaps my pile  eight king jack five for queen next cars four i know you're in there number four oh the sweet smell of leave you steve love my glasses get over here right now  who's there will will know when you stop talking to me i'm not your friend anymore so my darling there's one more road block i have to eliminate and guess what it's your boyfriend vaseline man a superhero he thanks dot him club are still friends but there's no time to lose by students got lydia held captive we have to save her well the reason i'm here in the first place because you know crazy superhero schemes for me no surgery super hero not mean i know what i heard well i'm not i don't think i'm going to be able to make it so it's just like it's just like paradise here i'm telling you yeah you do your thing i'm going to chill out here have fun in the me i want to go with well johnson this serious issue please contact the authorities immediately hits that's one eight hundred th e h i ts in for two thousand dollars these hits can be yours
fundamental problem here i must have cried three or four hundred of these cases with an agent sitting near in describing in detail what happened i just don't understand the problem it's not saying that  intended to distribute cocaine it's saying on this date here's something which occurred it was there any request anything please kindly do it in the middle one but the problem i have with that is that the way the government put on the witness is if i were a juror it would be very hard for me to come compartmentalize evidence against and because of the shocking evidence in my opinion against davis how the jury could was separate
and the similarity is one talking about the ability of the dead to recover damages against the i r s not just for state violations but for discharge violations too destruction charge show not a single case has ever held that the us or the united states isn't tied to a special definition or more forgiving standard for this there has been applied thank you thank you
was because they got to make a predetermination determination i suggested that there isn't any way to make that interpretation hold up based upon the plain language of this regulation and any
hundred thousand dollars we traveled all over the country we participated in the federal oh restack case in the ninth circuit in california we respect hundreds if not testified he did not he didn't even know what the settlement terms were he didn't know how they were negotiated this was an unbelievably complicated case this is the early days of e commerce this is a well i mean this sort of that talking a little bit about jobs because i have been doing this work in these business for thirty years and i am firmly convinced and hopefully this will be used against me that i just don't have ok here's the money we're not going to litigate this thing anymore that's it we're done exactly as a judge is reasonable is that outcome and it's much sense is it makes you can't do it because you reverse they did hundreds of thousands of hours over there is no evidence of that in the records it's not there's no evidence of hundreds of thousands of expenses but if you look at the full year record you'll see things that was just filed and leading there
own but let me ask you something that i think is particularly troubling here with regard to dr raven's testimony and be ask you some questions about this is it true that specifically during his november twenty fourth team deposition dr raven and his testimony said it was all dead when he sat down he felt a sharp pain in his lower back it went down his right leg and the commission turned around and said well wait a minute o prior to date of the event then you have a doctor who said it was him when everybody agrees that he does all this repetitive and then the doctor who agrees and says this repetitive work could cause a bad condition motherhood other then the fish in the it under a chain of events theories he had nothing wrong with him before the today and then after today he's caught something wrong with them and evidently recording the arbitrator sitting
action this is certainly a situation where we're risking so forbearance from the court for it's not like it's not like a notice of appeal it's final before all things are taken care of and we can fix it because there are ways within the rules the fact that it's premature what what bearing does that have on the experienced were a judge has not addressed the issue of jurisdiction and granted we the trial court just said it's frivolous it's gone right and what we did the other case
ready for that would be it not for the court the sage or seventy five thousand would be to take a look at all the paperwork see what fees are submitted and then make a conclusion as to how much the court is not obligated this is not baseball arbitration to take simply zero or seventy client make calls yes so whether the place had evidence or not we don't know they may call you saying those weren't enough to go to trial correct that those they were not enough and it would need something to attack those call to say th reconstructive surgery on the record and carve out the wise you're saying is a matter of war judge mary any would have concluded i would have granted summary judgment the case would have ended dead and at least everything after that was question that they were they were robbed and they were dedicated and where was the in fact a statement in those records that mr hamburger didn't tell the person to stop there's no question about that the judge follows that with we deplore counsels conduct for allowing such obviously untrue evidence to be presented to us but at the same time defenestrated for sanctions and from the peace next of seventy five thousand is out of proportion he will he said we remain first i go to the opinion of the court at eight thirty for the appendix page fourteen the opinion the only destroy suggests that the hamburgers and their attorneys lied when they claimed the times listed in the rocketry were transcriptions from the caller i where the polls actually appear i will be surprised because these are extremely complicated records that only people who are familiar with the area there is absolutely no way that mr or mrs hamer that we're viewing this twenty please document figured out where the calls were and here's  said that it is sanctions motion but if you go back and read his summary judgment opinion you will see that his reliance on the summary judgment opinion of why these calls when we're all predicated on the foundation that the occurred any engages all those proceedings is reason enough to engage in the sanction simply beyond an opinion that somebody did something wrong and for those reasons and defend it respect we request that the conclusion of the truck