MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
really there's no if you start restating what's said in this other more complicated file legal document you do run into these these possibilities where you create ambiguity and if somebody later on is trying to interpret  for the next five minutes also appropriate particular changes or concerns with the language has changed if you have any questions because in the chart it  it's no recruiting in the definition of a cultural consumer a whole group of people who make less than a thousand dollars per year and a new income for those activities at least arguably someplace in the county code here including you know everybody w everybody on the island is now a paper cultural consumer if they think proper direction and if i have a button on a tree i could make that argument and if there are other places in the coal it all made out it may have an impact on this particular code section but if there are other places in the code that may use the term paper cultural consumer not even maybe capitalized maybe they're just referring to a generally it's hard you will get if it's not a defined term in that section of code then you start looking in the code for other places where it is a defined term and you might come across this and everybody is now in a cultural that would be my concern with it just from a draft perspective looking at you know knowing all of these people for a long time people's ages this is what's going to happen for the next five years at least is it every year the end of the year senior people retiring in the next six months her you know advertising some people will probably hire people for outside  so there are just a lot of people going to be retiring and my prediction is the department of water supply for at least the next five years or more is going to be struggling with production and as we keep losing senior people just as we get to hear people up to speed there is literally people were cherry and other departments they're recruiting our best people to go into their departments because it's a step up and these are cycling through the county there is a particular position the county lot of time and just as we don't want to kill somebody else we usually start over and then just looking at everyone's ages and where they are is going to be difficult to keep yourself in for the next several years and i just i don't have any solutions for it county government at that time you know that cycle through injury or for good grades at the beginning part of sort of the first mass retire
generally that they're getting full benefit of the commercial operation and so they resort to two different theories here one was we do  all that in writing it would be one heck of a report but for us to talk about it seems to be so if we say that if you look at who's been in front of us it's my opinion they tend to be people squeaking by ri in sales that they have to show and some of them have difficulty doing them but some of them can go in the system three of three or four years came back and then they go in and they go back in and then show that they've sold some system development feed to the second meter as well you know i don't i don't know and i agree that there are a lot of gentlemen farmers out there that are not for me much other than you know a couple a couple that's there would be county county responsibility or i don't know how to ask this question but that's basically what the county would be responsible for developing in order for there to be supplied to the new meter as opposed to what the customer is going to be three sixty comment the question is done do we old mr marsh any kind of response is this our response having this discussion discussed but i guess you know the fact that we're having this discussion in this medium doesn't mean that you know you look at it read it consider it and have are satisfied that
circumstances are a little unique in terms of what he was asked to do a b and take on three different perception and positions manage the transition with as little risk as word you know they can make you three million dollars in two thousand and one by the to the fourth quarter of two thousand and seven it was ambiguous that the financial services industry was going south if make sure you had stayed in th hear a contract or agreement you think the legislature meant to say
that must be joe's place over there know we could fix it so she can find the bodies you know i'm still making a last try to get him to sign the folio you make me always want to do everything the hard way the sooner we get him out of the way the better i'm running th when you do don't you know i offered to but just to help the girl out she can do anything with it let me let me give you a little advice go back where you came from and mind your own business you're my first m want my business did well what is it my business is to find joe jackson or the man that killed him and his father you know
so we take that to mean that you don't disagree with the substantive issues raised about the rest  situation in which an order or a series for borders that ultimately great results in the disposition of litigation is not rev arrhythmia so why should we do that to some kid just because she's a kid we wouldn't do it if this was a different if this didn't have this rule she was referring to that we must be reading wrong because it doesn't make sense and there's no
well let's i'm your husband remember me some of the did with the idea was this morning i know you i like it here and it will be all right soon as we get a little pin told yes i'm going but i'll be prepared quiet it's a creative artist and lock the doors they we've got something here exams i took it on i found out i didn't break the law now just a slight inconvenience a useless trip to the president and back of course may we see him sure go ahead dirty double crossing
much he didn't know how much he says you know stood his brother gave his mother cash so you know his brother made cash payments periodically and during the time period that was it was i mean  the lower court also focused on the cash portion the transaction with those two checks to one in twelve thousand you know the other one for thirty six thousand dollars which was certainly not a matter of count it was a jerk and additionally there was documentation that substantiates mr james testimony which is true that there was a transfer tax declaration signed by his mother which are which identified on fifty thousand dollars as the proceeds of the sale was never heard of the documents that were notarized by someone who never witnessed the signature and i don't believe that  but in this case that we required them to go forward and say even if there was a partial benefit to the recipient as the house had been completed she should get some reimbursement for this in our case we don't have that issue about the partial benefit the benefit was cash there's no doubt that the estate had both the real estate and the payments by the end of the transaction but the robinson case i think is the closest parallel the you can come to you in this world it is a family transaction it's a case where the signature of the woman who also the record points out is somebody who's having some competency issues because you can put things in front of her and she will know that they are chill side i think this is a serious issue the the idea of chest is one issue bill where the checks were deposited and that's what i was addressing is another issue and forgive me if it's not in the record but it's in my mind because of the state with all due respect which you can argue this morning is what you see in the record the issue is did he pay one hundred fifty thousand dollars and i will say the whole transaction is suspect up there's i don't remember anything in the record it's what's the one issue is that it's either one hundred fifty thousand or nothing he think there's anything inherently unreasonable about this transfer that somehow casts a station on whether you made the payments council also orders to the reimbursement of the money is a credibility issue generally and frankly that's of course
therefore she was not an effective resume also to note in our brief that defendant had multiple opportunities present effective assistance of counsel claims and did have a hearing of more evident in something like oh i didn't do it but it was self defense something rather theories are sort of only inconsistent or tension with one another in this case that issue of great bodily harm focuses just on the nature of the injuries to the victim and that element prevented many of the counts in this case it but to the aggravated battery of a senior citizen in the armed violence that had sentencing points consequences for two other convictions so for counsel to to exclude completely  but the bottom line is looking at the medical records he was diagnosed with issue here is that this element was really a challenge to trial because few people would look at a fraction i socket fractured rib in the last ration is and really think it's a challenge that is great bodily harm but take away the fractures and you wait and so that's the standard that has to be met for ineffective assistance and bad on appeal we have the manifest error standard the state has the burden to show that the trial court's decision here was  sloot admitted that he was on blood thinning medication which might have caused you know more blood than usual all these things are things that have turned so done her job she would argue to the jury to say there's not enough his claims proceeding only on her own amended petition so ensuring that the claims that he put forth in his prosecution would not be ruled on and on appeal we've pointed to a couple of issues where mr smith that the fact that he had served time in ideas he previously was already part of the records already known to the trial judge and has been presented evidence i have just heard evidence that within the confines of the prison he could
post conviction counsel and in the companion case mr de rigueur mr mitchell attempted to serve counsel of record at least in one of these campaign cases they're raising for well over function if there's a forwarder keeping his money then he should get his money man it would be simple enough the state answered this there's really no reason to continue this this fighting over a very limited point when the question is do they have money go
yeah i know mary i met earlier today and one of the things that he pointed out is the only reason that this really has to come before us is because it's creating a new position of deputy commissioner that it's his prerogative to do you know the hiring salaries and things like that and also on that i don't think money's being moved it's being moved within particular units but not between them so and he said you know what he said raise it properly that someone may be moving into another position and that maybe even the back to normal business practices that somebody's getting rich that somebody's taking on different months ability and being able to do a different job so level of services that we can still sell the city and the housing initiatives to the police and fire components your burbage picked up for the people who are serving we do it the other day it doesn't change th some numbers were transmitted the study plainly showed it on some of these they were not what they were supposed to be so this lets you know who exactly is on the board what their terms are him there twice was because he appeared on both resolutions ok the one resolution had should have had his term expires on may thirty first two thousand and twelve and then he was  reappointed in may of two thousand and twelve to actually like i didn't realize this last week but in looking at the resolution that was passed in two thousand and twelve it only reflected a two year term no three year term so that resolution needs to be adjusted also so the way i've set this up is what resolution the names have appeared on names even though they show there are terms not expiring those three people no longer serve or in the sense that they don't go to meetings for no charge to have read the whole thing enough to have miners or other family members who are admitted to a hospital or other overnight medical facility and then if they continue with limitations of where it can be the requirements of a park so again i just felt that this was something you just really seem like you were unclear about discussion there on that talking about if there's a facility they want to come here they should get a location and get it under contract go to the planning orders otherwise i would say there's nothing agreed that we're taking out all the neighborhood associations so we need to still believe the new independent hamilton hill neighborhood association but there were just a couple of things like that and i decided better to pull it just you know get these things corrected before
before it was a rorschach case because it was divided it was the last big case decided in the section forty six of the civil practice a which later became i section t both sides agree this is a question of first impression based in the sense of these particular sets of this particular set of facts that there is a thread of cases you know if you sit down and read the court case from november but specifically describe the status of repairers as meaning that a claim is not even a nice by the law after the time that the the repairers period has ended  does can preserve something in the sense of enabling it to continue in time when that something has been extinguished by a different substantive statute when it doesn't exist anymore it can't be preserved and despite the plaintiff's description of this relation back as as being a presentation method that is true for all claims that have been asserted in the initial in the initial they had their facts in common which in this case they don't but they did it would still be consistent recently acquired by six forensics be that the it the course of action be preserved
is on for argument today and counsel should be confident that we have read the briefs and are familiar with the arguments in each of the cases so please do not consume your limited time with addressing the facts go right to the legal arguments that you would like to press upon us in the event that you are new to our lighting system when the yellow light goes on you are beginning to consume your rebuttal time when the red light goes on your entire time has expired very well with that said will start with number zero six seven zero four five albert against the d construction of the regulation in evaluating a joint disability it is not the only factor to be considered therefore the court implicitly found symptomatic means more than a subjective complaint but who else would know whether it's painful not assumes that the pain is directly related to the removal of the cartilage and assume that the doctor would so determine that would be symptomatic related to a service c result of that i experience and the doctor says you're going to experience pain you're going to have a the consequences of the bones rubbing against one another which is what the cartilage prevents that's going to give you trouble for the rest of your life that would be our let me ask you we're talking that subjective objective is it is this really just another way maybe a little more polite way of saying that somebody came and complained of pain but the doctor did not either credit the complaints are find any i had my tonsils removed and i come back a year later and i say i'm suffering throat is sore throat and if it's recurring and so forth the doctor one of two things either the doctor could serve program on and say well you're not telling the truth in which case that would be subjective expressions of pain but it wouldn't be objectified and that the doctor would say i don't confirm that i gather that's one type of case that would be non qualifying another would be well yeah you're suffering drug pain but there's no indication this has anything to do with your tonsils now either one of those i suppose would be enough to say this is non qualifying even though you have a service connected conditions your tonsils were removed because if something happened in your in the service but you don't the side because there was a report which presumably indicates some crediting of pain but the the failure here is a failure to associate the reports of pain with the particular condition in  five to nine nine in fact i think what happened was the court of appeals with reference claims in the board found that it was appropriate to rate by analogy because the removal was not symptomatic however even if it should have been rated under five to five decision on this record back question is you wait wait did you raise the issue about the construction of the regulation with the court of appeals for
and we don't have a head here we don't know the source of the information we don't know the method of recording we don't know what kind of computer equipment and software is used in a change you know whether that was the same computer and software equipment recovered in this incident and coal is continually checks to see if there's a mesh and there's never been a match so that actually drifting away from simple data storage into did analysis and then don't act and i think the fact that the state can't do anything to support this one page computer panel shows that we can't just rely on the absence of any affirmative
i want to address those points logically and as we do in our brief for this consideration the contract and its first year law school you have to consider a should have a valid contract has to be a mutual release of sentence was a release of rights that's what he found and first of all you has your honor aptly pointed out that might be consideration because until it's could be a loose first of all consideration can be loser retirement account which would be instrument by which she would have gains or losses during the marriage passive or otherwise which is referred to as having a balance of a hundred fourteen thousand dollars on her balance sheet did her testimony this case and goes into part two of my argument is that it makes no sense if we have a completely fictional balance sheet the assets that are on the balance sheet at the time he signed the agreement did not exist behind the value to strive to that were not  the values at the time they entered into the agreement and that's not controverted so you're you're trying to enforce an agreement that is a balance sheet that is essentially has no bearing on reality and  incapable of unfortunate because p v is ridiculous makes no sense as a fictional balance sheet and isn't as i said earlier the best advertisement for why people who want to enter into these agreements should hire a lawyer or least get forms of the internet at a minimum this makes no sense i am never would be askin forcing an agreement that has a balance sheet that is acknowledged to be incorrect and completely fictional where assets don't exist that paragraph that talks about some kind of putting the people back to where they belong starting out giving credits that don't exist and i'm just going to use simple mack had a million dollars between them at the beginning of the case now and in the case they have two million dollars well maybe you say to get your million back and divide the million ok but let's say there's  e thousand who gets the first dollars back if there's a loss and what this doesn't contemplate and which it doesn't say is what happened in this case and that's why it's doesn't  that works that you can interpret and say this is what it says the judge for all with all due respect to judge a person didn't say that he was given the facts when he was asked to determine whether his agreement was valid he'd have to make a determination that it was requires runners to review the evidence in the case in the findings of the trial court and i believe that is reviewed on the manifest we do have a standard we believe the judge judges that the court's findings with to follow richardson and says based on richardson that we should find that the situation here is similar and therefore find it and conscionable should we follow richardson and if not why you should trouble richardson if  at the end pursuant to their formula he would end up with thirty nine percent of the marital status let's say four hundred seventy thousand and also mean he'd get a hundred thirty eight percent of his premarital contributions what
susan if there was a specific contribution that he made a hundred percent versus zero percent by his now ex wife whether or not the trial or considered that is as much as was started after the marriage it was already going concern so to speak the business was operating when these loans were taken out and you know you're making an argument that would look into this persona but i didn't see  been roughly twenty percent stake tax thirty five percent business federal income tax resulting in roughly fifty five percent fill testified forty eight percent roughly or fifty percent someone in the room and the tax returns the course as well you know you should have done this however all the uncontroverted evidence in the world should presumably know all this tax consequences by paying out anything whether it's a sale of the business whether it's distributions of a business she was was no contemplation of the sale of the business therefore there was no contemplation of ask as it relates to the sale now as it is to say where on the stand he was ordered to pay a certain portion or qualified appraiser in order to accomplish less taxes so i don't think the judge ever said new taxes he said it wasn't there wasn't going to be a city also there were no  on distribution in some manner and hav question i want to pick up on your arguments pointed questions regarding tax consequences since that seems to be a major issue i think it's important for the panel to to understand it to have to concentrate on the fact that the only tax implications that should be considered are those that naturally flow from  mr smith on  supposed to see it for an incumbent upon her he was arguing this point to make the case that in this particular case i would argue that it would be a combination of both parties and the reason i say that is