MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
talking about us taking judicial notice of the internet position that goes was the did the distance between chicago and peoria now we can take your usual voters there but if you're telling us what cleveland clinic says about written by judyth pozner with a very strong to send because you went dancing through the internet to sustain an objection to a summary judgment in a case by some prisoner it's the if you ever take a review of the arbitrators corrected decision within thirty days of the date of the decision these are it's very simple question i know there's other but i know what happened did you take the appeal of the i mean the ekklesia you know all the cases saying you can try to distinguish this from other cases because it is sort of unique but all of them do they not reference strict compliance when it comes to jurisdiction so so simply tell us why we should ignore according to you then if you explain that somehow you made a mistake before the commission then it's ok the law would be chaos if we don't have strict compliance with these rules if we did then our petition for would not be time if you make a mistake and you list the wrong judgment the wrong decision there's a problem with it it's open why wasn't that true of the shipper case where they missed the wrong case number because it can these number is entirely different because it has a dated with position in there and we know it's the decision in the right page number because they had the date of it in your particular case this wasn't some random game that was preached in your notice  seeking review it was the actual date of the original of the seizure and so when you turn around and say we made a mistake yes you did make a mistake but the fit to me and i raised it was not a petition for review
properly consider of all evidence regarding the prior priority of use or prior use of them are upheld as contend that that game be improperly ignored the so that all evidence that was submitted under a notice of reliance was considered and then there is a contradictory language in that statement decision excluding certain documents however we evidence was not even wait there was evidence presented that t j be either ignored it or did not even wait we had a right to have that evidence to be weighed to have the key to determine whether in fact more that is registered by that appellate disclaims and you write to the term technology and in fact in determining the likelihood of confusion the t j be focused on the fact that ace in the pallies more are identical and then it went through the do five factors and determine well even though there are dissimilarities the similarities outweigh and therefore i believe that the that the marks and that is that calories in both the submission of the document and its evident three declarations i believe that that was one of the contentions was that the use of the base and of course in conjunction with the goods in commerce constituted prior to standard that you would give to a district court the test is essentially would a reasonable mind except the evidence for the record before the dreamers or the board to support their decision and clearly has discussed there if there isn't enough which is pending will also be subject to attack from the base antenna our problem with the d t b ruling your honor is that if you look at the decision there was absolutely no consideration given to the nineteen ninety four catalogs given that there were a market sell it was dissimilar from a technology your honor we believe that there should have been some consideration given to that evidence to show whether or not that an exultant stablish is a
that he wanted to explain to the jury during closing argument i said that he could not use his notes now because the court can place the limits on closing argument but this decision seems to be entirely i don't understand how it makes no sense and makes no sense it is the anything if it is presented to the court in a court he is not going to admitted into evidence the court still takes prejudicial evidence there's always going to be some speculation involved that's what the jury you know was doing but i i really i can't imagine anything much more prejudicial than this giant gun tattoo i just before she identified him in the lineup and then they asked them all to drop their t shirts and he was the only one at that point who had a goatee the and again as i pointed out before the fact that the earring was found on him at the worst possession of stolen property but easily explain
redress for teamsters in this case looks to
basis of a stamp list illinois law to the effect that challenges to the accuracy of scientific process are presented to the turn next that's what was argued here to the jury why do we have to look to asked before then why it's just a question of weight it's not speculation it's how much weight the jury wants to give to have that it's all first to answer the general question meant to go into two specific examples the general by that doesn't mean that ninety nine and a half percent of the times it's machine exactly what this what that means is that there is again this range and in this case given the tick your reading of th regulations controlling this until this could go before the jury and the jury could hear this as they still have a responsibility to make a rational reasonable determination on the first that is what this court's review is about to determine that the marginal rate would appoint a low five unless you get two perfectly accurate certification checks the margin of error doesn't change there's nothing on the bottom to fill out there's nothing in the matter how well trained police officer the statute because in that case the statute would be based on what does a test reading say that's not what we have to go on in illinois we have a statute based on actual blood alcohol level so what we are asking is not true right the steps you were  whether any rational trier fan could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if you so how do you respond to counsel's argument that there was insufficient evidence here because of the number of options that the jury were taken before and afterwards sufficient to substantiate the accuracy of the test results on the date in question i think the army is now well correct but there was no evidence that those tests were accurate and those tests were required by the state police regulations and i think we have to presume dead in general assembly in the state police here allow for an acceptable level of tolerance and  evidence is and why after two to test insufficient wolf to get example if you flip a coin twice and get heads both times that doesn't mean you can see beyond reasonable doubt that it's go that doesn't mean you still are deal with when you're dealing with this close on borderline case when it's this close to the limit between guilty and not guilty and not guilty possibilities are within the margin of error that if there is insufficient both for the simple every test was with accurate and why is it not proof beyond all doubt this twenty seven percent chance that she's not guilty based on states only in closing and trial closing arguments so
at that point in time the children who are the police in this action decided to file a petition early on in randolph county that was filed in june of two thousand and seven again for her heir basically reversing his opinion and finding that he had no jurisdiction i'm to hear the country blame due to the failure of mr wilson to raise these issues within the and i think it's important to look at these cases the civically the word that it's that found that there was no jurisdiction and therefore far the breach of contract claim however mr wilson it's it's two are that case there was a petition case filed kansas has me to divides kansas land when the defendant was served in the kansas case he there after filed judge was handling these cases in tandem side by side and was aware and wrote about how the issues that were assigned one directly affect the issues and the other things so i would ask the courts t
required on the basis of what i think is an assumption based on another assumption and the that it does not be required standard the why isn't that a reasonable found out responses from two only three of them in two responses they got they said oh by the way once it although you this is listed refinancing cracking it's actually all steam cracking zero came from  this this is it's getting close to four decades now since we the records have been accurate and they have to somehow bring this whole things will close and  you're making elaborate that tells you nothing about what is true of it or as a unit absolutely nothing it just doesn't and in fact the only two they have any information about are inconsistent with the assumption it was was reasonable but they're the people who know these estimates better than anyone how can you expect us to just on kind of your word decide that their estimates are reasonable they're the people in charge they do ok would you still be here if you didn't have those two for the moment that that those there wasn't anything the record along the lines you point to those two wires were combined would you still would instance quite different from what the national average joe because the the we don't know anything about the the  we definitely don't know what the for th that that they may have had a different character and the regular harness the facilities what it is as in the record or is this just your saudis which are in question and then they ran their percentage against those those so and the agencies under the under the apple standards the agency would try to to get more definite information they did not get more information best information they could get for the the appropriate number or just briefly of both places the this question been asked about what should they have done is actually something they didn't do when efter mr kept records says the first thing they suggested is when evidence and they said kinds of things we're talking about are ethically past cases affidavits from individuals here with the operations involved have been found because to such persuasive information so they had a roadmap they were told exactly what available theoretically but it any of that the burden was on the applicant it was set forth ninety two perceiving that it was on the up and in this specific case koichi said you have to show something which you can g people who know something about it they didn't do it and absent that what you have is a failure to carry the appropriate burden of proof and a failure of substantial evidence because i think correctly pointed  you medical corporation
why and across the country businesses conduct their business against this backdrop of widely accepted rules and norms and the
such a letter to ask the three who is the current property owner advising in the flat still needed to be recorded and told it was recorded the property will remain illegal under naperville subdivision ordinance has it ever been recorded and not to my knowledge  ordinance the purpose of this plan was to address that upcoming taking of way and by i doubt and it was for that reason that the circuit court determined that while i may have elicited some facts to support its position there were certainly facts that spoke to the financial terms in they take on a little additional importance when you put the legal aspect on it dedicated means something off the road purposes might be a little out there but i mean if this was not contemplated and the dedication when this plant was at least formally it why would lawyers use those words why would surveyors use those words why would clients to obviously have this property and developments pursuant to what we could see a need for and according to council there has been a request to do your part get this signed get it on
word help you i think warning does not bother me at all it's a it's a very customary commercial approach of scenario completely different than the one we have now parties along we do not have that same situation here they could not release the money until two thousand and five so i don't think over forty pre judgment interest bac submit that equities not a stand to simply eliminate portions of the parties obligation to prove their case and that is what was the interest on the count that's their job
consider anything to the point where they attempted theft and such like the fact that they walk in and they start they go immediately and start putting
same time it was created when the village and the park district get together and decided to turn the park avenue detention basin into the park trash park and we know this from the a one of the common law records and it talks about off on the map part evidence based and if you look at that map you don't see a distinction between lot seven through fourteen and why fifty because what if there plaintiff is the asking you to do moved the concrete stop blocking blocked the walkway was not new traditionally used for recreational purposes or what our supreme court say no that's too limited section three one of six was designing and  hundred eighty six so that municipalities move be encouraged to create what clearly the mills and the park district created here the park avenue park as one of the things they did  car is reflected on section five of exhibit one and is known as the park base that's the map that i talked about earlier in addition to the recreational portion of the park itself there's a municipal wheel on the water tower located in the western most portion of the former detention base all of which were located on the south side of park avenue and machine flew the sidewalk issue in this and that now the reason the paragraph twelve talks about my fifteen not being in the intergovernmental agreement was because mr  the sidewalk was located inside the car the court specifically said we're not going to consider your request for taking judicial notice you think none the less betson says because you could extend that to a illogical conclusion you could start applying for you know six to a sidewalk across the village true if that case comes up i don't think you'll see somebody raising from the six but that's not the supposed to combine their resources and work together jointly that's what they did here they took a detention area and they turned it into a recreational area where is the benefit of doing it for the public you take something that would otherwise be an eyesore
so i was born in london many years ago and this is one of the more his songs about
broadcasting classes presented with professional footage that incorporated these different suspense techniques sydney and i also worked collaboratively with william brow to make a project of our our project houseguest takes place in chloe's house while she's doing homework here's our finished project we are now being joined by two of the creators of this end up killing a ferret and frankie caselli we have a few questions about their project and the process of creating so first question why did you choose a doll for this project which is a doll for a project because many horror our most creative was a security shot we added some static in it first sound to make it more suspenseful and you can see the whole room and what everything that was happening with a girl walking around in an interesting and so how did you incorporate a long shot and your project we incorporated along saw but placing the camera on the ground so you could see the whole entire room and like everything in the background and nothing was in the shot at first and then they go like her foot came down into the camera all right well thank you for joining us ladies now let's take a look at their project ok guys listen up i have something very very important to share with you she is a very dear to my heart ok she's going to be our last and you will respect her ok her name is l that's not funny who did it it wasn't me none of us knew  those a great project and i really love that super cute dog the next project is entitled don't look behind you by jordan pike jordan collins and cass montauk this project is about the student being fallen through the school let's see how they did like both number two and like you don't have like a lot of practice in this stuff like how is it easy and like how is it hard while the hardest part was definitely the lighting we had to kind of be creative with that so we were using flashlights are our  phone cameras and we were kneeling down to get a good shots and just the lighting perfect you know that was definitely the hardest part yeah the easiest part i mean it was kind of fun and easy the whole thing incorporate all of those creative came when techniques all while we were filming every kind of tension on different things that they thought could be shot really cool like we have this one scene where the killer is behind a bush and she thought be cool from his perspective and  we have others where it's from overhead and it's really just working with what we've got and trying to make it look is this we could all thank you so much for joining us we're very  period of time let's take a look at the long shot now the ladies also create a scene that incorporate a creative camera angles here's their finished scene out amazing project is someone's watching you this was created by chloe pop she worked at a school to create a project that takes place at a local baseball field
questions that answered my question and then he was asked you understand you know but that is class x yes do you understand it is not probation oh yes at that point what more could the court do to make overlooked and have now we can go to that direction and i will say that alternatively our argument is that it doesn't matter in this case and the reason it doesn't matter is because you're looking at that the trial for it is in other words a harmless  trial court was looking to wait a minute you're talking about this which is no what your client you know what your attorney talked to you about we're talking about prejudice best you know whether it was deficient perform a performance we don't need to go there obviously the defendant has to prove both but the court can make the vision based sound you know was there prejudice at the time and matter of record tested it the record doesn't lie we're not talking about something that's up to you know some type of way her credibility or was told something different find
it's been presented if there's any response you can respond to that but you just the decision to out of the judge who is experienced with criminal law at the scene sexual sexually violent persons or make the decision as to whether or not somebody is sexually violent rather than placing
investigations against the plaintiff and the crux of this argument is that johnson himself as well as the court says even a pending doesn't the following week and standard of adverse action and it talks about testimony which i read as an implication to the jury finds that testimony credible it necessarily follows that there was an adverse action which is  the charging conference and the fifty arguments were all mixed up together and i have no fear comments that i can make about the jury charge per se well i would encourage you to read it only thirteen pages long and it does not give the jury anything to go on as to what happens actionis on the timing issue it's extremely broad there's nothing referring to causation like  exact but then when it came time to look at it all there all these legal limitations on what was to be decided that the jury was never told and i know you have this wasn't really  the the second stage of this i came in here expecting to be arguing on the court's judgment as a matter of law rulings but from what you're saying it's all about th on various liability points and also at the very least on damages the standard for granting a conditional new trial when judgment as a matter of law has been vacated in whole or in part on i don't know that the court would assume that that would be part of a new trial but you're right i did we want to have to do that again but if we have to do that again i would do that again to this th refused to allow what was pled and litigated for several years as a risk claim to have a first amendment component ok and that argument which is addressed in our brief is wait for it over the transom at the end i don't think the district court was particularly worried about the timing although i believe that was an important consideration the district court said it would be futile because the never was even discussed here but adds to the futility argument is the pickering balance and the reason why this was not going to stand up as a first amendment cloning in addition to the race claim is that it was trial rulings were based on i think as i read it the the overwhelming i guess imbalance in what was brought out of court and what the jury did and extraordinary well but certainly didn't hold the jury back and the jury came out with a boards that were completely off the charts and frankly i think could not possibly be justified for the
rudolph valentino the greatest of screen lovers opposite the queen of movie sirens need an aldi in the one hundred twenty two hit blood and sand island lea the small town arena in spain where young spaniards meet for their national sport the neighbors rushed to tell one's mother he's home and they paid for her a glowing picture of his latest  carmine has given one zero to one of their own but he has given him all her life and he hopes the encouragement necessary to study him is dangerous profession as he has become in the race one is it hard still the socially awkward small town drawn by the blandishments of a world he has never know his clout it was a gift from comm no chance of completing repairs before wrong his two lives confront him desire and what matter now that the end has gone to one man in dishonor and to the other in a cloak of glory like one go yaddo rudolph valentino himself was to meet death at the height of his fame just four years after blood and sand
appeal is whether or not it was real issue genuine fact exists based on the documents that were here and submitted by the parties the genesis of this forfeiture action to purchase a special vial it wasn't just anything off the market or isis of market anything that was being sold openly this was a vial that was in a box what is your word was that what is it that creates a material bad that it was anything other than what was actually in there is nothing that you can point to that actually says that it was something else you know other than what it was so if you cut him to it how are you