MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
that actually existed that would be missing in seven hours appearing time week because the child would start school first contention is that a child starting school certainly is not interest of the child but the mouth piece is necessary to serve the best interests of the child and it is our contention that the evidence actually supported the opposite conclusion that this modification is no circumstances not be anticipated by the original that directly affected the needs of the child i don't see down there i think that the evidence was that this was something that was anticipated and also this was it was changing circumstances with the seven hours a week there was no showing how that affected the child the only person who had it and in fact on this mr simmons went believe that is against the manifest deposition yeah it's not like it's something that she and i talked about for him but i think she was afraid that she would get her friend in some kind of battle if she said that he was he's concerned about the safety of the child she's concerned about that and then she says he's not think at this time the periods consist of time spent in the day here then a weekend here in the day here and so she you know a little bit of time during the week during the school year but just basically have every other weekend and she said i think it would be disruptive over night during the week the school year they have to go to school from a different school so i'm going to leave a little bit of time in the afternoon and evening but i'm going to give him the following time in the summer the week that he's off all week she still paying a large amount of support he just wants to be about football and enjoy time with his child she everything she does is to do that and i think and he testifies i'm not going to answer the phone while driving so he gets there and he says you know i'm driving and getting earplugs the next thing you know he gets a call from the police and they say she's trying to win for not everything she does is control i want to be in charge i want to get the money i want nobody else to have time and you have time and by the way my time every other week and all year round this is a changed three times within about three week period between her deposition because deposition and the trial it kept changing to be there i think she thought was best for the woman has  you have to look at all the circumstances here my trying to just start a day before that she had worked off and on at first as a bartender and she did not leave her
because of the tax liability issue and that property transferred to his children three children one of them was  waiting to the far and subsequent to that time period is because this case and lasted so long a number of suspects had asked away one of them was mark butler passed away around for sanctions with three days of that and then the case was raised subsequent to that twenty eight years has elapsed i've worked with six different defense attorneys i think i've appeared before six different judges i've had two clients pass away during this time so i come before you today with a sense of relief knowing that hundred ninety one ninety two ninety three as long as mark was on the farm there and the and those runs were about fifteen thousand dollars for the court to not get the interest on that money and the reason the court to get this interest as it was because even though the  this something a proposition for all these years the defendants have had the use of that money until two thousand and eight and to the benefit of the detriment of my clients and finally you never showed any damages there was no testimony to show that they were damaged they already had the the documents that they were asking for  see whether the property was being i so what they were looking for was was improper in regards to dragging out the case if you look at the court file from two thousand and twelve were i think you would this is right before the iraq story answers if you will get the billing statement then actually sent to mark butler was paid for his services at the con it's clear that this that the authorization wasn't needed we want you to pay us rent from one seven share of the fair market rent value of the west so there each is residing in them and they don't want to they don't want to be they don't want to be charged that r the so that's why it's well it's not so much that it matters who's calling the shots it matters is to whether or not that agency existed and we had to prove that agency exists in one of the ways that we prove that he but this shouldn't have taken this long and the reason it's taken this long is because if they purposely did didn't disclose this because he didn't want they wanted to basically they ran the numbers they said what's the chance of this coming up but it doesn't have a direct effect on what the fair market value the problem here is or the rate however it does have and it is relevant as to who is going to be responsible to whom for the fair market value of the of the proper they would be bound by that by their contract based on the fact that they had signed those documents in near our  well if you know i think everything that was said with respect to the agency again doesn't apply to one thousand nine hundred or subsequent i do take personal affront and i'm not sure where this fits in but basically
regarding benefits it's up to the commission cited was also a case of this court called hollywood trucking in which this court said the same thing that the workers compensation commission has exclusive jurisdiction over issues regarding other case well that here the employer is going to this goes back and commission the employer is going to come in and say we're intent on the credit for what you got from on the third party ok so this is the second issue  and that's what i believe should happen here i don't think that's it they have to take the poor specialized expertise of the commission or their factual disputes about what happened in this will there are facts as to whether
use any other writing or statement in fairness or to be considered at the same time i think probably one of the genesis of the of this rule was in today's society with modern technology you have emails going back jury and understanding the clarksdale any of the you have to look at what the document or the statement or the record of interview being introduced if it stands by itself to introduce  in your theory of the case does not seem seem to comport with the purposes of of the detectives were pretty confrontational with him in milwaukee quite a veteran had been sleeping i mean i think it's subject to interpretation as to whether the defendant was confrontational with them if you listen to the takes i mean he didn't admit to he said he didn't know anything about the current but i was asked about the murder but you know i think maybe he might have so i mean i think there's such a there's a clear or criminal intent to destroy in that in the course of months that his intent on getting out of the car was to intimidate the other gaming  the in the subsequent interview mississippi that something must have occurred and it goes to whether the accuracy was the motion spreads but it goes to the accuracy of the truthfulness of the statement isn't that a fair cuz what it is is eighteen i know it in a blanket denial of his involvement in the crime and those statements would not be allowed and and they don't fall under the rule one of the six of completeness when you miscible and some of the point of the defense was going to be very one of six because it's a record statement and it seemed to fit perfectly with the rule i mean for the purposes that he was using it for was to explain the mississippi
she immediately picks him up and starts to c p r so now we have a professional giving c p r she's a paramedic and what happens after she gives him c p r nothing he still blew she didn't get any single injury in this case and it only takes five minutes of whack of oxygen because permanent brain barrier that's what happens now is choking explains everything and what about  should has been discredited in recent years no i would not say that's true about i you know i certainly i didn't read the racially on this topic since then try to determine how many people feel one way or the other obviously if they're issue brought up on appeal or something i would have been looking more at that i didn't look at that but there certainly is a split amongst the medical community and was told to the jurors they knew even dr blix that there was a split  context is that we are looking at another expert who says that this child choked on it then that what we know here today actually is that the child had had for me on earlier that day there  that there are many doctors including yourself who believe that there are these microscopic injuries present that could be determined or could be found if the child died and not topsy but they are a microscopic and so she was not contradictory she was not inconsistent and she didn't have the experience she had more experience more recent experience with more children than did the other expert and they're certainly counts for something as well as the brain it would cause a problem in the main and the outside in other words the i guess the extra pressure or whatever would come within the brain or within the brain itself it would not us this large spread diffuse bleeding and  he had some type of his basic collapse before there came a problem for the final that ever became a problem and then also oh well she said that was the most likely cause but that you know it in other words if somebody looks out the window and doesn't walk outside the wrong it seems reasonable to conclude that it's not raining outside or the person is an idiot
do that as opposed to the grading blow to not exceed five feet high at any location as it comes from the rear and wraps around to the southern side of the site  sandstone wall under construction as we speak it will match the building colors that are being planned and with the revision to the site plan and not grading out the it allowed for the parking configuration in the back to change from five parallel spaces to twelve diagonal fifty seven degree angle space which takes their parking from fifty nine on plan approved by planning commission in may to sixty six with this plan so you know not grading on the slo seven spaces and went to sixty six total space planning staff is recommending that we improve the revised site plan for the funeral home and subject to the four conditions listed in my report one if the other name on the planet has reflects the prior owner of the tablets the former owners of the lazy boy the need to update that put the audio group investment l l c on the plan needs to be commended and in addition to that it gained a seven additional space which which is also a plus the legal title has changed the building permit was issued shortly thereafter construction is progressing and as mr zucker noted the applicant had that's responded to concerns of the adjoining landowners and again at a considerable cost decided to put that retaining wall in which benefited the landowner with less earth disturbance and less grading required and also resulted in seven additional parking spaces so again the total increase was from fifty nine to sixty six with those additional spaces at the array or the four there were only five spaces back there so we feel that this is definitely a benefit and also is just a simple change to an already approved plan not a complicated issue very simple parking configuration change without retaining wall addition of mr blue scope can certainly answer any questions that you might have regarding add to the status of the construction if you've been by there i think you can see that there's a lot of activity going on and a lot of improvement going on to both the building itself and the site itself size of the size they're not in the rear with the changes occurring there nine by eighteen which is a lot for when they use angled space that someone with a circulation pattern back there so there's a fifty foot all in nine by eighteen angle space so if you're pulling in there and you want to get out you have to just back out go straight and come around the building you can see right here is the one way rooms that's what this for funeral homes parking is based on the number of seats in the viewing room so with the fifty nine that they had previously to this they were limited to an i don't know the number whatever that would be fifty nine times three now they could possibly add some seat to the view room but the saints square footage is in terms of the interior will be used and the
actual scenario that you put forth was that he made some sort of open the door made some sort of gesture to the inside of the camp the truck a out and i was wondering oh there was any weapon found it  mean if you take all your factors that you just listed surely bad back and the fact that he went inside his house and said calling the police and saying i've got trouble here picks up his own weapon here she believes the circumstances to be such that if they exist it wouldn't justify or exonerate the killing justify or exonerate the killing of the principals so within second degree murder we given that is the distinction but isn't the focus at whether the defendant had a reasonable basis for move to leave or that there was some sort of imminent danger and what i what my two year old man an aggressor that is fifteen years younger hum does the age difference make a difference
have cases that make it clear that the trial part has discretion and supposed to be interpreted in keeping with substantial justice of the iranians and you know that you that you have some and i'm sorry that took place to say he didn't ask for that he didn't try to avoid prejudice he didn't try to preserve an argument that he was prejudiced by the timing of the expert depositions he's trying essentially blaming employers by saying of the sixty day violation knowingly without trying to pursue his client's interests that was a strategic decision that he made and he should be held to the consequences out th first of all i'm plaintiff's counsel's mischaracterize the court's ruling he's mischaracterized the the the holding it's you don't meet expert testimony just for purposes of showing causation which is really what he's arguing about here is that experts did not share any link between the prior injuries and the he maybe had some soft tissue injury for a couple months afterwards but he quickly reverted back to the exact same condition a fourth any other of two or three months after the injury where he's again taking six and killers a day it raised it but i wanted to address it because again he raises some new arguments in his reply brief that we didn't have the opportunity to address which is the collateral source rule was not raised his argument that we somehow violated the us clara source role has what he did that argument on a motion for for a new trial this state only bernstein says he was hired by the workers compensation carrier if you actually look at the record my point is this they had their testimony that she presented is merely a copy of what was already in effect evidence from other witnesses and other exhibits so should it be anything with regard to
hospital long term care which he obviously was placed into when he was going into the bar's jewish extended care program he executed a durable power of attorney t relationship your client was aware of or is relationship with is that right he was at what point did he begin becoming concerned about the know that his dad had bills that needed to be paid and that someone was paying them so and for at least some period of time his dad i mean the strokes got worse obviously but at some point in time the stat signed his name and write a check and your client never ever looked into that and don't testimony to offer on that he had no reason to be concerned until you saw what happened after that  request for change of beneficiary form for the america like insurance company life insurance he actually would have had to have signed that right i believe that's the case for her she of love and there was there was those you know that for the way he was living in atlanta at the time and new shoes caring for him he knew the danger of their relationship and never objected to it in fact as i stated the only person we hand as the caregiver and when i hear you saying is the caregiver you can't overcome that presumption so what else is there you can tell me that would allow under what circumstances would you allow one person to overcome that presumption because it seems to me that if one person that is the caregiver can't give the testimony sufficient to overcome the presumption who would
substrates and that's a huge distinction because the applicants never said that the applicants exact language actually was it is useful and he should he answer is useful to promote the parents of the release coating layer on the magnetic substrate that's not  it mission that it was known to use saddam or for that purpose by others it's a recognition of the applicants invention that the applicant determined it to be useful on that and that really when that leg on the table that is the firearm rejection is pulled out from a play for example is to choose a two part test either has to be in the same field of endeavor well that's right that's clearly not an issue here we're dealing with who want a magnet for an arts and crafts purpose zoos directed to an look at really what you believe we're talking about is a harmless error analysis the question is when the outcome has been different and the only thing that the record shows us is yes because the examiner withdrew that rejection or it would be unfair to enter a rejection essentially with a decision would be that is inconsistent with the office area without guile so the one other problem actually if i may i see it is it was a two part test and i don't believe i actually said the second part was for it to be considered analogous prior ar so if one were considering the problem that mr a very was facing certainly an optical waveguide is not the place that one we consider anyone to have actually considered or dealt with a problem or even a problem that's remotely like that so  backwards those were the exact words ross it was merely evidence that confirms the teachings that were found in and saw him or itself so we it's our position that that was only where it was merely gathering together no elements and having the perform in the same way that they've been known to perform under to star that makes this combination obvious and that's part problem that the that the board and the examiner pointed out shortly on the zoom issue is is what is being considered in the rejection i think i've already stated our position that we believe it it must that's the rejection that's being considered and the language of the board was very clear that it was part of the rejection made you say to correctly
of the car and it is that his view was limited and you know in every case every with this is view is limited to some extent sure and everybody sees something different you could have ten people see a murder and you'll get ten different
wilson's until he built the requirements of the state but that's what somebody from illinois tony there's nothing the record i could find that that's the federal government is truly not giving him the benefit of what he available to this defendant to get his time start i believe there are but i believe they're outside of the state or grounds i mean there are remedies outside the post conviction proceeding for this defendant to get the benefit of this bargain nobody in illinois  tomorrow is not receiving any time whether or not there was a just of a constitutional claim as something that can go back during second stage of injury hearing to her to determine actually what was that and whether or not that would be considered a direct or collateral cons accountable for the information and for the deal that he made at the trial court level to say also argues that it wasn't the court's responsibility and it didn't have the authority to give this federal credit will
must be resolved in favor of natural rights and against restriction simply because now all they are unhappy with the result in this particular case on the monday morning football term that the sunday game dr be read was this court reversed the final judgment order br contractor the all in section five point one dr big enough that both the district that's the hospital has made will continue to make a substantial investment in developing the trust and confidence of its patients and reasonable and necessary to protect the legitimate professional and business interests of the district and that any violation of such prescription and reflection is plural would result in irreparable injury to the district in this  relating to a different kind of trade provision in fact in the case they cited it just said competition so it was unclear what competition meant in this case we have a definition of competition and it's what's plainly set out section five point three or the location of such practice site eccentric in the case of chicago lan thank you thank you
come back to the same determination and that what she said was that she will listen and to see if people who are still using the if she ever say is there any place on the record where she said she listen and they still continue to  rights and that's really the strongest argument because it was an unfair notice that what they were doing and prison was unconstitutional ok
next one when you're ready wait them three hundred thousand because i'm going to subtract the hundred fifty thousand that you incurred with respect to your inventor ship claims that would be a perfectly reasonable way for him to proceed in terms of the calculation weapon i'm not sure that that's what the law says i think the law says you have to decide who the party but then once he decides i'm assuming he decided to play with the prevailing party why does he decides who's the prevailing party it's a very deferential standard we apply in terms of how he shakes out not question of c analysis of what those calls were and that's that's that's the argument essentially believe that we are that we're dealing already and if we're not the  his ruling on prevailing purdie when you have an appeal that portion of it you're not up here saying there's a cross appeal of whatever we should be the only prevailing party so i'm not clear on how we get from here to there in terms of just saying well to both plaintive and offends more fairly compensated speech or his respective partial success and maybe there is a semantic problem saying that two parties can be thought for via a party but there's certainly nothing wrong with saying that both parties prevail to some extent on different parts of the case and that's what happened here we didn't appeal even the first determination or the district judges determination because they didn't either of them said specifically that chinese eat prevailing party is simply recognize correctly is less than half the entire claim because the original claim about a situation where the district court of words a declaration that regulations on constitutional but there was no evidence that the plaintiff was ever harmed by a functioning of the regulation and in that situation justice thomas for the majority says that is not two fifty six mr shuns counsel himself before the district court said it was not even necessary because and i quote this case is really about money damages and unjust enrichment that very clearly that is the prevailing party in this case is on the defendant's side i would just correct one point that mr hersh made he suggested that section two fifty six claim was the basis for removal to federal work therefore it was something central it was not the section two fifty six friends only added in the second amended complaint in december two thousand