MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
is fibrosis and emphysema and another word for fibrosis when you look at the reports of the four readers on response side of the fence you could be looking at the x rays of four different people but at least two of those six or seven would that withhold the challenge and i'm saying i don't know if mine because there is evidence in the record so and that's the test right  they come in because of what they are in the body they come in because they all contribute to the same apparent hate comment because under the law and under this record there's no way to apportion their relative contributions in other words the c federalized on as has been noted already dr tutor dr white and dr shipley my one point i would like to make is that evidence from those doctors is certainly off competent evidence they are all board certified doctors the to be readers are board certified radiologist back into it or is board certified and turtle medicine and pulmonary disease he was the director of the pulmonary function lab awash in university school of medicine for eighteen years at the time of the deposition i would also point out that the arbitrator does indicate in her decision that dr tutor's evaluation of this guy was more thorough than that of dr paul there was a question raised as to what that meant while there was an exercise study done in the course of doctor's evaluation which was not and in the course of that was evaluation and as part of the exercise there was an arterial blood gas study done both that rest and with exercise again those studies were not done by d had by definition chronic bronchitis indicated that was due to his long term cigarette smoking with a book which both he and dr paul indicated was very significant in laying a mild sudra but important two things i guess number one the number one cause of chronic bronchitis the united states is cigarette smoking but number two this guy's party ologist dr the book indicated that he had i don't i one thing i want to say before i conclude i completely disagree with the argument raised with regard to the statute of limitations and how the the barriers broken i don't think that's true at all and regard anything else in that regard although if necessary i'll rely on my grief but as to the argument with regard occupation one disease i think there's plenty of evidence in the record to support what the arbitrator says what the commission ruled and it's not against the manifest weight of the evidence i would ask that you  none of the cornell and accept that part where you know that they're all wrong on the other stuff they read because they're all different my feeling is that once a man of wrong on a next
and he entered with the specific approval of the ins to attend shaw university he has admitted that he never attended char university he failed to show up recognized that the only in my view would have used the system of voluntary karcher if they were permitted to continually rely on filing you knew our application is a voluntary departure in order to perpetuate
interpret that that would have been included are you saying that the act of penetration must under these circumstances require the use of force we're doing here on here to help me with that if you g notice regardless of whether it was the act of inserting the penis or the after pushing around the bed and her saying no right but then i'm wondering how we gather that the simplistic knew how to use the word force because let me look at the criminal sexual abuse statute there's clearly the where the use of force we also will when they want to use the worst in penetration as opposed to simply sexual
spared the fact that three different parents of this court have disagreed with you
seemed to me that there is a serious argument about whether civil commitment or dangerousness to people who've already been convicted and done their time is a reasonable thing to do in order to do civil commitments constitutionally there has to be very good information to justify a prediction of future dangerousness future harm that's what all  another i don't see how you could do that fairly if the prosecutor and everybody else involved did not have access to all the medical records i the d a s office in a small town like mine more gets around nevertheless don't these people have some obligation to keep it secret for they all perform their obligation to certainly have an obligation we don't know whether they are putting in place i could say social worker expert witness who testifies that sex offenders are really dangerous and have a very high recidivism rate well it's think you've got somebody who has in fact committed a sex offense and that's about all the judge has you know the judge says well i can't very well exposed to the public not knowing anymore nap when to look at the psychiatric records you might find out that it was some temporary situational problem where there's been some medication change island i'm reading three seventy nine x thirty five fifty one to five fifty five five medical records even if it's private medical records if the interest in secrecy is not like an interest in freedom of speech  permission used to determine if someone who has already been committed are i can i can see where a person might have a real in person privacy suppose a person had started being upset when they were teenagers about t and then provide that to the district attorney's office and provide that as part of evidence to determine if this person should be released from prison after having these conditions to be released in the community or should be said to a mental constitutional interest in the secrecy of at least private medical records no i'm not saying there's no interest at all yet i believe as the courts historically have determined that there are privacy rights that such information but in balancing against the state weak for example we all know watts from watts about sarah palin's daughter sex life nevertheless i can't tell whether in whalen that was a condition of their saying it was ok or whether it was just bolstering and not clear on whose burden it is to show all that attempt to protect secrecy i'm not sure either your honor i think the fact that  possibility of a security situation should not be the cause for rendering the statute invalid and i think that's the situation that dependents are trying to raise here that the mere fact that mr seaton may not be
hey everybody we're back online community media day free speech open mike and we have a special guest today he's always special yes john doucette thank you so much so john thanks for showing up here today to sort of celebrate community media free speech what is free speech mean to you in your life i was an important free speech i think is pretty much everything these days and i think if course it's a little bit under attack but i think that everybody has a different way to express themselves and you know for me it's important to do some of it through song i actually wrote a song a few years ago it was back during the time of the l a riots and which got me very upset and so i wrote the student but it but importantly i think that all voices should be heard because that's what a democracy is well we're glad you're here we're celebrating local voices local free speech and hyper local news here and we're here to really preserve community media not only in belmont but across the country so without any further ado mr john doucette take it away thank you jeff all right let's see if we can do here it's called baby now that i found you and when i was growing up it was all over the radio and this is my little version of  could not be any band do it right and take time and spend my life lookin for some build my world around you i need you so baby even though you don't need me you don't need me spend my life lookin for some do i can't let you go build my world around you i need you so baby even though you don't need me you don't for my mom my mom passed away before she passed away she spent a couple of years battling dementia and if any of you out there have ever been witness to that or wrestle with that it's a very serious thing and it's very difficult thing and the thing about my mom was that when we were growing up we we sang a lot with my mom she loved to sing and when she was in the later stages of dementia she couldn't speak really anymore but we went over there christmas time and we started singing some christmas carols me and my son and i my wife my god child and my mom sang along with the st time we'd heard her sing in months or heard her talk and months in fact never heard or spoke in three or four months this is from  the one that you really wish i had a dollar for every night of restless sleep  million things to try and off hours in different ways to be with you  and the things i didn't know i  thank you have an audience thank you so much thanks everybody thanks for doing this for belmont and everybody
question is the question is the question here and read it least it comes down to sort of this severe what was the question asking whether she said no in the cross examination to being like bell that was my response and that was lake bell does not negate the fact that the record is what the record is i did not  look at the question carefully in my analysis and that is completely on me but that does not change what the question was what do you think the question that we're all talking about here is requesting it is not like the pieces we have that are found one way or the other are insufficient evidence or sufficient evidence because it was not a direct question did he it wasn't the explicit negotiation did he touch you inside no it also wasn't an implicit did he or touch you inside he rubbed here we have here we question we have to look at both around and we have to look at puff because your child and she said more than ten times so don't we look at all we look at we do have to look an awful can't we do have to look at all because the question about the specific to do anything else was about four questions closing argument the prosecutor talks about the intrusion as supposed to touch it and talks about contact however slight we've got it folks i mean that's it's not exactly what she said and that's not exactly what he described for the record when he asked the court to take note of you know the fingers and the crack and there was because there it is not as cut and dry as the defendant argues that this is not appropriate for the immediate  challenge the lesser included offense that that's essentially the posture that we're asked is appellate counsel failed to raise it and it kind of domino effects so what could th
prejudice here this is not so much about prejudice as it was about consequences there was a failure to pay on the road there's a defects the notice was given and the result was the foot soldier was initiated was a friendly response to it there's a criticism that the reply we've had all the information that should have been given the fine and again couldn't believe to recall certified could have been requested it was not we don't have the transcript we don't know what was said at the at the hearing but we
really everything's within the human round every decision we make is within the human realm even the decision that you have to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable because we don't see i mean i don't see how just saying a word you suddenly get you to lose the state from illinois supreme court website and i'm looking at struction one point you know one of the government criminal instructions and incense as i thought it is you should consider all the evidence and the like of your own observations and experiences in line now don't you think by and that exists in the civil as well but when the court says you use your own experience in line are we telling people to be human state has argued that there was nowhere in this case or even the right as it certainly hasn't met the standard complaint here and i think the court has has recognized
challenge at the trial court level that was preserved the defendant wants a jury trial and that was presented in the opening brief was the fifth amendment sixth amendment challenges that is the district court err in not of the rest of us to look at the united states be frank with what documents were lying on the statute at issue in this case which is why you burglary statute in the second degree and that's why revise that you seven zero eight eight ten as i get into  conviction otherwise the law they broke into a storage locker inside a building so for helpful to bring it up and say that this is dealing with a burglary second has to do with going into a storage container not necessarily the case it's entering the building what the a lot more inten acquittal and i think the key distinction for why we're looking at the p s r alone in this case and why it may be different from the way the court came down in franklin franklin by the statute was looking at the california burglary statute they needed to use are marked it doesn't say what documents they are and so are we going to know what documents because they were not attached and were never addressed in the sentencing hearing as to what documents the court relying upon you know order to find that mr perry qualified under the arm brought out and as always argued with a love that he did not qualify under the armed criminal act and the government has that burden to prove that he did with the evidence that is required and that was not done and the government shouldn't get it if the court
rehabilitation was to remain in the community and to continue receiving mental health treatment with his treatment provider who had agreed to continue to think men had made suggestions for improve time prior incidents in prison and if these have nothing to do deterrence certainly another eight year prison sentence on the state's dime is is not going to promote those interests and again the court was required to consider can say you can take this into account right now the supreme court has said this is the way it's written and i think we have to consider that the kind of joking around here a little bit i don't want to deal with this me and who is fifty years old and has now grown the criminal behaviors that he has exhibited he said he won't do it again but here we have a judge prison where compliance can be in for just and i think it's very important to know the full service and inventory assessment tool ranked defendant and maximum
school when this happened was he living with his mother when most of this happened yes your honor i guess we will just go ahead and say he doesn't matter good relationship with his father there are no longer together the parents are nine and the father end has some other issues besides his educational disability and there's some other issues that are being addressed at the detention center including the fact that he's been in fights and within sixty days of being in
it's really it's not a verifying amendment if you first off you look at all the the reasons for the amendments in the commission when they formulate an amendment they give the court a head's up why they passed the amendment in this particular amendment didn't call it a clarification i think it's important for the court not language in english makes that distinction that the property has to be something other than the firearms i think i suspect you know all the cases really draw your arteries gun is used in connection with another already you know it may be that it would be helpful in addition to your oral argument if the panel gave each of you a chance to read a supplemental letter read about that actually sort think about that and when you're done distinct felony offense under oregon law was committed by the defendant he admitted to both those crimes and their elements and on the basis of that offense suffered in distinct conduct occurring after the burglaries driving the twenty to twenty five miles and he's in the process of selling property other than firearms in one circumstance and certainly protecting the property the camcorder the wallet all of the other  i think you should in there are a couple of reasons why you should one because the defendant can't benefit from the application of the shield and not accept the full consequence of what it says and furthermore this exclusion argument that counsel now raised on a offense the holster that was shown in the gym order and the other miscellaneous items it has to be over a dollar threshold amount under oregon law or federal law and there's no record in the court i don't recall when i look at the
injunction case here you've got a case to enjoin the prosecution the jury has done what it is done if the jury here either convicted or acquitted the case w this case is still an active case within the california system i deliberately shouldn't wait let that play out and then we'll see because i assume you can raise the same constitutional issues in not a few ok which would require setting aside the conviction maybe hades at some point but if the theory is that it doesn't matter whether he's guilty or not that you still have a cause of action and that's one of the theories whether whether he's guilty whether he's convicted or not are still a violation and prosecuting him for retaliation then it's not as clear how the i'm still troubled by whether there is any basis for this case going forward now that the jury has reached its determination so far as the i'm talking about not a narrow claim that you make in this case you have asked for an injunction against the prosecution if the prosecution has come in doesn't that and even in light of those state court rulings the government continue to act you don't have here this is a single prosecution of one individual there was no there isn't there a serious you say no freedom of speech or freedom of association clearly not in the sense of the broad view but if we accepted the allegations that this was targeted at believe that the who were members of the communist party and believed in the principles that communism espoused the problem with that was that the prosecution especially in those times the prosecution you're asserting that as if it were fact so those are certainly allegations but i don't know what that we have to assume with us controlling here well they actually are two points to that answer the first is that mr watkins was charged and subsequently convicted of perjury were not sane and i don't believe there was an allegation here that was the thing that the district attorney was attempting to prevent him from speaking would what we're saying is that as a result of that speech that providing a lie to the court he now has to be held responsible for the consequences of it and that goes also that's really not prosecution because they wanted to retaliate against him for exposing corruption in the district attorney's office for filing lawsuits against the judges or for whatever kind of trouble he was making for the retaliate and therefore it was not everything that i think two different theories what i think that matter as long as you're guilty the other is if the motive for the prosecution is not that they care that he committed perjury but injunction relief in this case that in trying to relieve point i assume you agree that this case is not moved with respect to the hung jury counts and thank you for the
good morning your honour's roughly representing the point of balance here if i might reserve three minutes for the issue obviously before the court is whether or not a business like starbucks who has an as built compliant counter which is long enough and high enough meets regulations otherwise can lawfully place a whole bunch of items merchandise display items of on it sales thereby reducing the usable and clear space or if that's a transaction counters for people with disabilities it does not she may disagree with that but the justice department clearly in its judgment when issued these rules decided that retailers or any businesses don't have to provide  you know the only issue is whether there's a duty to maintain and basically everyone skipped over the fundamental proposition which is you don't have a duty to maintain something that you had to have had to be accessible in the st place so everyone jumped to like the  doesn't exactly come up with a really compelling standard for when either i think the judge basically says something about how the standard is you have to keep the counter mostly clear i mean i don't know where that i would also not israel you're actually at over time now why don't you go ahead and thank you well let me just think that that there is this this counter clearly falls in the plane and that's not what they say they say that when there's four approach in a wheelchair users knees and go underneath the counter so you come straight in you're only thirty inches parallel approaches thirty six dollars inches alterations because those are difficult to be a lesser burden businesses are making alterations case very interested in this matter is submitted
with this case or i don't but i think i think clearly you couldn't say it we're never going to go after all it's a policy that's that's sort of the word that they have well that could affect the federal due process rights but that's not the case in this case now but it's you've done very well and you understand that you can't change the nature of this crime you can't change what happened before you committed this crime and that gets to the liberty interest concept and therefore you've got to understand that why he thinks that he's a danger to society and i think that that is one of the crux of this case this case is a really a textbook case for the liberty interest because this man has done twice over twice the amount of time that he would have done for  in the rip was granted the start of the publication of it a couple days ago the chief justice of california indicated that it would remain published so that case stands for the proposition that some evidence unquote concept must direct itself toward the predictability of danger to the community and not focus on what he did before committing the crime and the nature of the crime because if you devote to that focus on it he would never never get out and judge had or points out that he would not get out unless you have a different governor he would change his mind on it or something that nature of the facts of the case will never change the the facts of what he did before hand will never change law and is really never without discussing out in great detail this this court is you know it's the supreme court has narrowed down the focus that was the case in which they had victims of the crime when buttons during trial and it was basically it the supreme court said that the issues are so whether something is prejudicial doesn't really get into the issue of whether private parties wearing buttons is prejudicial so that's not clearly established law and he california scheme the governor has the last word on this and the governor has found that he would pose a public safety yes i think you i think i can respond to your statement of the board of spoken on public safety but it didn't speak in your favor public safety in this case  you when the standard has some evidence which implies evidence and it seems to be interpreted as being some there are there are some reasons  there's some difference and some tension that evidence seems to imply had an administrative process by which some tractors are introduced into evidence or for at least some testimony taken is with me for the parole board  a similar process doesn't occur in the governor's office certainly by necessity and by the nature of a but it it's awfully hard to look at the some evidence standard as applied to what really is a is a  but your options are the courts i reasonably fast will be final fairly soon so one way or the other i don't and i can't predict the outcome of that but i think we will we could hold out for the
written affidavit compiled by a professor of mathematics so much looting and destruction occurred inside mathematics between seven am and two pm during these hours the only people permitted inside the building were policemen members of the