MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
you're saying you're saying that that period did that you did not have to wait for that period during which the court could have modified the arbitration or you could act as a preemptively and therefore entitle yourself to if he arbitration provision provides for a modification what if a modification occurs during that ninety days and and the award is reduced from whatever amounts to a lesser amount nobody wants to go through the process of trying to recover you know are you saying that every time an insurance company fails to pay an arbitration award promptly without giving a date they're subject to a willful deal with something so black and white it deals with a situation where there insurance company was still trying to reduce the award outside of the confines of the arbitration proceeding itself let the same except what we do know in going back to i think it was just gordon's first question and that is that ninety day period and how that ninety day period plays what role it plays know the facts were just what i'm just questioning whether price can be reconciled with the rule of law you've just given us based on i'm in and i'm suggesting price is outside that rule of law let's say you've been in negotiations with the insurance company to settle the matter first off and you get an agreement you reach a point where there's an agreement there's a set amount of releases there should be you you you you sign them and send them back then just give us that one or two key facts that are present in this case that caused this case to cross the line but just no i only want one or two what do you think this where i thank you very much it was very interesting briefs very interesting moral arguments will take the case under advisement
first shortly after his election even went and hired mr burr as an assistant state's attorney they entered into an agreement for employment it was reduced to a written wants the state attorney representing mr williams on the count that he's name which i don't understand how at home well based i mean obviously you're not you're representing
in favor of the plaintiff it is not clear whether or not the is the same because there's no bit to the company was true in this case and that paid carrier and the liability carrier was the same company however there are two different policies release unless those words mean something and
course recognizes them fair and her face in terms of for me if you do a little digging about the term official action and it's it's natural looking at the sky it's from among other things federal criminal law people in the federal prison based on the
statute versus the regulations and there's no guidance from any kentucky supreme discontent the supreme court or any others kentucky court in your position that your position c kentucky regulations has on this the so is the theory that the decisions of the stewards are not stewards decision during the mate is the most common role in united states racing jurisdictions there are thirty four dollars racing jurisdictions in any day and sixteen of those jurisdictions including who's happy completely a situation where you have a regulated sport where gambling is also sanctioned by the government as part of the sport and there isn't a labrat for siege or by regulation as to how the stewards are to function and also there was a lot more there was a lot more formality going on in this decision this is not a normal part referee call it a great it's important to take a look at a couple of turns and i agree with mr riccio when he said that it's very important to take a look at the definition of final board terrorists thirteen the point ten to find the final order and being the hearing officer also has to give both parties the chance to file a written reading motions objections and offers experiment when the stewards made their decision neither party had a chance to file any of those documents because it was instead they simply tried to appeal the disqualification determination which is not allowed under section four of the very same regulation section four of the regulations state explicitly that disqualification determinations shall be final and objecting to any sort of disqualification determination is entirely and permissible under the regulations i think it is certainly great an objection prior to the race being official but as it related to the disqualification that there orse they simply don't have that
other other questions relating to and he is a buddhist and so that there is one reason why it appears that he was not in a position where he wanted to have this bomb actually  first it doesn't really matter whether the bomb was one that could have gone off or couldn't that's not the issue the only issue here is whether if this worth a bomb or not the  people would go to that core dealings with that state that it represents that particular state so there is a difference and i would say that under the law and there was people and the people who were protesting for freedom of religion were protesting for other rights they didn't see people who actually within two months  where people were killed within about a two month period prior to this for asking for certain freedoms and for expressing some right to maintain property a counter sit ins and things like that there would be violating the law would result in violence perhaps by people acting against them because they were acting nonviolently going to jail putting people in prisons and rehabilitations and really learning hands which is what happens in the end is a violent act the nonviolent act generated violence that should be sufficient to compile comport with the level of proceed against not just as much as that would be necessary the term and watched probable cause is the next rate can make that determination in this case the government  from being returned individuals and successful records in particular from being returned to a country that is obviously antagonistic to them in this case because i another country oh as a factual matter it might be that there was conduct that took place prior to reaching the embassy but even if there was not even if the crime was sea territory i think the united states would have concurrent territorial jurisdiction to prosecute that offense probably under one of the bombing statutes that we have i don't know the citation possibly twenty three thirty two or a weapons of mass destruction statute i do believe that there would be u s territorial jurisdiction to prosecute that offense i might add that may happened here my understanding is that there was one bomb of a thrown into the embassy another one  kozinski that this issue that we're debating now does not definitively answer the question of whether it is incidental to i think in order to answer that question in terms of the second prong i could give you the flip side hypothetical let's say th it it's an interesting hypothetical and i am going to address the hypothetical i would now before i do that as the secretary of state doesn't speak in those terms we would never i think find a situation where the secretary of state gave back kind of judicial sounding analysis that the court put could look at but even if the stock of terri state defies them that it is the government's position that there is no judicial review of the secretary of before hearing the final cases of the morning
could have one could have written something on the form mind would have convinced the fact finder that it was indeed a claim to go but rather the simply an untimely either to repeal the previous claim that's not what does not have to accompany a calling to reopen now mrs akers both for the letters for presenting the factual questions that the government wanted to argue before three point one five six a because the evidence needed to accompany that application and work to prove that is a mis interpretation of the regulation that fact had it least implicitly conceded court said that that v a nine did not have a company with it didn't materialize and therefore she could not gain the benefit of three point one five five eight people she did beat requirements
said that again a quote unquote honest copyright holder won't have to worry about that because an honest copyright holder doesn't do such things as age in a high stakes  the library must we would have to then take that information and and provide something more to the court to amend and proceed further in that circumstance we would realize probably going to be very difficult to figure out who that tho again it doesn't mean there isn't an infringer somewhere it means our infringement is going to just be unremitting for example if it's a starbucks again that amount of infringement over a long period of time from the same number that someone wondering it and having a latte and some will dismiss we're very careful about these ads and it's important to understand there's bad actors in the passive done all kinds of bad things but primarily those bad actors work companies they were just people firing all works of he was just simply noting that until twenty years ago or thirty years ago it was actually still open but i don't think that had
because i presume they're adults yet they're all but they were one of the children and they were three children and they were they were biological children ok the husband this well yeah ok and she raised the children
without objection hearing is a job
and it has soon will have burgess there could be something in the records of those cases for miller fillmore's is actually not in those cases but there could be some reason why this issue is not as that we win under either standard but what would happen if this court went with whitmire saying it intervened will go with whitmire and miss brown loses and then the four supreme court doesn't decide until  that the most permissive images what you have is a link between the false statement that there is exposure for and the belief of this so you have a link up between what those cases  find that mr brown relied on the defendant statement or statements concealing or emitting information even if you find that she was aware that smoking cigarettes could have been dangerous to our health because such awareness is not knowledge of the true health effects of smoking cigarettes the defendants can say i think that that statement is not incorrect under the law the jury was entitled to reach that conclusion so th know it's different but we don't have a statement i thought they were ok to smoke i thought they were healthy i thought they were not we don't have any of that detail the details that existed in whitmire and whitmire said is not enough so it's not him inappropriate generally and the st district said that the standard instruct that being the standard instruction that can him for things from the evidence was all that was necessary to give both sides
several days later defendant was solely responsible for her dad said things like like man i did not kill this woman he's not guilty of murder yet this murder charges hanging over his head often the best explanation the checks keep coming and the beneficiary doesn't endorsed them somebody else indoors and we don't know who signed it yet or where the money went but we can tell you with it it wasn't pursuant to this awar
e there was so much in this case you will see that it really cross examination was basically a very direct examination you know one of the things that i could not understand w
bill number zero seven five zero one six national american versus united states entitled to the benefits of all of the rights pardon me all of the rights of the contractor and the sub contract the land and the government yes i believe that is why  has certainly talked about sovereign immunity and made it clear that pro men and henningsen in other cases don't don't necessarily stand for three sovereign immunity proposition but i don't think that blue fox addressed at all core in any way undercut the statement seen perlman relating to basis for the trade for that contract right of course obligation in that circumstance is financing a performance related to the united states so that the right of the contractor transferred that is exactly the reason we're here the contractor has finished performance the government has it's a big government contract an army has got seven and seventy million dollars a month in this post to go to the contractor right and the contract
was sleeping at the time they had a sexual act commenced there are obviously was considerable evidence about the imbibing sparse she testified twice but testified only to the fact that she awoke to find joshua having sex with her it's clear penetration difficult for the room or she testified that there was repeated penetration and our position is that she could not have been asleep during repeated penetration or she could not have known that there was repeated penetration in addition i believe how many instances of these prior statements were in each of the poor complainants plus and mother testified to there is i mean to my understanding of the law in the shanties to the to the contrary if i'm not aware of it it does not allow this type of evidence so you're saying that the mom's testimony who are justified whining and it's upon the state's reasoning that well we don't want them or they're trying to say she's looking she was moving to avoid punishment when in fact she did not so for all these  about psychological injury injury and all three of those cases emphasize the fact that psychological injury there was no question about consent in those three cases this is completely different situation from those to remove her pants i think that goes to prove again that she was able to know the sex and gives him that analysis that she was able to go to the senate i just want to get back to th trying to take the pants off another  being an issue well certainly in her condition could have been a contest effect about her identity but concept of should have known is something that applies to recklessness or negligence but not to now with reference to the issue of
and actually we have on the neighbors concrete and we have other drainage things so we're going to you know route it out she's street you know those will be so by by having attributed door rather than our door here it differentiates the entrance further from the windows which i think is a nice a nice touch to call hierarchy to come back and tell me how big around those are do  i'm enjoying my college education and they finish all the reports that go with them so they don't do the whole nomination that they can do is take the significance and the rest of it is just descriptive and we don't have a lot of that from when you put it right either right so i think  or field that you're not aware of that might be applicable so i think that it would it would probably take some digging but i think you could probably find funding right to do it and that a national register nomination would not be that difficult really know and i think i really don't
actually there's three errors that i have to focus on my time today the first is the district courts and position every new category the requirement for expert testimony as a predicate for proving and there are two parts to that run its function as to be identically performing and then there has to be a structure that judges claim construction the parties didn't disagree on the function that doesn't mean controllable it was not still our of the function where they did disagree was on the structure and the chord in the time construction identified the corresponding structure they still had to go and they didn't do either one there's nothing that shows that this is so that the means for control only providing was m on their proof frenchmen that extends over to the our own ac signal which the judge also found was not if you go to climb five in addition to there is the combining circ to a specific part of in any event we have two different specifications two different pages for two different effects that supposedly the jury would have put together to come up with the structure so we're all in the same page and what over that later on at some point because the judge would not let them show the basic to the jury so he placed that evidence when they tried to put it on so regardless of where we were pretrial or an admission and was excluded during the trial from being shown to the jury those that did and it was purely and charney opening statements that the statements were made that's the failure of paradoxes prove the trial is that they're experts prevented from parking about it and they put on no products that we've been talking about so that's that's a position that's the argument of we're trying to make and without that evidence you can't they just they have nothing to show that the moral compass in french on councils opening statement
matter and although it's governed by the one there is constitutional issues it up probable cause a problem to stop as a constitutional issue no his ability to think and act in our name and not the state didn't prove that and that and there's nothing to the contrary in this situation not i would like to go to in my second part of my argument i'd like to go to the violations are made now and the national traffic safety act now investigate an answer ok reveals the suspicion right on not that a person was intoxicated beyond a reasonable doubt wrap she said it was not all right so we got this because there is no probable cause to do this and there was a part of our motion to just suspend the summary suspension and here's what she had to say on page thirty three of the record and i'm sure you can work at it later it's r s zero zero ninety eight thirty three forty six what was the first part of the a g m she said following through pursued and you ask him to movies  ok the first time you move your thumb across a long plane the second time it's a little bit of a shorter a shorter sweep there if you will what's the significance of that direct testimony  jury the evidence that was presented to the jury was just what i read the direct examination by by the state's attorney that's what was presented to the  written record or not it's that the jury watched it so this is not just these he said she said it's not just a taste of the two and that argument was proffered to the jury the jury got to see whether it was in the mind and the jury got us here where the defendant was slurring his words and the jury  even enough to take showing there was in the mud on the side of the hill and that i guess it was raining or hanging in there was performed improperly as to the national highway standard but do you are saying with the strong smell of alcohol another interesting thing is the been a very emotional state he was at times very depressed and yet when they put him in the certainly you think there were some objections not every time and certainly in closing argument when the same thing was fouled through with closing argument being made that  officer yes i think that would be and and there were probable cause but mean just went ok this is on page sixty one of the record r r one twenty six so again she sees barnes he's percent accurate they told us the accuracy i don't remember i thought it was higher than that i don't remember going to be seventy seven percent i don't know thirty five percent i don't know how many times you can wave your fingers  be wrong i don't how do you how do you see a minute expert unless you have a treatise on what he is giving to the test on other horizons in addition certainly we don't have the money to hire
something has got to be done about this place burn these renegade dry run annoyed with shepard right out of the valley and it's my idea that jackhammers behind the whole dirty mess with why jackhammer why put two and two together marshall if you don't buy these but i'm just ripping you off you can take it or leave it get marshall and here i can handle him but i don't like what he told me about craig wanting to form a po like we're not very welcome around here i guess mother craigmillar when she said she needed help let's go there make your own bed and three dollars of the weather here this is i reckon for three and a half a day and kissed me good night quiet elmer it is a deal for two dollars and i let elmer here be the chamber in eastern kentucky bourbon but you're not in kentucky and if you're a couple down my head you don't care or your single or i'll go for that kind of serenading flung local and i don't like you now get out i want you to watch your step mom get along in the room there he was mighty interested in your conversation from outside that window eavesdropping and you don't pull to do that don't usually hear anything good about him do you ever say anything good he the horses here and sneak around the back man we're going in
zero working waiting saying you seem to have made something of a success yourself all the way your mother gave me your address in the art club but you aren't there anymore chicago i don't know what it is but if it goes through he's coming back and so hot i'm going to tell him i feel oh picket any down south my why don't you make her talk natural everything she's been going to that school down south she think she introduced mason's addict and it sounds silly i don't think it sounds s but not like on the really go you certainly did and anytime you like to give you the money now but don't you worry i shut him up he won't talk any more i'll break his neck if you do but don't get into trouble only look deeper talk what do we do when nobody's going to talk about my sister and get away with  oh oh tell them not to come here tonight i'll call in after well all right
ever that's all right th the you know maverick no far no mother you know peter don't seem right for a little for like good to be without at least one parent protests but then i guess he's lucky to have an uncle like you to are like people with the same kind of problem yes maybe become a leader good like his da of lived in ass weed it is to make up found out that we wanted to be friendly and we didn't mean any harm to his family he decided to stay that's how i come to make the body work i promised him that i'd let him run loose every day
for this to happen i'm clintons there have to be several factors one there has to be good cause for the person not to have excellence to his or her issues  you know you know that that's not that's not the case the case is that there's a two tiered process a process process for a director of you and a process for collateral you should review just as it is in the federal co and there certainly be shoes that are raised on direct review which could not be released in collateral although sometimes the situations and vice versa there are some issues that can be raised as to the issue of marriage he had many issues a plethora of issues that he wanted to raise but more than that i can definitely say have merit is that he was entitled to a direct appeal when he didn't get it and the  petition had been stated and he had been allowed to go back at that time he couldn't have his right to appeal reinstated he could have alleged operate down in the court system because certainly confusing information that he received from the supreme court obliterated any opportunity he would have to continue with that as far as the requirement  c or a hearing when he should have had the p c r a hearing would have been after the supreme court he then he had a year and a half left to to file a p c r a which is what we would normally happen he received confusing information from the supreme court that caused him to lose his right to further when he gave his issues date her that there was no other conclusion that he trial judge clearly stated that they were having p c r a hearings when he was still in trial court now the one thing that  and by virtue of the fact that a person is entitled to counsel for the first first p c r a they are entitled to under this is and then into effect it assistance of counsel and that is not what my