MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
problems with this regulation there is nothing in the record to address the question first off whether or not these things can change their behavior in a way that the desired there is no cost benefit analysis and the record and i think there can be without and without addressing the basic problem of whether or not this is even something that is possible to do the at all during the summer months and the reason for this against because the cash race was set based on a nine year average for the domestic and foreign fleet for a nine year period that what they did was take this gross outrage without accounting for fluctuation in bio mass through the nine year period which is going to be too long for the summer months and indeed it was somewhere around three kilograms for a metric t factoring in and flushed away sions due to seasonal changes now the fact that agency came back in the middle of the season and said well we'll move it up from three to five doesn't change that statistical problem and the question here  taken to account appropriately second is that there's a mismatch between the yearly and monthly statistics in terms of what you end up with and then a third area is in their view my guess is a kind of was never able to fall within the within the bycatch race in the race we're well into the teens and twenty's each year on the issue of the twenty five and other results that we can come to that might not have the same particular problems and this one but it doesn't of what the problem that we have before us that it was not feasible data from a different time different period than saying well it's possible that another hypothetical time for the fleet to comply doesn't change the problems here  know around it would have shut down the industry none of these vessels could have pushed in your honor that would have the same result i don't want to talk about necessarily whether or not that result similar here and it deals with their own the cost benefit analysis must be particularly when this is something that again i emphasize we're not talking about mere monetary fines with  no explanation here of a court that the government has been able to come up and that is not that industry is asking the government for a recipe on how to fish or are saying that that would solve the problem
orders in this matter transpired the attorneys had ample time to respond to all the all and the case is over if there is nothing case i still think this court is going to have to grapple with the procedural aspects of how we get back handle the parties had them in their hands they didn't respond and the trees got involved and didn't respond for more than thirty days and everything else after that become they for whatever reason decided not to respond to the pleadings on file and
toughest about two weeks to do that and then we spent three weeks putting on how to escape and then we waited by excruciating the long actually over the course of seven days because it was over the weekend for the jury to come back into court and to announce what gregory wilson had been waiting eight years four of them on death row to finally hear and that was that he was not guilty verdict not guilty and guilty of attempted intentional murder are not inconsistent logically legally or otherwise and so we don't have  resolution of the situation we're in this planet is convicted of two crimes where guilty verdict of one count logically excludes a finding of guilt on the other and that is exactly what we would have if this third trial for and so we don't know why but we know that the verdicts that they return are consistent and this court's holdings are without a fact this week we don't speculate as to why the jury can't reach a verdict and the fact that they didn't reach a verdict does not abrogate the fact that they did reach a valid verdict of not guilty of intentionally causing the death and so we have this block berger any lesser included fees and have the case had evidence been sufficient the jury could have considered any theory of aggravated murder all the way down to assault and so after separately pleading not intentional murder aggravated murder and that is the test in brown vs ohio tells us explicitly if the if under block target there is no additional element then in fact that's the end of the inquiry if they can't get a separate punishment for these two indictment merges into each of the aggravated murder charges contained in counts one through nine so they acknowledge they can't get a separate punishment for this conviction of intentional murder and the supreme court ju after the jury has rendered a valid not guilty verdict there can be no for the prosecution and that is what they're seeking to do on precisely the same facts on priest which ash prevents them from the end of the inquir and there is there's nothing about that one does that ruling any of those rules powell is not involved the distinction without any legal difference when you look at the rationale for the the court's decision and how well they're you which is there when you when the jury comes back with decisions that are absolutely inconsistent and cannot be reconciled we can't apply collateral stoffel principles because it would appear they have with the jury did was made a mistake made a compromise or decided simply to grant some landed on one charge and if there is true which the jury
relevant statement made by a fuse person can be used against them as the mission statement does not need to be obviously incriminating or inculpatory and the defendant agrees with this definition enough i think she felt that it was the subsequent hundred wasn't challenged by a trial where you know the trial court didn't say this is speculated and then you go you don't have sufficient proof of what you intend to present  the trial attorney a defense attorney didn't attack the the poor i mean i think she thought that her arm between this investigator for the greater good moment yes he did but he made no mention again of our lack of did not testify and is not identified so even if all of the officer's testimony is credible we don't know what transpired at that time but more importantly what we have here is a failure  first he tells the police they intend to move into the record about mr davis hours to talk to his response was to shake his hand you know but then to say i did i just said i want to see  now but when we're done talking i'll see what i can do they say things like you know you're looking out for yourself isn't snitching they go on saying that about at about ten minutes into the video they  sufficient simply to say this is relevant i could have just a moment it did not happen with reference to the second interrogation and it did not happen in reference to the third interrogation and both interrogations without showing relevance would be introduced merely for practice the police repeatedly needed to have been dealt marijuana to the victim for the past year he also denied knowing anything about the murder that they investigated the state's theory of the case is that the murder was over supposed did last summer and the waiver that we don't know what truly transpired but that is not an accurate representation of the record we the s presented these sworn testimony of an investigator that he defended asked to speak to investigators and he himself personally asked to defend it do you do you investigators and that was well well represented at the hearing and again back to the second interrogation i just want to reiterate that this state
cheese see why all the rules must be considered in its entirety but the text of the rule has a purposeful structure and that structure must be considered because in the search violation in the fourth sentence makes clear the defendant cannot hide behind a consulting expert privilege of rule two on before with regard to an examiner in the room to fifteen as to the penalty for failing to comply with the rule the trial court is required to exclude the doctor's testimony to for any ambiguity in the rule the committee comments to the rule rotman specifically for the dream a nation that was a that was granted and there was no opposition to it by no disputing your defense if you believe that i wasn't sure i didn't specifically know the rule but he was talking about how bad time he was making comments about what i needed to do and i just didn't know who's talking about frankly and say that you were going to give it to him at all you may not i do not have who memorized now is that the position number one and number two did not in mind the time for disclosure of experts would have dictated when i gave you the report so in the words you were not is clear and unambiguous and we do believe that judge matsch correctly ruled that the trial court does have discretion and in forcing the provisions of this rule and we believe that the judge matsch is ruling regarding an discretion and is supported by the holding in bright which clearly said the trial courts must be allowed to exercise discretion over pretrial discovery and we believe that that's another
financing so you can get insurance therefore you can rebuild and pay his taxes combined with the actual gurlitz the kind of doing with it initially said they would do constitutes the agree so not just what the other said by themselves but those actions taken together yes thank you thank you bonds and then if i feel program when they got it it was causing tour in trouble with a lot of property in the room mccamey on the west side of the property dealing with farmers having to make because the counties movie the county didn't make this decision on one individual piece of property it involved a whole county in business not involved a specific fear of being sued when it involves the county's offer and not one individual operation or business as it is in this particular case and i think you're on earth based on the fact that the cases in the
there used in a specific context reputation and even specifically in automotive contacts which drove the decision process that it was not a part of general is that was it part specific to an automotive function or raft cation and that really is an interpretation problem for you because if it falls under that definition as a part of general use even though i think you quite clearly we did note that the old use is seemingly b issues and the earlier earliest iteration of the government's rulings they focus at this primary function which is a fast they moved away from matters the reconsideration here it's now it's significant function is no longer the primary when we move to the is about the best best fundamental flaw in the government's case that is a fundamental flaw in the trial decision is that this is not a fastener this is a part to an automotive function it transmission or for motorcycle application  great application it does so or it was it were due to the general rules and now we go by the general rules so whether there are these oil wells which are specialized whether they have additional features or other was this somewhat akin to the porsche case with the conical washer that is a practical matter that conical washer really doesn't function as a washer it's a specialized sort of thing you know as a practical matter here because it means that it is a part of general use according to the section it's for chapter fifteen section two and because of that even if we do consider the oral parts category if we were doing  bad analysis we still get to the point where what is most pacific does that functionality drives what's most pacific it's specific in that application is not practical to use that as a fastener what is the essential character of these unique design elements unique way in which it's manufactured engineered over decades to hundreds of the specific standards which by the way are not interchangeable with any other vehicle these are unique to honda they would not be used and other manufacturers don't even use o because i would also note the governor's reference to the oil rulings and the consistency of customs in terms of really you know this matter previously there were two older rulings which are part of the joint appendix which were the york rulings which didn't really  want any analysis other than say this is a part this is this physical history here's the classification unfortunately the records for those two rulings were lost as part of the events of nine one one so there's nothing that either party can turn to for additional support of the rationale behind those rules so we would posit that the persuasive authorities minimal if anything as far as the hand probabilities are concerned as we noted previously initial ruling talked about the primary function as a fast and again we do not believe that is its primary function and the second rulings are to back off of that talk about it being a significant function and again we've talked about multiple for actions either we're talking about the soley or principally for use in application which is
that this was separate standing alone arbitration agreement not incorporated into the agreement to provide health care and that properly husband acted as an agent for his incapacitated spouse to under that act to receive health care but now disagreement over here concerns legal rights and there is no principal agency relationship in actual fact nor in the one be construed to be implied or apparent or the other there is one
and and and and
security officer behind him and somebody from the from the store who's following him the individual in the yellow jacket yet is the victim mr hernandez in this credible and relied on that right testimony for its finding of
testing labs to submit their
condition that confer the nature of the injury from the constant work in the occupation he was doing at that time here is we understand his job duties very kind of daily basis right well u need for ten months yes you can if he continued to work he was able to work he took it easy the testimony was and this is something that the commission also disregard and said it was able to go back to work full many sources of evidence that corroborated their decision and we would ask that you affirm the decision of the word compensation commission in  full counsel indicated that mr henry notified his employer or a supervisor or somebody of the that when mr mann act okayed into the truck after he had already gotten up that he told him that the supervisor him with the form of proof and the his testimony with respect to the conversation commission agreed to that occurred but even if it did occur it's still not notice with the fact that he worked for ten months without any medical treatment whatsoever without a brace without medications without taking a well i took a vacation he said he took a vacation for a couple weeks in between there leads you to the conclusion that nothing occurred in this in this of the commission supposed to say the mills i mean i just you know and again even if you go back and you take his testimony which you know the case was tried april of thirteen so were many let's explore what he told davis on the answers and what he told davis i'm interested in whether they could rely upon his failure to produce with the sims to attack his credibility but he made the statement oh no i don't i don't i didn't i didn't take their decision that way at all why do i i don't know what they are for all i know is their decision was that the i'm not sure what was in their mind when they made that statement would have commission to comment on the lack of cooperation with from any means yes it doesn't have to be a doesn't have to be somebody who was a supervisor or he doesn't have to show that there was any pain or anything he just said i can't take it anymore and you know i need to go to a doctor and mr davis is fine but of the day so again i believe this commission made the correct decision in this case and i would what you believe in terms of the first accident to say that they did not have reason not to believe it on i don't think not treating for ten months is a basis there was going to testify that he did not suffer the injury especially when the
during the years of unrest the pall of the civil war a powerful secret organization called the legion of the black arrow sprang up in the western united states its members were to be found everywhere defying the law or using the law for their own purposes working toward the ultimate goal of revolt in the fall and a sion of a despotic empire it was a mask writer of the plains who led the fight against this band of all flaws and traitors and for once his great strength and courage is daring  resourcefulness with tax to the utmost in the cause of democracy return with us now to those thrilling days when the west was young from out of the path come a thundering hoof beats of the great horse silver the lone ranger vides again or no canyon it wouldn't be safe for you to go up there alone masked man there's a one thousand places where they could ambush unless you let me round up abbas and go with you i could get the men together st thing in the morning there's a lot of heavy undergrowth in the canyon you'd have an map and we'll be on our way i'll finish it up about this late start man they've got the whole day ahead of us and the lone rangers waiting for us at the hotel let's go pleasure of killing the lone ranger myself belong the moment is useful the moment is past what difference does it make what happens he'll know you can get away i doubt that i picked him for two reasons he's a know to continue our story as the lone ranger stepped into the clearing at the foot of eagle point tonto called out a warning and cell phone part of the masked man two shots rang out and the papal indian fell to the ground a lone ranger  pay for this how do you mean come on back to the camp we're leaving trigger behind the railroad bridge span the cottonwood canyon that it's now is points from the shining rails at the top to the new timbers across the recross on their way to the canyon floor it was the only evidence of civilization for miles and already just a month after its completion the undergrowth was rising about it once again a lone ranger made his camp within sight of the braves it was two days before i was able to stand on this feat but on the rd day is strength returned quickly walking in front of me up the steps
easy just like i said seclusion so that it would never triggered coverage in the first place so on this record with these allegations fifteen year old insurer and these specific
well this is my first time  procedure where people who are interested in vive would compete a bit against each other to purchase the product or as an alternative we started out this case because there's an arbitration clause in the partnership agreement to unwind a partnership in cars a reasonable inexpensive a solution that was totally rejected that's why the petition was filed in late twenty that or i think it was twenty one would ever since that not me condominium where there's a right of first refusal to the board this is not a personal service contract where there's a personal relationship i best work conscious and not final employment contracts attorney client contracts
court is adjourned until this afternoon at two o'clock
that could have been asserted because if plaintive in his first lawsuit had actually proceeded for reinstatement there would have been no one titled and no argument to damages from the date of the circuit court's decision to the time of
absolutely clear that in order to terminate ever expressed great easement there for a purport of cessation of its purposes then the law is absolute clear that if this is the express grant perpetual easement we believe that it is we believe that the cases that we started in our brief absolutely support that then it can't be term unless there has been abandonment and there's been no abandonment here or the reasons for the evening have become impossible of a culture and that's not having the with regard of facts and circumstances and i haven't found any really illinois case that has trampled the facts of this of this case by way of a few background points of the facts when the sold adi's first  access to the brand you drive for this suburb of subdivision although you would have had access to route to route twenty nine to have access to rock on in the park board to agree to the to the  vendor nineteen fifty so as the ford has noted sold the the sold out he's agreed to assume the entire cost of construction and maintenance of the roadway and they also agreed to construct a subdivision on the six acre construction of the roadway in nineteen fifty eight by clearing the hills on the block this is a very steep law feel a low room you drive you completely stopped and we're on the road most likely in very late one nine hundred fifty eight of early hundred fifty nine after clearing the hillside of trees you verge of vegetation within the easement he never again resume do any work on the road and never fix the damage that was  you know fourteen years in the future it was going to be built on mediately in fact he started work on the road immediately after he was given the issue but based upon the detail plans that were submitted to the park district by district would be able to use this role and i was an extension of the room you draw on and although there wasn't any trying limits pacifically expressed an easement about when this would take place we believe in the faces fold that when you this roadway to be built immediately and in fact sold i did start construction on the roadway and then that would be the easy part was having a bulldozer go off and spray the hillside the hard part given the this case and given the kind of property that it is the park district has done everything it needs to do to have adverse possession obviously the notice of cancellation which was served on the sole sole donati's and restaurants there you know it was a pretty busy piece of business property all of which was accessed from below on route on the form so he had access to that property that if you want to go forward with the  inheritance in these that easement is of an expressed grant perpetual ease of it carol be terminated unilaterally or even by a court and tell such time as there has been a legal abandon obligation to go ahead and build this road there's no doubt about it at the present time are your clients in breach the contract with the easement well i don't know the contract
have a situation we're concedes that we never did  completely new way to open you know wong decided re decision and that is the intent analyze those decisions and find particular issues which not would not identify what specifically addressed and attempted to argue that that failure addressed all the issues presented in the record a constitutes a basis for reopening the claim and really what this amounts to is a second q process which would be considerably more advantageous to the veteran  because as the veteran here indicates it would be less birds of the net that explain the history in this case the decision below the correct because the premise of the decision below is that there is no basis to undertake such a review
that window of opportunity is closing