MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
indication this is not a cancellation this policy just merely expired however that's not what the defense position was when this was going on we just remember when then after he received his notice that he it is our position that this case that when mr younger he made a purchase this policy and he was a policy holder for several years but he was given certain protections with this g this policy and it's very clear that they were rule is indicated in one of those times when you're talking about insulation is now the policy the argument that was made by the defendants is that while the surest case is very clear this is an exploration of the policy the policy of simply is fired and there's no need to give any notice and i agree that the policy could be reinstated if the premium payment was a ten dollar reinstatement fee was made on or before september third two thousand and six we have a situation here where based on the mission of the  made a premium payment twenty nine days later eleven days after the accident nine days after the expiration of the grace period again this is not a cancellation here's the large church that you're under so on with respect to the provision of the policy automobile insurance which expires by its own terms on the policy expiration date july twenty unless the advanced premiums are received by the insurer succeeding policy curious shall not be considered cancelled  supreme court recognized that it takes an act by the insurer before the expiration date to cancel the policy that didn't happen here this policy expired on its own terms they were tall you don't pay you're not going to be covering the take a look at the wall we're giving you a shave or take the time you need to do these cases and that was troyer was when if you agree with our position no response july seventh two thousand and eight letter said we haven't heard one of the reasons is nonpayment premium and they have to give a ten days written notice to do that
believe that he may have come to the conclusion that there was some sort of independent liability that was being sought on behalf of the plaintiffs against the united states government and if you take a look at the record that the way that we see it is whether or not there is any independent liability on behalf of the united states me ask a hypothetical if there were releases in this case had designated twenty five thousand dollars was doing or attributable to the negligence of the employees and the remainder of the forty nine thousand was not attributable to  hypothetical yes you would not have been allowed to set it off that amount was only been allowed to set off the amount that was paid on behalf of the under insured motors or that was paid through the united states vicarious who fails to force the protocols and obligations and policies you're suing the government for that i mean you can see the government as a governmental entity but somebody there is potentially something in the deposition testimony that somebody could make a claim i guess i don't know i mean it's hard for me to speculate because it was never made a nice point here it was never made and he continued to say that he was even playing against the united states for his independent liability i stipulated that fact because that's what he was best to do was telling me that he was he was already but he was if you look at the trial court found that there was forty nine thousand and some line dollars attributable to the independent negligence of the federal government do you think the court could the th stipulation that plaintiffs argues the proximate cause was the negligence of the government through the failure to force its owner do you think that the claim and never change there was never an and then there's never anything all there was was this complaint alleges soley vicarious liability and then the settling that indicates that it was entered to this settlement was entered into between the plaintiffs in the united states recovery when it would have been so easy for the trial court to have just made it clear that these were for independent acts as you allege i'm not sure what are we supposed to make that quantum not possibly cover the tragic loss suffered by this so we see so many cases where the the hundred thousand one hundred thousand wipes each other around you know because that's the way it works with no stacking so that's why my concern is this double recovery of so unclear to me what the court was doing and yet i understand your argument and i think you would probably agree with me that reality or show me that it exists can you can you point to anything on the record of it indicates that judge parker if she had any doubt as to the authenticity of the claim of the
and reasonable progress and they are not challenging recoil i noticed in their antics they pass the statue and i work something because i thought it
it's if it's just for identity why isn't sufficient why isn't it sufficient for us in the other officers to say we've seen this individual i'm here morris occasions we have h and that they are still part of a similar pattern of placing phone calls to meet up with the defendant to would be able to demonstrate to the jury that they were able to identify him often there has nothing to do with the purchase of dru so officer gonzalez could see everything that you just said without mentioning that on those other occasions he purchased drugs comes out here against the officer who testified just to those factors it would have been reading the jury it's possibly potentially speculate as to why it was occurring but it would have been prejudicial to the defendant it was necessary for the jury to hear all this there to understand exactly how the officers were able to identify him all these factors came together to be able to a serious inquiry the officers ability to entrain this particular individual and to be able to distinguish him from his bad assets so when the same that in this case he was going to enlighten the jury on the real facts of this case that can tell us have been talking to a number you know in a way now he made it clear that he was going to be identifying merino the individual who are the officers were confusing the defendant w good the jury should be able to understand how he was so cruelly able to identify the defendant and should be able to distinguish him from right now occasions that they were from the us marine and that their hairlines were different that their facial hair was fair for all of their goals to the central issue of identity but what difference does it identifying him as a drug dealer when he's guilty simply because he may or may not have done the occasions that's ocean triscuit when the focus of his defense is you're confusing me with another person
may also concealed not a judgment for the plaintiffs would operate to control the actions of the state or subjected to liability now the state clearly clearly doesn't know how this could be wiring or even encouraging overwhelming majority of prosecutors and law enforcement officials in this state conduct fair and lawful investigations in this case we're dealing with bandits who abused their power and created one or special investigator to serve subpoenas summonses make or trying to process and this is important to conduct investigations which assist the state's attorney in the performance of his duties so it was well within the authority of the special state's attorney to retain an investigator special investigators who will be able to conduct the investigation is called for in this case infested and usually retained investigators here which is particularly essential in the context of the special state whether the attorney general is correct then determination a sovereign immunity is a very different issue and not only does it encompass a point special states attorneys but it must also extend to the agents they retain to assist in conducting investigations particularly in the context of this case involving investigation and the like a state's attorney of his investigators cannot very well take part not in the plainest content in this case the question parents were not acting on behalf of the special state's a allegations and the the very idea that something can fall outside of sovereign immunity merely because actions that are within a state employees do these can be characterized in a characterize their allegations and the mission offenses of which the defendants are allegedly guilty and they are still characterizing acts under the authority of the states the investigation individuals could never fall outside of sovereign immunity certainly there are going to be situations where something might end in the law in case that the points are discussed is a good example of that conversion something that couldn't reasonably be characterized as one thing to recognise is that when we talk about sex for the sovereignty we're not talking about the question of whether the plaintiffs may bring a claim at all sovereign immunity is less a question of whether they can bring a claim and more an issue o
alley not far from her home there's no dispute didn't know that the officers were engaging in routine patrol activities just prior to this incident they were  so in revealing his opinion before this thread i wanted to focus on what the trial judge was focused on but we never abandoned that balance that i think he was wrong in stating that we were allowed to point out the fact that there was no evidence that it was a a testimony and then there's a complete distinction between actually like one emergency calls and then calls for service like this one and the officers themselves made it abundantly clear that this was not an emergency in their test their own and the officers are not behaving as if it's an emergency i mean look at what they jail after they respond to the dispatch call bait they don't change their behavior at all it follow the same way they were going to take in their routine patrol  it's very telling what they've done with the statute and many of the problems that create the confusion that we're talking about here today will be rectified by the amendment would you groups the question of whether th james who is obviously on his way to a car with a death or injury they're not really sure what the nature of the car is and in this case we have even less information he's got his emergency brakes on and his siren we don't even have any appear to be indicative of somebody who is responding to an emergency call or attempting to enforce the law as the policeman is and forcing an expert in the right and he said we have to do that then he gets the higher standard so there are two separate things to the larger question of the course of conduct that may or may not have indicated that they were executing and enforcing the law books with exactly and therefore it's not absolutely irreconcilable with the general verdict emergency and to the extent that matters he says and i quote if you're getting the dispatch call for a domestic disturbance unless you have somebody get custody or detained in the car that's your job anything that you're doing you need to stop
can say we're not come we're not responsible for malpractise insurance we're not having any direct or indirect important relationship and then companies say she's are we in here and sue us because else yeah i mean they don't have any facility where nurses work for their growth that's so that's my understanding you up with the agency but are we talking about two different concepts there though really i mean has between the you know reported loamy and barring employers they're making agreement not to totally hire that  but you know what for example what's in the memorandum of understanding the plaintiff signed with the hospital i mean doesn't he agree to follow their procedure yes so forth and so on sure but on the contrary they were to be struck with that
they don't pay any attention to him and make a loan regardless and that's why it's not material but my thought was well maybe they don't pay much attention to him or check them out because they're figuring on the legal the secondary buyer and part of the government's argument was paid he must know that it's being passed down because he ended up paying money to them and my hold on i don't know if you got the point of my question the point of my the commercial work requirements of you go through billet he require that you be treated as sad and making statements that are good for anyone in the world to rely on that it may be negotiated too well i  is the object of the conspiracy that the jury finds it is not sufficient for them to find one they have to find all four why why is that i mean traditionally if you can indict in the context of improving the destructive because there recall what testimony reviewed what exhibits examined in connection with the second strike he knows he was concerned about the gates of some of the transactions and he believes the information in the pretrial services report fully documents all the court findings with respect to conduct that he found relevant now why should i read that to mean that you don't really have a claim based on the judge taking his relevant conduct from the trial because here he says look i can't even remember exactly what i mean like what i reviewed from the trial even though i was there for the whole whole trial but what i do know is that everything basically a master he has or i don't have access to the other defendants yes sorry but based on my experience and my review sure they always are multi defending cases it's true but i don't see where the hell she any you can still if you want to put on a pre sentence report writer says that he's relying on testimony and which may or may not be a poor use of words and the judge through refers to testimony which also may or may not be a good choice of words we don't know in any event the fact remains there's a dispute about what relevant conduct can be fairly attached to jackson jackson says i want an eviden hearing so i can argue about it and present evidence on the relevant conduct the judge says no you can't have one why isn't that and abuse of wasn't asking about the notice issue i was saying suppose a person has full and fair notice that the judge is about to punish her for something she didn't do is if you then entitle to be heard in a way that's adequate to the circumstances and make good evidence
attention to him and make a loan regardless and that's why it's not material but my thought was well maybe they don't pay much attention to him or check them out because they're figuring on the legal sanctions though ten thousand dollars and he and and john doe both know there are misrepresentations surrounding that loan nevertheless and donald carroll can conspiracy the object of which is the commit multiple violations of law that is what we submit this allegation are graham for one represents and if that's the case it is not sufficient to find a conspiracy found was that because of the nature of that particular findings they could afford they even though they rejected the conspiracy count in reverse on the conspiracy and that is because in the language of the fates of some of the transactions and he believes the information in the pretrial services report fully documents all the court's findings with respect to conduct that he found relevant now why should i read that to me that you don't really have a claim based on the judge taking his relevant conduct from the trial because here he says look i can't even remember exactly what i really like what i reviewed from the trial even though i was there for the whole whole trial but what i do know is everything that i'm relying on for this sentenced and it's relevant conduct determination is in  sentence report the trial has started but it has not concluded the pre sentence report writer says that he's relying on testimony and which may or may not about what relevant conduct him be fairly attached to jackson jackson says i want an evidentiary hearing so i can argue about it and present evidence on the relevant conduct the judge says no you can't have one why isn't that and abuse of discretion the judge has has discretion so we review for abuse of discretion on granting an evidentiary hearing why in these sentence report and you see how detailed those descriptions of the property and what occurred were in there and used that you consideration if any would have been minimal and let me also point out that r c seventy indictment however it is clear not only from the instruction itself but
paid all those obligations well as a matter of fact that counts for news that he's putting money into the kitchen but every additional year he works he increases his percentage of the amount that he gets because the formula takes into account a ratio of the number of time making a lot suppose she does well things can change because there is mandatory review of this decree in june two thousand and thirteen that's a very reasonable thing for the judge
the midnight society i call this story all they had to do was record their individual clips of themselves talking about themselves but obviously bad smith could not pull that off bad already done yourself a hole now it's looking even worse let's just give the people what they want and go back to us
him holding a rope but they also make excellent club hi boys and girls greetings out the men i want to tell you how you can become a commissioned officer of the they will explore in time and space and receive an official space pass on to an identification card this pa entitles you to travel in a crowded spaceship to any planet in our solar system it also contains my official signature on photographs as well as regulations for space travel and procedure for rocket ship blast off just send your good luck in time and space
i have agreed that she will speak for seven minutes so i will speak for reserving three this there are many sufficient one that they have societies all the government powers that would be necessary in order to allow for a give me an operation to exist that is turning the intent of the congress on its from the town will address a few town specific issues i'm turning to the russians just said just asked by judge her way out in terms of governmental power i think it's important to look at the language in terms of what is the exercise of governmental what those facts mean but the facts themselves are in dispute that the tried feel to sure it's burden to show that in fact does exercise governmental power they were the settlement man and the district court relied on several key aspects  i believe does affect settlement land but the question is not whether the governmental power to exercise its mental power at all the issue is whether it exercises governmental power as we  accident is a town that is going to have to be responsible for providing whatever services may be needed if there is a crime committed it is the town that will have to be responsible the house or the provides health services are you saying they are prohibited from providing emergency of the tribes that did not have a casino for example such as allowed by it grow how many of them had the resources before they got the casino to provide all the law enforcement f other functions that would be necessary if you had a casino and if we required that they first have the resources to fund all the services that remained story to have moved to see no that would mean none of the tribes does not allow for any any entity for any reason if that's the question that we're being asked in massachusetts that would not be the case massachusetts does allow us to claim and we're not taking the position that it doesn't  massachusetts law the tunnel into the regulatory act was passed it was a law by massachusetts law and as we sit here today all forms of casino gaming are allowed by massachusetts law so  country that's been able to game under the ending in regulatory act is confronted with how do we make sure they had good patrons are safe how do we make sure that the game is adequately regulated how do we make sure that none of the indians are
performed roughly the same time well says invoices will be submitted moakley based on actual hours performed by our personnel during that billy period payment will be due upon receipt of invoice and that is w strictly for the entire record against the moving or in summary judgment the stronger the complaint in the light most favorable to the defendant in this case that there was a contract to begin with it was signed in january two thousand and eight when the spirit is as to why the terms of that contract mean in your honor sort of hit the nail on the head in terms of what the contract it does mean very clearly  summary of the types of services that charles that this could provide through the course of the relationship between cheryl and god if you look at the contract and want me to see thirty two to begin with the contract is in the summertime spike and the record for the first time  work that there doesn't need to be consultation with the historical society for every single project by if issues of historical significance were to be raised throughout the course of a project that would be the type of service that cheryl associate work quite frankly nowhere in the contract is there provision that cheryl doesn't get paid unless it's occurred and it would be kind of a risky business for the engineer to make all of his payment contingent cheryl can't even articulate how much is known or how much was not so quite frankly i think this whole matter needs to be sent back to the problem for war crimes certainly if the on what happens below but based on the pleading and the record before the court today summary judgment on count one of the first amendment complaint is inappropriate and must be reversed thank you
arguing that once the trial court found the fry was enough that they had ended the discussion in that we don't really look at it all time the theory back to the facts of the case you know if something support his theory of causation none of them were allowed to testify now going to this point   she's contradicted by a doctor with death ski in his testimony in the literature that you have to have the two cultures and that was all that was presented to the judge it wasn't some literature says you do it some you don't that was the only literature that the  elliott the maternal fetal medicine x for both testified that that was the physiology of what happened in this case because it was that continued stress on the baby going to recover in between the contractions it was caused by the urine hyperstimulation and there was no you know during trial which judge would you take another look at this you know give her an opportunity and then that's basically what our argument is that's kind of it may be technically complies in the law for proof but in the in the concepts of this