MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
initially cuse of not providing it to your troops your review but it was misplaced it was part of the record it's been fixed it is available to you but what you will see if you get to that point and think you need to look at those records you will see records within the last ten years prior to this incident and this incident happened on august twenty first of two thousand and twelve out some mental health care she received in the past this is the section of the act then applies section ten a specifically allows and also simply read it except as provided during a recipient and a therapist i'd be happy recipient has the privilege privileges that in the state of illinois attorney and you know attorney were products attorney client spouse will this one is one of them this was created by the legislature in one nine hundred seventy nine and it was intended to enforce the policy that the communications between recipients and health and mental health care provider are even worse important than those between a recipient and there that it takes extra special releases to get those records that relationship is considered sacrosanct and that people who are dealing with loss of the local drug addiction a failed or failing marr a situation like this we're viewing corder well let me go back to the fact that she initially started out with the idea that she felt she was going to make a monetary claim for those not the health depression or anxiety in the past it would have no relevance in a case where i'm not making claims for depression or anxiety and that in the case of our laurels sharon tate those issues are quote strong statement of importance of keeping mental health records confidential and anyone seeking nonconsensual release of mental health records faces a formidable challenge it is a privilege the court ruled that so it's a handover all those records and she simply will not acknowledge during the hearing that i had withdrawn the claims i mean these are the ones that know you have withdrawn and one of the is you have to all those witnesses that's absolutely not true those doctors can absolutely talk just to limit and talk about cargo without going into the mental health that it happens every day on the day before trial you have to advise your witness that you go forward with the trial but that's absolutely what i want to happen what i thought would happen here is that she ordered the release of all those are all the records and simply did not  be separated there's word that it wasn't and there is no waiver by their depositions going forward they treated her for cognitive issues and mental health issues and they were there's no way i would we were this doesn't have to do with her past mental health which is what is privileged most certainly those records were part of her care and treatment parts of those care and treatment can be withdrawn in time as the master of her complaint as the as the person who can withdraw
change the record the facts of the record leading that's one thing but it's our primary argument the statute of limitations has run its argument that there was enough there i explained the situation of the collective bargaining agreement to you because the reason what martin freeman was referenced in the complaint was that plaintiff was alleging that his rights to free speech would violate or he was retaliate against for exercising their rights in actually applies because there was no federal plane in fact what we have here is a possible federal plane that was filed late playing perhaps as a claim under
presenting the check is either the living person who was interested or if you know it is a sex difference the agent of a living person who has previously  ultimately the person who endorsed it would would end up being being libel for the money that that person had received so isn't there a clear implication that a living person has a right i mean a real person not a fictitious person has in fact the check and the person presenting it is using it as a means of identification either as the agent of that person or the circumstance some circumstances the rejected definition of seems is for the purpose of this statute means that the defendant attempted to pass yourself off as another person is preparing to take some action on that person's and so the question is the materiality the rationale to why that person is struck and so that the end of it starts looking at the totality of the circumstances as to why that person was struck suspect class that person is at that point sustaining the objection and snap juror number fifteen the fact that afterwards the government did not also strike a person who would have had outside knowledge due to language abilities to that conclusion but everything that did to know about that strike at the time that he special endorsement the stamp would have to be above the signature and so that doesn't tell me who signed the check well this is the first time i've heard that distinction i'm just not prepared to answer that you see see this is not just to signature on a blank sheet of paper or even a check this is what purports to be his signature on a u s treasury tax refund check and can only be issued to that specific jo clear that she or someone on her b actually put his signature on the check in for what it is but there is what is it's not necessary to pin her to the act of the endorsement because the key thing is that even if somebody else in the group forge his name on the back of the check there is  have a situation which is from our perspective classic identity theft you have people who are taking names and socialism using their tax returns to get tax refund checks and th to issue from both sides we don't think the court needs to address that issue it's not one of article three subject matter jurisdiction some under the steel company decision of the supreme court you could bypass the question of whether parties need to start as our response in the district court made clear that this would color the jurors view of the case and that was a valid race neutral explanation
as to non integrate non magnet school integration you can focus on other areas and there is no mechanism for me to ensure that these completion plans will actually  burden of proof with regard to the non green factors because really the district didn't have the burden of proof with regard to i'm not sure exactly was how anger transportation is sheens your our board of education is not a green factors our district never had the burden of proof born to quality of education to begin with but i think more fundamentally the district court has said that there really is no change in the burden of proof just recorded said our door remains open to you the district still has to report it still has to go through all the terms of the injunction nothing is changed and if you have got court points to specifically using terms like good faith is something to do with the budgeting process so it's not clear exactly what the court means but the good faith commitment as a whole is only consequential if you're using unified school district is not free of anything it has all of the same obligations to comply with the uteri status so to be honest you know this was a across a feel from our peal of the of our quest to terminate the injunction and relinquished your fiction entirely that got this mess but now we've got this run across appeal which is challenging something that depending on what the court does there may or may not be a subsequent appeals of that but that would be the appeal from something the court did or didn't do with regard to the terms of the injunction and there has not been a change in that to date  plaintiffs all the assurances of possibly could don't worry nothing has really changed we're just acknowledging the progress the district has made and a recognition of progress is not a change in injunction need argument about that the district court should not have even given out that kind of acknowledgement because the errors are intertwined with others doesn't rise to the level of an injunction of a change in the injunction because where the district court didn't recognize your interest as it did when the court has asked and just counsel well but what difference does that make what effectors is have you know and you get answers which i think are sincere but they're not substantive because it's all comes down to what the just report may one day do if and when it decides to actually dissolve all part of in the injunction for which they have it you would still have to go as serious if not irreparable consequences to that and they haven't done that because everything flows from what the court might do in the future  district and the school district is continuing to file as reports you know very out all of its terms of every aspect of the user status so we're truly a lot to understand there was no order for completion planned now with any good faith issue there we understand the district's argument that there isn't much change however well with respect to the areas where completion plans were ordered as ribbons as there
naturally i have to say unless there's any questions
thank you mr chairman i appreciate that ladies and gentlemen about well several years ago i had an opportunity to shadow a doctor an emergency room and it was a medicine and our liability laws or lack thereof i will do a battery of tests which will cost and you can witness this happening and it unfolded right before my eyes the doctor said that happens every single day at the hospital he and his partners practice every single day that lady left four hours later feeling better after  the doctor says she's been in practice for twenty years pat is there anything you can do with medical malpractise reform because most of the friends that i was in medical school with are practicing today and i'm not that old but i am thinking seriously about not being in this business anymore because of medical malpractise rates and in many rural areas of a while ladies and gentlemen we do not have any
look at the end of central order that the petitioner's failure to proceed with any application for relief constitutes an abandonment of any pending application and any application that she may be eligible to do now because m e d s relief is to his mother's application her failure to appear in court and notified in the notice of hearing rendered had gone to her hearing and completed the full proceedings but nonetheless was order removed the same outcome would be followed him to outcomes are tied together unless there is a separate an received the grant and therefore not have been removed so the positive consequences would flow to him as well as the negative consequences as a derivative beneficiary if we look at me and you hypothetically  what his purpose in appearing in every patient court would be for that day if you're not there too it began his own relief from removal or present testimony in support of his mother's because the derivative beneficiary relief and removal both flow from the same publications so to the extent that if she was granted asylum she would also be granted asylum and she would not be remova thirteen's in the record we see that she stated that she will be entering and finding all in any question and documents pertaining to her child a file so therefore she has already taking up the responsibility as the parent guardian for this child the they had a reason for thinking that it just seems unfair i understand you on is concerned it and the board was sympathetic to her situation however exceptional circumstances are clearly defined under the statute as referring to such things as battery or extreme cruelty to any alien or any child but we have low versus ashcroft for example where you know without it being sexual  has formulated an argument questioning the extension statute this is different from what they presented to the board it's in their briefs therefore it however they still try to bring it back to the jurisdiction because if we are arguing that the notice of hearing cannot cure the cell there would be no other impact
whether the original indictment gave defended and acquit noticed or prepared his defense right weird if if they knew if the defendant and his counsel knew in the beginning that it was knowingly and by use of force that was the same in both indictments what would cause them not to recognize and heard me and they knew that she had a bruise on her chin or she defended never alleged dirty or never said that this was what was put this way defendant said it was consensual he never even talked about the issues of force or the out in the big picture of how this was went forward is it by the other language by the use of force or in this case it was by the use of force it wasn't by the threat of force it was by the  was also identified the victim was also identified and save potential witness so it was not that was not a surprise that she was going to test you know she
actually brought over some copies for anyone who has not
she said several things that lead me to believe that this is going to be near the bottom she just as she chose and she admits that she chose that probation is a real reasonable possibility in this case to talk about the ideal disposition for the defense being getting somewhere near the
ten minutes please government investigation there is and plaintiff comes up with a say to the personal interest in this suit that they somehow entered into this transaction in order to
this rows were on the third floor going down the first set in the defense review that there was no second floor this building true there was the second floor is not that there wasn't a second floor plan for the man it was a catwalk so it was the first for our purposes there was a second floor and if you look at the photo to see twenty five eighty sun angle other than that i'm not quite sure anything the question completely but to get through the holes he has to be at least all the stars have to be a line for him to been able to follow through through force but then that point then remotely possible for this man to have jumped on whatever from the third floor in going down as they see just even if there are some remote possibility of that instances where the circumstances support only one logical clues we know there were serious defects in code violations american voice letter for every nine two thousand and four we found a letter we found items that are need of tension in the near future this is two thousand for several years before the eyes of the step treads also need to be replaced their war through them could become a safety issue in the near future these are not things that require immediate attention that they where there is some contact and actual evidence that there has been contact with effect in this case there isn't because we don't know what happened when he ultimately reached the area and in the nature of this particular device is such that it's certainly just as likely that employer will turn around and submit a purchase order for that work to be done so in this particular instance it's all refuted that was never written authorization given to american which make the repairs there is no other way the jury to decide this would be other than just speculation conjecture i looked at the foreman case that came to me and i'm not going to do a response because in that case they talk about th the the other situation we have a situation here where you him no testimony as to any sort of defect in the product obviously it's not a product liability case because and i don't know that there's any evidence that the jury could look at and say well because of that that building that warning the individual fellow there's no it's not there and that's why we said services training for their employees and had safety meetings and all those sort of things so i mean there's no customer there is this way that he's worked at this particular plant for two half years and this wasn't the first time that he used this  likelihood of in being one in one step is greater than it is in the case where the
his ability to go back to work i mean is it i mean is it agreed that he can't go to work anywhere he can do sedentary work your honor in fact he had a second hearing going on with the res at the time the plan and no longer he's not a candidate for doing so he can't go back to his his original job but he could do some kind of work sanitar in order to recover lost wages don't you have to prove inability to work let me give an example let's say you have a contract for employment and that contract is breached in your fire and a week later be it went over by a truck and compensation ok so why shouldn't this situation be treated as a set off he settled the case of both parties agreed this is how much t t d you get this is how much permanent partial this number of weeks ok if to know and i think that is correct ok so if that's the case how is any part of what's in the settlement contract t t d if it was paid separately and earlier and then the same what contract itself designates it as medical sedentary work forever it's not like you can never work where ever again and ordinarily in this kind of a case well could destroy the case let's say he was making twenty dollars an hour now he's making five dollars an hour and you know that's the of the well in this is not a case though where he's permanently totally disabled come already you know i mean these these lost wages in a wrongful discharge case generally go out into the future and then he does that ability to go work at some point so why wouldn't there be an issue of fact of how much of a set off there should be for the portion of his lost wages attributable to his physical condition as opposed to the discharge i mean that's essentially what the case you rely on to say is quite severe i mean they say whatever is attributable to his physical condition resulting from the work related injury yes he can recover all right but where we're at right now in this case is it's he could never recover for any lost wages that all why couldn't there be effect factual scenario where some of those are attributable to the so you know i think that's about it i guess i have a few more minutes but i really don't know that i know that i that i that i need to use and i'll use it few theories about about the willy nilly delayed treatment in the emergency room right on the days of the ask it describes an accident that is completely different than what mr dale was claiming when he applied for workers compensation  way it was so that all else it was much it was it was months correct it was months when they were supposedly trying to decide whether to approve the plane or were this one emergency room record for  and had been told long before there was one witness and never interviewed the witness so i mean right sounds like stonewall to me well i mean you know i mean as far as  later and that that's perfectly true however the worker's compensation act does provide a remedy malou this or that allows you to go through this process of four years later in and the simple fact of the
congress or another of the legislative bodies such as the state legislature tries to go in and regulate the internet it's even more you can be fraught with peril because it's such a bastion of free expression but regulating regulating expression and i think when you compare it to the language in the expression used by the defend in this case versus those other cases i actually think it's mild in comparison to some of the actions around how this constitutional free in the contents of prefix context of three expression is extremely vague because one person's morals are obviously much of the another person's morals and that's what the supreme court even came up with miller test in the first place because they were just going to say we're going to that those telephone harassment cases were meant to regulate the invasion of privacy in developed home and again to kind of back to the question then your honor really are opposed to what is a more aggravating that is on the internet to all i'm sure it makes case that's going to put someone in jail for their expressions and i think that's why it's so important to you i hear miller task because for deputies the supreme court has said that is a test that somehow acts inferior between a moral obscene to be the dictionary definition so what need for all that they would use obscene definitely different the definition in the dictionary under this statute is well well didn't testify he didn't there was no there was no color feeling evidence that it was anything but her page she said that she listed the defendants because she wasn't very good computer things and she asked the defendant to through a password is not the same thing as all the rain in the the face of the message if he's ever have you ever looked at an  is the same thing as having that dated written up in such a way that you cannot decipher what it means the definition says disrupt up her own account but when she broke up with me broke gawker parted ways whenever she changed the account to her because she changed her own computer password so the fleet would not have access to it didn't sit well with i think that's how we have to sort of understand the technology here what she is doing is changing the password and when you change a password or anyone else with access to account also knows that password you change it back they were never fighting a change each other's passwords what was happening
herself personally but in the capacity as a trustee even though you know this is all one personal it's all it's all wrapped into one isn't she things like should mom have full house before the market collapsed should mom maintain that should dad i have for him down the whole house and the old trustee's duty to the corpus that she created know better who the beneficiaries are matter how she changes them if she acts as a trustee as opposed to the the proper way that's what i assume so when you say that they were is were responsible far that died because it was incidental to the sale are you saying that they should have consulted with her to get the always brought a lawsuit later and so you're right that is the goal here but the statute was drafted using certain language and i think that language just said will only one instruction here and it's consistent with other statutes that deal with
without further recourse the speedy trial is state of suspended and a visit to mean it would be in custody or whatever or  time as all avenues of appeal at this resolved and disposed of not just here or are you saying that it's just here and if we're all in favor of the defendant then it's over because  this entire appeal by the state is to use a very well worn cliche and i apologize we're fitting a square peg into a round hole there is no aspect of this appeal that respectfully makes any sense but they do have the right to  believe that for the government saludos on a trial that deprive somebody of their liberty and that's a critical aspect i actually do believe that for the government to lose in its proves i respectfully do not believe they should be able the rights i think to not be tried by the government multiple times completely on the substance of the case i think that's it he doesn't want any rights and to sort of use a strange classification assuming the state has the right to appeal of finding against them in the us with respect to the merits with respect to the merits if they indicate that they want to pursue the other you shouldn't context would apply to this to this type of appeal and certainly not not while that not all of that without have real for language i think that i think if we can reach or when you put together these other parts whether it's the supreme court rules whether it's the double jeopardy clause whether it's rule six hundred and four and i do think it's important that there's something there are you know this is an unfair to the state the state could have done that final ruling