MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
argument they try to distinguish peterson and we should get this out right away we distinguish it based on it but they believe it distinguishes it which is that this case in peterson reserve support percent and they are for it had a precise number of you know i'm going to approximate of let's say it's about two thousand four hundred but if we cited in the judgment the exact dollar figure and that dollar figure was paid consistently month after month after month there is no religion any time soon the purpose of giving the tax returns was to determine what the twenty percent with the year after year that's provide a tax attorney he did his person twenty eight percent and all they did is captivate what should have been paid over that period didn't ask for twenty nine percent she didn't ask for twenty seven percent he didn't come in and said i say i should only be paying n their in their difference to creagh didn't provide tax returns because most of crees provide for their some type of analysis or some type of documents post gesturing to determine what's being paid is figure isn't something mansergh number that was placed in the diary wasted the twenty percent only represented in the end you know in my estimation the fact that they have two children at statutory five or five said but if you every day across the street petition to modify he's making more money the nuance here the lines is than the typical you know if the if the tax returns if the court finds here that is a matter of fact in the underlying case  no obligation to give the returns it can't really be argued that the petition to get more money whether we call it true st to modify it can't be argued that it's not a modification based on the plain language over at the supreme court says guideline support i already mentioned that that it it's not going to change for any litigants before the court never which at twenty eight percent could be in there might not be in there but it's guidelines court therefore even if it's not in there it's there twenty eight percent and then we still have consider it and take the case on her by thank you very much
you what do you think you enjoy rich of violence music now with cuban beats clone by a plays a piano he made a lot of a arrangements together with alex on the more talk so i think this is a way to bring back then to the newer generations the title our just married would bring them all for you at home to enjoy with the family thank you
same boat as back on them and you know as you know from your own experience lot of dark i mean doctors be looking at the same patient and they're going to come up with three different diagnoses and i think these doctors just didn't want to go doctor some of th credibility be questioned when it was consistent with many of the the medical well many and many of the reported he st of all the causation several of the instances and i can address all specifically where he basically said that the the st responders ambulance those contemporaneous records the hospital staff everybody was oh well service for that and he also talks about the internet in the intervening since that time hopefully still the accident in question say it's actually three months prior to the event in sisting east informatic condition that was rendered symptomatic by work related things in this case we submit to you that the record is complete and thorough and shows that there was not generation five months later all of this is talk about the need for some evidence to support the board below all of these issues each stream accompanying evidence on which the pension were based based its decision if it were anything hospital his response was i forgot about the one to the e r because it back her up from getting a cup of coffee and he simply doesn't tell the doctor who is treating you who's examining him for a pension based on that supports he's a th you seek a lot of disability pension one doctor who you know completely and i think when you when you know you know those when you look at these cases pension boards have the right causation it shouldn't change at all diagnostics are the same the facts are the same the fact that dr who actually did the surgery really gave players nothing to go on so with player i think the pension when i think just
would like to consult you professionally my services are always available to anyone who has genuine need of my has the does in trouble gives that impression he's being blackmailed by who with this in petersburg and did a ballet yes the troupe is playing in london now they did here all week when my husband met enough in russia they became friends or does nothing more than friendship you see my husband is an amateur composer and th friendship with a stone mutual love of music i see during their friendship my husband disclose to military secrets and thinking they too yakked enough she demanded five thousand pounds but then he was oh by the way what was the dances name yes ten s yes i wonder would you mind writing it down for me of with the twelve heroes with a broken feet well that doesn't mean anything i'm sure no i suppose not a strain and you were saying that things were going to shape oh yes well you see just met this woman in st petersburg inspector seemed to think the same thing the build up a pretty logical case against it with your help perhaps too logical attack when you expect him to run and run when you expect him to attack you know children read pretty bad news a good could be  here in this house at that piano in children's absence naturally don't follow you know the betting affair of the heartless trade it was not as mrs chilton would have us believe blades of grass you didn't start to rain until after we left i don't think it's necessary that i explain anything you mean she did it up he did it up both who are you accusing of murder homes mrs  strayed i just couldn't explain the handwriting and the temperament and there in it wasn't a logical explanation i mean a strong minded woman with a weak hand writing and a weak mind a woman with a strong head writing the inconsistency of the female wasn't it she was clever in a gauging me to make sure that mademoiselle yakked enough would be suspected this is just i must ask you to come with me to scotland yard do you wish to make a statement not obliged to so much better now chilton committed the murder but the one thing that confused you was i hand writing and writing in character what the evidence was logical but the personalities were not
alleges deception in front of a standard said organization which is a classic and i trust claim that deception caused the creation and adoption of a standardized testing standard for the allege that it does because it alleges injuries arising out of the wrongful conduct before the standards and organization some are in apart from damages that flow from the patent action well it's all immunize what would otherwise be an eye competitive conduct for the violation but with respect to me and i trust injury it just doesn't apply that's the basis point drop in my missy tell me if i'm missing something or dano can we s
ok good evening we'll call this meeting to order at seven ten we please join in the pledge of allegiance of this time at this time is your opportunity for questions and comments from the floor is there any comments you would like to share today saying on moving on to president's comments we did have an executive some knowledge on this but what happens if an employee is resigning from their position and their behavior wasn't necessarily criminal or unethical but it was inappropriate is the entity that we're sending this request to required to tell us because if a person resigns with no formal kind of charge or no formal kind of you know documentation but the resignation is that which they worked out to say listen i'm going to resign and you know is the people or the entities we are soliciting are they required to answer that question see that's that's the concern i have and i appreciate trying to protect our kids but you know i'm just wondering if there's those circumstances out there no i nonsense all the board members the meanings that we have coming up are listed except there's one correction dr french was feeling bad we didn't have any next week so we're going to have a meeting next wednesday at seven thirty
litigation priority from the court as an absolute  are you saying do you want to argue this case or not you want us to consider it or not if you want us to consider it there's not really you need to ask we do this like that that we consider so i didn't understand your response to my question
there were some motions or something and the tapes that they were not presented but the actual words that were on the heaves the jury heard those agre hide the fact that she wanted to show something even if the court record doesn't explain exactly rebels that it was different enough from her and that the jury need to see this particular considering the importance of that moment since this is this is particularly again we come to the inconsistent verdict because the jury didn't follow the instructions says we didn't resist affairs when juries don't follow the instructions and we've been in the system for it so the jury didn't understand instructions  creature inside of the law in the way it's presented to the jury and that really is cherish and in this particular case considering the facts and considering the jury was if the jury verdicts came back the i've been told i'm wrong before it hasn't stopped me from being
this is an appeal your honour's from a jury verdict in which the jury found mr roadways guilty of distribution of methamphetamine conspiracy to distribute to distribute methamphetamine aggravated place in october of two thousand and one the government had a criminal working for them who was trying to lighten his death his name with guthrie at that time my client was living with a woman whether he was picked up or not when ms turner testified she was asked by the prosecutor is bass mr rove lee's voice in the background and she said yes but that the only identification of m last argument i had written down here the efficiency of the evidence the real twenty nine a person could spend hours or a lot of time trying to show that there was insufficient evidence i jotted down several of the point if you think you don't want to spend your time line it that's fine with me because i will stand particularly interested in the we can't use it as an alternate grounds for thermos career since he didn't even address here the final issue we raised was the introduction of my client's two prior convictions and also one charge that act evidence just briefly and i don't know if the court can and there's been what it's like trying to defend a mexican illegally in the united states in medford oregon on drug charges but when the jury heard of these two prior was the quarter pound of methamphetamine yours basically this is the kind of says know what he's really saying is i didn't know about it i didn't know about the transaction that's what it's wrote it seemed to me that question and say no it's not mine and this can be truthful and you could still be convicted and this is part of this whole scheme and other ways he got it from somebody else he's selling it for somebody else so it didn't seem to me that question really is one thing that you have to stretch it to turn it into knowledge and intent but our point just this to said although the question that question in question number three don't directly to the actual act of distribution yes ok that's a factual statement whether or not you own or ordered it doesn't go to his mental state it goes to what he on any grounds that your honor just recently we will usually say that's true but can we do there in a case where our reviewing standard would be abuse of discretion and we don't have any discretion having been exercised so therefore we argued below judge the answers to questions one and three don't even if you truthful regarding the answers to one and three don't preclude a finding of guilt it may not have been yes it may have been someone else's but he was doing the transaction for someone else and the same is true for number three and what we're me ask you this i think the government raises an interesting point that they'd like this to be but that isn't the state of law in the end you know campos for example says polygraph evidence relating to collateral issues will continue to the potentially ok that's what i was asking my question clear because the still has to be relevant
disaster suppose the form supreme court had reached the result of reached but by different groups and simply said we think that more is required than simply showing up the unlikelihood getting hired by a private law legal or illegal job in the private sector the question in a different light wouldn't it be perfectly appropriate for the guam supreme court in a common law capacity to say we think mitigation requires more than i don't think i would have been hired with a little proof that maybe that's right we think that mitigation requires an actual effort to find another job often in this case mr hisor did not apply to any private law that they're like what they did in fact do was substitute their version of facts for that of the trial for they said that this one fact is all we need to know and therefore we don't care about any other  his prospects with any other government of law major issues not going to be very good in fact he's been terminated by the government of lamas only applications or the government wants couldn't afford study that's not a real effort to find yourself another job so it again we feel is the problem here is that the law supreme court appears to have focused on one fact given that fact a great deal of weight and then court has sufficient institutional visions such that at the end of this fifteen year period its decisions may then be directed by the united states supreme court we feel that in this case one should treat what has brushed aside well established principle said and she also said and i quote from her testimony i guess you figure everybody's invited to simply doesn't work out to leave just because it didn't work out it's not necessarily a reflection on the employer employee this is our first look at and she also said you know they're not going to just outright rule someone out obviously there's going to be a negative factor but if you have all that a and m x and blah he has to say his left if i go apply for jobs i would have to tell  employer for selective employer that i was fired and then honestly my employer therefore obviously nobody is going to hire me therefore i don't have to apply for any jobs in th not the trial court's decision was clearly erroneous we must focus on the record and the testimony in the record was from two firing partners from two private law firms and testimony mr there is especially intriguing because on
clear that there were two issues one of which the government probably can use does talk about limited success but this is not really limited success in the sense that he does get forty percent of the addition additional annuity that he was asking for is irrelevant here that he brought to primary issues to the to this court and to lean to and lost on one is relevant what th thinks that this is a personality case when it wasn't because then he would have only gotten forty percent second he says he got excellent results which is not true in light of the fact that he did not get paid all the additional annuity he was asking for and the government had to go through quite a bit of part so on the case live it's clear that the board was acting within its very broad discretion in reducing heat and in fact it's mr killy mr clean bird to show that it was you think let me put it for him personally what do you think the war would have wanted him to do in order to be entitled to the full value of his legal services if he the case law holds is you shouldn't be penalized for bringing alternative arguments you know the one statement that they made is that some of them some people have not benefited from this maybe people have benefited many people i believe but you ten hours a week or something then decided you're very robust three years of employment once you've got to be fifty six seventy sixty whatever i'm going to work full time for the last three years less three years you work full time you don't look into it for the rest of your life
represent people on p c but on p c attrition is routinely and they're certainly capable and able to do say he needs to say no to cases this is supposed to be true proceedings because defending the cost efficient proceedings just needs to be able to communicate his
the city's ordinance is basically he says let's take the first predicate founts you use your car transport drugs so your car facilitated vulgar stations here or from the vehicle code in so basically throughout the state it had to be uniform and there was a limitation on home rule powers that coincide with that particular and they need probable cause to take the car under the fourth amendment because this is we're filming the fourth amendment seizure of a person caesar a property so they need probable cause and that becomes the problem because first of all if a person says there was no probable cause there with their hearing officer the term s and that is mr berners insistence because it is critical to his troubles that these are criminal penalties and there are criminal offenses and that it's criminal prosecutions in the guise of something which is similar to countless others is a valid administrative action with valid civil penalties as it says it is as it was styled and when i think the reason is because it's a separate administrative proceeding and the basis for the seizure is probable cause to believe they committed the offense i mean that's that's written right in the administrati as an administrator scheme has upheld it as legitimate against substantive and procedural due process claims of the five hundred dollars penalty was taken care of in in in the in the seen it for what it is which is a legitimate exercise of legislative authority in the administrators  because it says you use your car which under the law means the car facilitated that it's that's why we can take it if you rob the bank when you use the car you're facilitating the bank robbery with the car that he things rescues him that you can appeal ok well if you don't have the subject matter jurisdiction in the first place an appeal doesn't satisfy this court well since this court doesn't make sure that they have jurisdiction over matters right if they came through the workman's compensation claim yeah you do have the right to do that because you don't know jurisdiction initially over work
the can i can i ask you one question and i'll let you get on to the rest of your argument sure are your st three contentious on appeal essentially the same one in other words at the agreements i mean you phrase  differently but do those st three arguments all come down to the plane that the agreement did not require safeco two of them defy common is under the circumstances yes that's correct ron or it's party indemnity the confusion comes because insurance completely ignores the substance of the per party claim and wants to focus entirely on alleged acts no missions by save go that led to the rd party claim cahoots and served to sort of like sort of drum up this claim then it is in effect a burst party indemnity claim for which the contract doesn't provide it and a different contract would have to specify is that you have that basically right i think that i think that is basically correct your honor and it's not even necessarily be the chronology of the claim over that is an interesting point i think that we didn't really address it in our  helpful then moving just one follow up to what two of what relevance is the fact that the that the fraud claims here were rejected or the fraud claim sort of part and parcel with this sort of like this scheme or this plan that safeco is alleged to have hatched to sort of drum up this claim and if so how does the rejection of the broad claims kind of player that's a good question your honor i think there's certainly an overlap quick question you know ask you basically the same question i asked mr rosen why have your position based basically right if you say this isn't an effort to get safe code to indemnify comedies for comedy is own failure it must be an substantial overlap with this allegation that safeco is involved d in a scheme or a plan to cook up a bogus claim and tipping what about the fact that as mr difficulty and you can help me this maybe you know insurance law want to one and i'm sorry if i'm just not understanding but i guess what you're saying is that safeco has to indemnify accommodated under the agreement perceive those actions or misconduct if you're claiming just safeco a common law claim that those outside the contractual bargain between comedies and policy excuse me and that was incorrect all these allegations have nothing to do with based entirely on how many own wrongful acts and under people corporation versus gold power under the thank you both very very much that's the end of our session so we stand in germany and we will get back up and going next mark tomorrow morning at nine o'clock thank you
had him examined you know did you not do and and the information that the that the supervisor got back was that he was not disabled he didn't suffer from a mental disability but that he had  personality and that and that the recommendation was a based on his personality along the off the the psychologist felt that he should not a clinician felt that he should not carry a weapon did not respect for you not exactly what happened he didn't make a diagnosis of of a personality disorder that fit within some definition accepted by his profession but not the personality disorder he didn't know that's a simple question did you make the statute but it only bad temper and if the agency follows their protocol for addressing temper through their protocols that's one thing here that wasn't the case but you first have to have a perception either perception or natural disability right and you know that you don't have a dental disability because you have no medical conclusion with regard to disability and you're the one who use the word perceived not me and i presume and your brief argues that it was a supervisor correct but he had not been given any kind of diagnosis that there was a disability but the clinician himself had said all this guy's personality makes me nervous about him  been under strict duty there was a process of of six months in which she was undergoing the evaluation i missed the church could have implemented the process that addressed the behavior it is a disciplinary process if his performance had fallen he is one of the few people in this society who is privileged to use daily force i'm not talking about a truck driver we're not talking about a machine operator we're talking about one of the few people in th medal and then made him a firearm instructor for a year and a half before this other car right but they all talk about this over the must of done something must have p t s d but that don't they just bring that in as part of the shooting before the shooting yes he was he was made a firearms instructor after the shooting given a medal right again if there were events after this you know as well for example his supervisor observed him acting hyper in the or judgement and was able to exercise sound discretion on his job mental emotional instability is now going to be easier to use to satisfy the provider that's on display just that's why tom's pastor not told us and there's no there's no claim in this case for retaliation or anything invoking all of the original concerns for a post for mental impairment which began with the prompt for a psychiatric referral in the first place and began with the post traumatic