MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
follow industry practices and standards or airline practices or standards my reading of the record here is that there's no it at that time anyway in september two thousand there was no industry practice to disabuse me but my reading of it is that the court was focusing on the failure to follow standard industry practice company policy that's the unusual event that failure to follow the stablished procedures and not some negligence concept of well they should have been on reasonable notice and because otherwise  could have been decided on the stores or the airline having been reasonably aware that somebody with emphysema or of the condition he had exposed continuously to smoke before he boarded and then while he was on the airplane they could have gone off on a ne most important health related information and the answer that question would be sure of the pay the money that you paid to take an international flight you wouldn't expect to be given by the carrier information carrier hands regarding risks that may cost the life  that particular person or that of three three out of twenty five or thirty major international air lives are the only ones warning about this that is really unusual well it is a little from the standpoint of would you has to be determined from the standpoint of the passenger i think that it makes a very very bad policy statement to allow the carrier to make that determination and look at the carrier has different interests obviously than the passenger passenger has the expectation that when you pay money to go on a flying and be transported twelve hours sometimes if there is the danger that the passenger doesn't know about but that the airline knows that the early will do something to inform their passengers of the if we are going to retain a version of strict liability that is not absolutely what you want to do even want to hold the carriers responsible for the effects of those issues that it has control over and that's what we're looking to do litigator thunderbird or stark invention if it occurs as a result of the normal operating reaction to the normal operating activities of the airline aircraft that's not going to be  a hazard flights over twelve hours or twelve hours or more and the airlines decided because they didn't want to create a regime in which they created a practice they come back to haunt them declining to  their new zealand sides know it won't do that are you saying that under our who's saying that that would not constitute an accident because it didn't happen on the flight or in connection with the operation of their own you know w airline turns on whether or not but it comes under hussein's definition which is different from other wars the countries of least australia and britain britain at the moment which requires us to look at contradictory in creating the point cases tend to me your ally generally on those cases don't you the english case and the australian case in supporting your position as they do right when we do rely
that several times she just didn't think that the evidence was sufficient to establish it so well what what evidence was there i mean if you're requesting at the time of a jury instruction or on the fourth day of trial a deliberate indifference claim i mean one time was brought up by a juror what's the claim here doesn't have to be some testimony elicited from witnesses as to the medical needs as compared to excessive force and i would agree with that yes and what what was elicited to my to my knowledge the record really focused on the sets of course claim on not on what these was you know he was from what i understand she was initially in the booking area nurse harvey recorded that he had difficulty breathing but it didn't last very long as a booking at the nurse's station come from i've a five thirteen  case that you should have been urging that at the outset in your opening statement you should have amended your complaint and it should have been somewhere other than a one line and final pretrial or that you know if someone had been examining witnesses not knowing that deliberate indifference was the thrust or one of the aspects of case odd that they're having you know and i'm going to be up for the rest of my life that doesn't make any sense there was there was no evidence that he had and we understood he had no steroids in his system and they want to talk about a strain for me i think it was three years old at a pretrial what are and now the circuit during the pretrial discovery process in this case every sheriff's officer was deposed every c c s the medic the nurses were deposed the doctor was to pose did you want to did you cross appeal contending that judge thompson was in error in saying that even though it wasn't pleaded in the complaint it was properly asserted in the final three coordinate that was around yes i think she said i think she said  different things in a couple different places i think at one point she said that but then she also ruled that based on procedure that it wasn't brought in conformance with the pretrial discovery waters as well as on substance that it was improperly before the court at that time well and she said you know there really is no deliberate indifference because that's usually a lengthy time period etc etc i mean that those kind of rulings i'm not sure they facts in terms of the steroids there was steroids were in this case from the outset before there even was what a geisha and the medical examiner  ad also supports a refusal to permit the plaintiff to pursue the claim at trial despite the fact that it was accrued in that final pretrial order the players never explained right never mind show good cause never gave a single reason explaining the
we have to share with you the notice and we prove you got the enormous we did by bringing in the messenger service a receipt some proof livery that's the problem here they're saying we never
difference between the commission saying you failed to prove from pencil bone x with respect to a certain condition which is what she said in the commission finding there is no causal have between the accident in this condition for the purposes of was the case and your ability to make an argument of some future day that you're able to establish readers you did not prove a compensable accident in relation to this condition is there a difference for application a lot of the case when the commission says that as compared to the commission proof failure to prove is not the same as a tribunal making a finding of fact on this issue is there an opportunity within the code and if so where posing council saying well  it is or is there any opportunity to bring this medical pathology issue to the condition of his right arm that was assume everything you consider all the questions they were asked never the less the issue of whether the cervical spine condition of bill being was related to the accident was litigated was it not here's where i think th we know something is a mere affair before you do collect for medical you have to prove a causal connection if you can't prove a causal connection you don't get the medical that means that doesn't mean there was no causal connection really means you didn't prove it so you didn't prove that you don't get and that's what was said in the original decision and i'm back to my question if it's you didn't prove it as opposed to it is
interview a k j was admitted under section five last one fifteen dash time i hear say exception statutes among other requirements section one fifteen ten permits statements prior statements of a child victim of sexual abuse to confrontation rights are violated when every defendant does not have an adequate opportunity to cross examine an adverse witness so what exactly is required for an opportunity to cross examine the witness to be considered at it b what for our purpose as according to crawford an opportunity is adequate only ethnic use or testify at trial and is sufficiently available to defend where explain the accusations on cross examination the questions about statements that were never sworn trip the only way back testimony of a hearsay statements can get and is a pick and pastor testifies what does testify mean it means be adequately available to defend or explain the accusations against you and when there's which after the victim assume the stand the younger you become answer some questions about me address this at all and then completely shut up no said absolutely nothing more finds the statements reliable and the victim testified at trial and the child victim testifies and this president fails to defend or explain their testimony crawford is satisfied that is found  basically the whole purpose of one fifteen dash ten was the think and help in those cases where that is memory loss or for whatever reason the child doesn't or cannot testify whether it's memory loss whether it's its embarrassment whatever the fact is that's one thing she is there somehow changing the rule well they didn't is they distinguished learn because at the very least they said well this case even with all you kids what happened was the young victims testif
impossible that suddenly middle of the trial it looks like it's easier to prove that it was misrepresentation but it could have been careless well a desert course the be a cargo ship that someone would take trying to yes reasons they're willing to be very unrealistic assumptions about how the case will turn out they have some explanations as to why they say they have that rule for policy reasons we'll like them having double trials and s but in a way you have a situation in which the assumptions they're making about the duty then seem highly unrealistic and which maybe is prepared to indorse highly unrealistic assumptions for the morning made to the court my name is tim startlement i represent the class action defendants in the field this case is about an insurance company's duty to defend undermanned law and whether complaint sounding in negligence at the bet the pleading stage right now all this reply of is there is a possibility that there could be covered damages recovered at the end the lawsuit made implies a pleadings comparison test comparing the complaint to the underlying view controls and in fact are other didn't announce allegations of emotional distress they didn't want the latest at all and yet the possibility of selling emotional stress was sufficient to give rise to cover damages for those those nurses going to the wrong or allegedly wrong you know the press has nothing to do with the substance of the notice it's got nothing to do with any sort of representation or misrepresentation that's a good effect of where did it go and what was the channel used to communicate things are not that's not what jurors do in here today instead dear it is it is asking this court to believe it was contractual obligation to provide insurance so what would happen and in the case of what you just described is just that when we're dealing with  the concern to lawyers fictions were part of what they dealt with that's how a lot of the work of lore got done but it isn't really the modern style and this what we're doing here is maintaining a fiction nobody thinks the
entire case in your view about the title before easter some component of it it's related to mystery failure to come forward and tell the supervisor because that's some of the testimony and i had trouble anything about this indictment because that's certainly a factor that the previous cases have considered and in this case it seems there was testimony about concern that this would be disruptive and his coworkers may not have wanted to work with and i mean i grew to testimony is far less  indictment or any almost anything that people couldn't necessarily know about just because it happens to be somewhere where it's just because it's possible to fight something out doesn't mean that it's likely it will be found out and i'm a little nervous about mile or a half a mile but where exactly is the park that said that he was concerned for the safety of those children and that's why he made the decision he did ages fifty six fifty seven military orders there's a child services that that's just their kids there where's the part where he says he's concerned that this particular guy because the risk of hazard to those children place where somebody said they were concerned for the safety of the children it's not enough just to say it seems to me that there have to be children within about a mile of here even though as part of his job he has no contact with them trying to find a place for that and said it might be in your briefs and i'll certainly review them i don't want to hang up all your time
he also remind you that under from out law if you want to participate in the what's called an interested party in a certain hearing because you have interest in it you should certainly sign the sign in sheet and you should speak up and make comments on the application during the public hearing part of it reason being from out law if you want to be an interested party which gives you the right to appeal it you need to participate in your you all to speak up for the next meeting  oh i don't actually i don't know the thing it's president's day so maybe they are doing different good design that's roughly six hundred ninety square feet and he had questions from the public we have forty five days and a lot of making decisions and then there's a thirty day appeal period after that i imagine since this didn't seem a troubling application that will try to make a decision faster that that get that to you  quest to reopen the public hearing for application thirteen yes one three two in order to receive additional information from the applicants application thirteen yes one three two pertains to conditional use or  view for various items including proposed amendments to previous g r b application over five yes to fifty nine zero five to sixty one in tedesco seventy seven to renovate existing principal structure to modif so let's see unfortunately we close the hearing before you go to chance to come last time and it was a question about  coverage or how much of your property was in the flood plain i believe was the question and we couldn't answer it because you were here so you supplied us with a memo saying that it's a little over a any other questions from the one or the board gary anything else you'd like to forty five days to m beat it was not understood by the engineer that the calculations all have to be made for the five points and we submitted what we thought was a line of land on december sixteenth and we have also get the water resources from it was under review by we have since then received that i spoke with the engineer yesterday morning and he made were hoping that all these they were out there surveying on friday december twenty eighth in the rain storm it uncovered in grants that it could find the edge of the driveway and they got all that work done but there they need about two more weeks to calculate it we don't really need into june several members of the cocker family want to discuss with the board the fact that he would like to purchase a piece of property that is adjacent to their interesting and one of the crater is that it's a low density area which it's dates less than one housing unit within a five hundred foot radius of other residential structures i don't know whether that could be met i think in the rb has looked at that definition of low density and flexible way so whether we actually ha to be that five hundred foot radius standard i think had to be discussed further when the applications submitted probably then you would know where the houses are going to be and the subdivision has to have it expressed written goal to preserve the rural atmosphere of the development from this room area and then there are
long i wouldn't be surprised i've already got a good start on the cu a lot to know about seem to days a week he makes himself one of the family well maybe you're right at that i'm not acting i'm telling y what i think can be better judgement he's nothing but the you are going to be expected to obey orders implicitly and take chances that no other employment demands yours will be largely the glory of service to our city and to our six to twelve i have a man available and you're just about to get you know i'm not afraid of you i'm on duty saw you if you want to start a fight go ahead i get you if i start a fight i'll get kicked off the squad for pointing myself perrier in the nose is that it probably i have nothing to do and do it so more resignation but i'm going to take that apply to buy that thing like that doesn't let him get away with carney of those names they make just between you and me i don't think you'll ever hear anybody call me that again well i know dissipating orders you cause serious injury to three of the squad which might not have happened if you stuck to your post what have you to say to yourself not in the short time you get in the service your record has been extraordinary and spectacular but you must realize you cannot jeopardize your comrades just to make newspaper copy i wasn't after the publisher i think i went back where you went and what far does not interest this this isn't the first time that you have left your post develop some idea of your old because of your ability and where there was no one hurt we more or less overlook the offense that can't be two generals on a battlefield you took things in your own head consequently i suspend you part six months without pay would you like my resignation are happy that would be best all right you've got
lineup and all that had to do with witnesses and it says very clearly you cannot point ineffective assistance of counsel when we're dealing with what she did which witnesses to interview what questions to they thought about this in two thousand and seven they went back with the specific intent to correct these proportionate penalties violations so each this is not just having language that thought all hinges in each and
be just a really procedural statement that the beginning of the process you need to know that you're going to be responsible for your attorneys but as you proceed through the arbitration process
i don't you mind your own business different than money i'm to some good morning dr adrian i want to thank you again for the wonderful time i had last night it's too bad about that train you left me now don't you think about him this is the most important day in your i'll try to believe too but i'd rather carry around all my life and everything  you're going in that doc i want a safe danny i'm scared about her i gotta know what you're doing but surely you wanted to live a normal life like other people sure long as nothing happens to it i love it just the way he is doc i can take care of i want to take care of it i don't want to experiment none of us down here it's through her that i could rid the world i'm not in love with the world i'm in love with her i get it she just a guinea pig toy but you gotta stop it you gotta stop partner but if anything happens to friends nothing's going to happen to property i don't need to  report i see this doctor adrian whose name is on the desk a difficult disease a local physician yes if you can call him one folks around here don't like him much and he was also called in on the gaze of the trainer yes yes that's the same fellow who came here doing the paralysis epidemic but the folks lining up say that he expected much too much thank you very much gon i believe you've given me all the information necessary that's fine  d minister to the wounded man before he died i did my best for them but it was quite ok in spite of the spinal injection you gave him i gave him no injections i just came from viewing the body of this man mason didn't see i understand they've had an epidemic of paralysis here but too many years ago the robinson foundation found it necessary to expelled from the institution of most promising young research work because those theories by what method have you been doing that i'm not in a position to disclose what i see and i'm afraid you leave me no alternative but to report w if i could give you some small measure if you change your mind i doubt let me show you and you come with me i did not move but i did feel a definite muscular reflex congratulations notify the foundation that that you come back to us too late i have to stay here at least give me your promise to keep us informed of your progress every step of the way thank you some
what we hear today on the second third and fourth
for purposes of today's argument i'll just indicate that on appeal this court rejected defendant's two arguments one that the evidence was insufficient to prove him as the killer specifically in a reasonable doubt get to the crux of what i think this issue is about i just want to recognize a couple aspects of the representation here that is becoming unfortunately all too common and then is in turn and a few months certificate of his compliance with the supreme court of all six fifty one c two months before the state filed its motion to dismiss but he chose to present all the defendant's pro se claims without a man defendant has raised at the same time there are some claims that cannot properly be presented without one and with those types of claims the supreme court has made clear that it is incumbent on post conviction things an example would be suppose there was an area that was so apparent that the state was willing to confess that it required that a new trial be given except there still need to be an amendment to the present for those clients he doesn't have to present for those claims so is it substring the judgment of the judge well even as an attorney representing you you have a duty not present recognize that this claim as directed by an o forward and in without having to own the record or have an obligation to try and shake that you i'm sorry don't attorneys have an ethical obligation to inform the court if there's case law or if there's something that clued an argument that they're presenting to the co