MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
convincing evidence clear and convincing evidence of a grave risk of harm so we have to whether we agree with that or not we have to review it for abuse of discretion and clear  position to do with this but history of st they wouldn't mean certainly here in the states a family law court is on average probably going to be a lot more capable of handling one of these matters than would be a federal court disincentive for a parent who doesn't like the resolution of their family law court in their jurisdiction to flee and to kill us and then take a nd shot at it completely before a judge has much less experience in dealing with it so i come back to my question is there any reason to think that the chilean courts more fully and equally is capable of making a determination as to how best to protect the child's interests there is no evidence  well according shelley it found that there was insufficient evidence and sorry and didn't happen the court in chile made a determination that there was insufficient evidence to find that the foundation gauged in any kind of inappropriate conduct towards
evidence that there must be and the evidence has to show that this personal individual was involved and so the case i was looking at that because the campus actually dorie language is the evidence has indicate insufficient to shift the burden to him in that case in fact if he hadn't testified the fact that it's as if i was not material to the morning because they found that simply i'm sorry yeah because the courts held that simply being a member of this president and where members of the president committed persecution was not sufficient to shift the burden to the respondent to that and try to prove the negative that he himself was not involved i wanted to wholly different from the issues in his immigration case so there wasn't there wasn't an incentive to cross examine regarding that specific statement because he wasn't being accused of were crimes he was being accused of false statements and misuse of visa so his motivations to do a cross examination would have been totally different and immigration cases where that particular statement is so essential that it would have been a criminal well not necessarily because there are cases that say i got i guess what matters is that there is a case that says you know you can't determine a critical issue of fact by a statement and a report where the immigrant problem in this case where at the very minimum the immigration judge should have made an independent decision as to whether that statement was reliable and could be relied upon to decide this essential issue of fact  evidence the statement in a report should be relied upon by the immigration court to decide an essential issue of and then the board of immigration appeals when it was reviewing that decision said it was referring to the immigration court and so at no point that indicate to the bars they applied but i would that's all in our brief and i don't want to take the court's time i'm prepared to answer any questions that the court may have about our case today and so it's one thing girl to say look there were horrible things happen and i tried to tell them we shouldn't do that and i refused to participate but to say i didn't know anything about this brings me is at best an ostrich sick head in this and more probably somebody who's in denial because he doesn't want to own up to what his own involvement was and i understand that response and i think what i would say that can't say you didn't say look it was bad and i tried to stop but or at least i refused to produce a baby he just said i'm blind everything going on for me to draw from now the line that you're
you look at it as well i've got to come over here tonight clean up after all the students no one really notices whether it's clean or not because tomorrow is going to get dirty again but  you can also take the viewpoint that the students and faculty are here for a purpose and the reason that you're here is because they're here and say trying to do a good job because you know it helps  and then you have to be able to see what has to be done the word janitor has been given a connotation which is very undesirable if if you go and ask john doe on the street who has no connection with the field what give me a  thumbnail description of a janitor he'll give you the type that you see in the cartoons and maybe on television depictions or in the movies or something but usually some old guy this guy hasn't got enough brains to come up out of the cellar and to do a really top notch piece of work you've gotta do more than just dust and sweep you've got to really color it clean that's right now many of the restrooms on the campus are pretty old and they require an extra bit of work to get them clean in order free but we don't use deodorant in their bathroom it's not necessary really  we find that if the room is kept clean and well ventilated it's not going to have an odor problem and this is something that we all work pretty hard on and we find that it's a problem that we each man is an individual and he's going to do the work his way and the goal is to get the job and the work accomplished in eight hours was the tools that are available and it doesn't matter how the man  train each of these new men with that in mind that you show them the way you do it and the second trainer is trying to show them right he does it and explain where both explain and this is a way to clean a restroom give a man comes in here and is willing and he ask questions and good question right and then you can do something wedding  conversation but if he comes in and don't ask any questions and when you try to explain something to him and he won't answer  there is about a thousand things to remember little things that most people don't realize and so if you take him day by day and  have the newmans feeling and that that means that kind of man's all sick they take his place and so you'd be surprised that things boys when they go into these buildings and now that's one of our biggest  two men who have been trained by the same man do the job the same they're encouraged not to really the nation is encouraged where feasible if a man goes into an area and the way he has been taught is not practical may not be the most efficient manner encouraged to evolve a manner which is more efficient and more appropriate you're given a job and to hear this is your place clean it up and keep it nice and that's all they say no one's looking over your shoulder all the time and you're your own bross and it gives you a good feeling a feeling of pride to do a good job they depend on you and it's up to you to do the best you can
said invalid because you have to call a motion for a hearing within a certain period of time but this motionless pending for sure and that and the you know defendant had been through with that motion it chose not to show off this was a motion to continue the hypothetical you just gave there wouldn't have been a pending hearing date point is is that that's the process that you do it's a new proceeding it's a collateral proceeding that's the process by which jurisdiction over the person is obtained cracked in this instance section sixty is th the process by which jurisdictions are tape the only difference between those two things that are several things one is that the nature of the relief that you're seeking am the type of service  twenty sixth of two thousand and thirteen and its second hearing date for december fifth of two thousand and thirteen again defended one of them did not show up for that and then she was actually you know they served
that issue we do want to say that if we do find that there is no jurisdiction on the supreme we will try to accommodate you as much as possible to make sure that the filed a motion for clarification that would not have stayed my thirty day time for appeal and i was worried about blowing the that thirty day period of time i believe with the trial judge thought the core issue in this case consumes the eating of the police officers the continuation privileges the police officers here to retire from for of police officers one with thirty three years of service in the point five think that's the intention of the statute in this particular case this isn't being done in france sixteen seventeen sentences that's all over the place and i think we do you discern the general object of the yak i think if it becomes a little clearer and i think applying the rules of liberal construction which you should do when it comes to when he was legislation you would expand the meaning of this act to cover all sorts of insurance benefits  the trial who are focused on right should she start of the right spot focusing on the provision that says there should be no discrimination in terms of premiums or other benefit provisions  there is no legislative history that we can turn to here so you know what we're left with is for this court to determine the meanings of some of these provisions in begin if we if we focus on positive but i don't think it's a matter of something under the bargaining agreement i think this is something that you know chapelle of me just gratuitously decided to do and i knew i would submit that  again when you read the statute and you look at what it is forced to do it in my king of vested the something that helps obviously it's a benefit when the  act police officers deductible it's another it's not a benefit if they don't pick up the retiree's and the know the thing the statute clearly states there should be no discrimination in premiums cool here so you know it will look we'll probably have another year for the damages that will have to if if you rule in favor of the plaintiffs that it's going to have to be determined by the trial court i don't think there's any of that we can determine come to play in the later paragraph which talks about when you miss a paladin makes a program accident health policy your medical benefits available which we saw officers here doesn't stop there if that's w if if this court feels the destination is clear then obviously you will determine what it means but for the life of me i can't i can't make sense out of the statute and then to believe again we focus on
after the accident while you say you went to the doctor the next day after the accident when a fan if you went to the doctor's office the second day after the accident we had the x rays which you're referring to and they didn't see the but only as you consider what was presented before the court a trial rather than really getting the case again as you know in workers comp there's been many cases tried before the panel without having testimony and based on subjective history complaints based on what he tells his doctor after the accident a lot of the times we find out what his medical history is after the accident based on what he tells his doctors and that is the case in this matter we can see that he has don't believe good if they're true didn't believe the commission didn't believe on the claimant's testimony at the time of the hearing why would you discount what he told his doctor in said before his work history shows that he only lost three days of work from the first that he was working as a care driver and the fact that he was concerned about and pain turning one way or the other and wanting to see a doctor  rays says a second if that low back pain second half or something to that effect is merely his clarification i mean it's different from the the history given for the first
cross examined extensively on that plea agreement and he testified that yes i did make a motion to suppress my confession i made he's a person so that was abused by the police but it was all a lie and that was  at burton's criminal trial he did that his confession was not yours in order to run convict mr burke he was convicted on testimony which the defendant explained demonstrate specific facts would support this contention that the state normally used false testimony of mark to show on the trial the security conviction against and there's nothing new that's been presented there's nothing in the in the current petition there's nothing in the defendant twenty five years ago does not amount to a recant of his prior testimony his prior testimony was clear that the allegations he made in this motion to suppress were false they were a lie and he testified  argued the two thousand and six report said to point out so the quote we raised a standing argument in terms of the ability of mr burton to raise issues relating to mr shaw's confession and the  injury was a result of but it wasn't being abused it was within a month of his interrogation so i said it wasn't there and because it was within a month of this interrogation but i think the point of this is that this this  cause for the medical records his confession was not used to trial and therefore it would naturally help there's no prejudice and finally the only other issue that i could see as rice and again situations like this and satisfies cause he provided an explanation that satisfies it regarding the shattering you're right your medical records were available i mean they were his records correct he still needed to get theirs from there in the pos injury that he was that he was complaining about right yes and so are you saying that the medical records weren't available for that first interview that the medical records for regarding the first admission had tamed them that would be something that would be determined whether this was correct or if you could have early have to know this that's a second stage consideration for cost purposes he's provided an explanation satisfied cars turning back so we're going to ask you something
as a lot of the council the first piece today is thirteen one four zero five my a v versus siemens medical solutions usa incorporated died one month after the complaint was filed we went to a probate court in puerto rico instituted the state wide in spanish to schools who said see on and ask for the party plaintiffs to be substituted by the success you don't which is four and by extension on the one hundred in my extension law forty four a very personal rights and on google puerto rico formulation very personal rights do not survive it yes you part of the of me claimed that that request that emotional damage is west kind barred because by the time the administrators process and then the one year statute of limitations for stake in the damages that might have been incurred by the to see clearly they have a stake in wages that he lost both past and future  not only inform for perhaps control what the outcome should be here on survivorship the considerations seem to me to be the same because you two different things survivorship means that do two different things when we're talking about standing we're talking about who is the person who has the rights to go and ask for relief under specifically just nation when we're asking about survivability what we're saying is this has been filed these are the he had pain he had suffering he's requesting for compensatory damages for back pay their severance i also ask that  that's a different right and the puerto rico supreme court has said the right to collect damages on a proper we filed claim is survival yes your honor and you want to conflate those two right we're not talking in this case about filing the claim the claim here was properly filed by the person who say is who said at the time that he was the victim of discrimination that issue was were just talking about the right to collect damages on this issue of if all six of if the cases that have been properly filed under act one hundred or any of the other specific discriminations that is important legal in this case forty four sixteen or seventeen or whichever the other one that we have if if having them being filed correctly they survive and i proposed to this court that there is no case on point because the entire d in everything because otherwise i mean it would make no sense thank you thank you
were going to do come down and yell because he joined this group after being told what they were going to do they all became the mess and he was told they were going to go down there and went with them coming what are they coming for so this is the group opposed to mysteries fair what are they fighting for we know where they are coming for the argument is i don't know this is trying to be some kind of self defense stage on the court noted and i believe this on the record a patient fifty five supplement record a fifty five a couple things that mr price said i just want to respond to before you start deliberating when he got your meat is closing argument to you it sounds like it is written of the events that occurred oh i apologize this is the prosecutor i i rules or we decide this case is always greater than you know the strength of the east room some of this individual parts the defense attorneys were always trying to pick out things attacking individual elements of the state's case and then argue with that more question finings chance and there's an issue of how she could have seen where she's said she saw for the distance that she said so even if this court does not accept my argument that  convicted under accountability right but were submitted only the question of whether the th discharge a firearm in the commission which is why there was a twenty year hands with rather than twenty five years and that's it was
sure sure sure sure for you
parties of whether there should be a trust that it could be it's part of the evidence to consider whether there's a trust relationship but it's not the only evidence and there was other evidence that was elicited on cross examination that was argued and trial counsel is allowed to appeal that that to say this wasn't that you know this is something else and the judge said no it's not me you know one minute issue a number of times before and as not decided it i think this case is a good chance to do that and say that the backdrop will just can't stand in light of a clear supreme court law contrary to that all those pro question whether or not we assume whether or not i believe justice you're ready for this court recently called it problematic and so we're left with the lower courts which oftentimes don't get to this court is how do we get on it is these difficult questions and so that's why i'm signed contract i have to decide whether he agreed to do it which gives me my second point b he said mr directly before that paragraph says for the two sentences the title itself doesn't determine the relationship rather it's the relationship created by delegate a high standard is because it is the federal courts coming in and messing with a state evidentiary rule and they realize that the state needs to have great latitude with their own adventure rules such that it has to be a real due court in which case mcneil i still think that this is the difference between us which came in and told the jury basically how to
other in fact the judge said you can ask the clerk to prepare a notice of appeal that could have been done his but based on what i've read so far he's not indigent it was related to his request to a children in front of others but that is not the case that happens more often than not stand and my experience and my experience you had actually people who were not paying attention in the room mother was asleep there was no evidence that she woke up there was no evidence the brother who was fully engaged the younger brother fully engaged in a video game having just come off of a show where there were two young children with her recall they were fully aware of these and they found in her favor as your honour's made it out it is not your responsibility to substitute the judgment for that of the try fact and hear her explanation as to why she couldn't remember how well she was at a specific birthday party was hurt and the jury found that that was not so bringing up claim here or in a reply brief there are a combination of things that are going on here first we have a supreme court rule three forty one each seven that says points that are not argued in the opening brief  preserved and your protection preserve the integrity and reputation of the judicial process the purposes were not present here where there was not an obvious error in the record and w i will admit i don't know hoskin making half of their argument for them in our opening brief i can assure you that if defense counsel fails to raise claim or again we will just be limiting o
by plain language all the u c c it has to be considered as a whole i agree but it is a pursuit as to from a contract for sale of goods section seven twenty five but it's not specific as to this situation in
so that's it for the agenda this proceeding will be conducted in an orderly manner consistent with our rules of procedure those are available on the website or from chris or from b if you have any questions but i will walk you through them as we go along and you will need to refer  through all of this because the if there were to be an appeal of the work to do tonight it's not our job to decide who's next to the person that's part of the field process but we do need to establish who participate as i mentioned and so to help us in that we need to do a couple stablished participate so help thanks for your cooperation on that this is a quasi judicial hearing which means that anyone who intends to speak must be sworn in so what i'm going to do is read this oath and if you're going to participate please just say i do  these their lives there is no new development being proposed that is about  found in the field yeah so there's a there's an existing survey of rector of the town of jericho house down prior to work during the time i was there for the land from the village basically i've i've stated here that i've retraced the boundary as was depicted on the on the existing  no that's that's it that's all the existing boundary right which is the one thing this proposed to be extinguished exactly ok road right so basically we're just doing a series of adjustments and maybe the the preexisting a lot smaller so i just i wanted to point out the fact that there's a so here system on the exact now because that would suggest that because it's going inside the correct part of deliberation so at this point is there any public  the west you see the town of jericho there that's the land they own so the the woods have offered to increase their town's property which will include a lot of walking trails that are in portions of it so yeah that