MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
and raise money for them to how can you go wrong my name is christopher i'm a program coordinator with the vermont you conservation corps this is my third time working both into the barns and it's a really exciting fun day we like to call it a friend raiser and not a fundraiser and if you look around just the atmosphere people are having fun meeting smores there's a little bit of friendly competition between some people but overall it's just a great time to get out for a worthy cause on the program manager here at the royal conservation cor year we're coming to the end here and all these skiers are coming down a pretty steep hill so they've conquered some really really exciting challenges and having a good time and you probably hear them in the heard of them yeah we were here yeah the great organization and we're happy to be here supporting them working for teaching children about teaching children to me about teaching children out of personal responsibility we had beer in here to the outdoors getting them out getting outdoors learning about personal responsibility interactions and great organization summer and winter programs and we're happy to be support you know when to young people have been in the program i know people who've been counseling years i know a daughter of mine that was in the program those are member it was a good it was a good experience for us great experience great wonderful experience with kids providing an opportunity for them to get some diversity in their crews live outdoors work together in teams have not all fun because a lot of it's work but it's build good team team camaraderie and friendships  and learn about what the value is of working together to be expert skier to do this or do you can the average skier do probably not for novices right not a not not a trip for novices but everything everything above an obvious once you know how to do it
specifically named in the financing document the case might be less clear if the document had the fruit to a class of people or somebody like title alone but when an individual's proper name is that court it's hard to see how th what part of five point one three shows an intent that you'd be a third party beneficiary to this agreement a very well regarded actor and in the same breath i don't see how the lender can accept the film credits mister so if you had absolutely no agreement with anybody to be the producer on this with this loan service agreement was entered into and the lender decided not to sue the borrower for kicking you off the phone right i agreement you have been granted substantive employment rights there were other employment contracts i'm not talking i'm saying there are no employment agreements i'm saying the only agreement that exists is a loan agreement in which the sure the district court evidently did not believe that the completion guarantee extended credits rather only to physical film elements i believe the respondent would have a skin fall down and issues that only can be characterized as metaphysical we respectfully submit that the defective credit issue is every bit as odious and is covered by the completion guarantee is a defect in film there certainly is nothing in the completion hearing to distinguish them if there was mechanical defects in the film elements benefit you i had a third party beneficiary and not to allow you to enforce obligations under the agreement one thing i'd like to point out it came up near the end of the completion bond incorporates the loan services agreement it is attached yes so you're not saying that if the clause were intended to make him a third party beneficiary  completion bond but only in so far as is necessary to identify what had to be completed and delivers what tangible property has to complete and to live under the terms of the completion and that brings us to a discussion of the the bond i've mentioned seven thirteen in the lone service agreements is that your contention that if you failed and if that was not delivered that is that screen credit to the lender in other words let's suppose the loan i'm just focused on your argument on tangibility here's a loan services agreement which says we're supposed to get this credit and you're saying that that could be covered ok then it must that means that credits in some fashion must be tangible or you have to change ability is that it appears on the screen all right so and then you're saying if they sue you they're just going to sue you for what value of the film you know i'm just trying to understand you're saying that there's no theory under which if the credit is due the lender didn't get into the the print that was distributed throughout the country in the state baby took office and that they wouldn't have the damage claim of law that says failure to give credit like this and it does get out and it does happen that there's a principle of law that covers completion guarantee bonds and says you can't be held
by a letter written by previous counsel and i'd like to address that ruth the fall of two thousand and eight to consulate made several requests that vocational rehabilitation would be initiated not until december two thousand and nine just disappears conflict at this latter in this letter it does not say that vocational rehabilitation will be started it says i will discuss it i will discuss it with the employer doesn't say we're going to start it we're not going to shoot anything well we'll talk about it she she was very simple summary you're saying employer himself the employer never offered those that martin was doing his own diligence in trying to better himself in terms of his job prospects or whatever he could to make better life in terms of the all the employers that he contacted and it was help directed there was no counseling of any kind and the second way is through the multifaceted category of age training experience education in which the combination of factors really combined to make him on employable gets this training and if he gets this training maybe just maybe than then that's his only chance but there's certainly no guarantee that he will find a job even with that when they were saying he could even be a greeter at walmart because he doesn't speak english and he can't be a security because he's on narcotic medication he doesn't have a g d he can't do a variety of tasks that especially the public transportation with the lower extremity injuries not to mention the narcotic medications and he is expelled of jobs did not identify specific jobs i agree with that but the identify droughts manufacturing warehouse work transportation environments assembly machine operator perhaps light metal worker of some sort and that's the purpose of o dilatation is to identify specific jobs first in this case would involve some b s l courses some computer training some to help him prepare a resume help help teach him certain job seeking skills and then they can go out and see what type of specific jobs are available once he has prepared for that process a little bit more that's the specific nature of the of the job search i think that are of the vocational rehabilitation that the employers will cation you saw an outline in which by the way said he agreed that he could not find a job unless he was one through an aggressive vocational rehabilitation program and i'm not saying that it would be a guarantee that the petitioner would get a job but i think it's his best chance rather than relegating him to a
as well as actual innocence under twenty one because the procedural device defenses are likely to be decided in that case i do want to direct most of my time as wording to the substantive questions presented on the  that court's holding that you thank you all morning your honor is and may it please the court as the all for the united states i'll start by addressing judge lee's question and i answer that question is yes having in preparation for argument those forced definition and even these arguments back to visibility don't matter because ultimately the issue with visibility is whether or not you know eliminate the versions of texas robbery entailed reckless conduct and if that doesn't matter anymore nor does the argument that is billy so although i don't think it's the only way the court can act here i do think there are ways of affirming that don't depend upon either allen or board in the most record where it wasn't clear whether the district court originally had relied upon a forced clause or a residual residual here the record is clear are both as a factual and as a legal matter because the n court has not decided under the enumerated offenses clause what robbery means however every other circuits analyze it has adopted a definition that would encompass defendants higher and robbery that's particularly true in the robbery context because there's also a robberies exclusion thirty nine dollars and those who interpret the original term robbery in a narrow way would make that if a court has no further questions i'm happy to yield my time
a nursing home the owners of this nursing home they're in tennessee someplace do they know that this is happening at the garden control most of doctors to do what he wants to walk break and do whatever he wants and to have the people that he says that you're so close to that you know where they want to come in family and relatives and there's also the nursing home bill of rights and then there's been ombudsman the right to be with what they do it's a right and i have they deprived her medical services and they took her to the hospital and look at that she's absolutely skinny a mom in the hospital this week when she was admitted to the hospital after she had been fed she's she's she's there none of the people explained to her what's going on these people appear out of nowhere she's absolutely terrorized look at the expression on her face this is the way these people pack towards people that are older when they should be dealing with them with the tenderest of care and explaining to her mrs stone what we're going to do now is we're going to take you to get testing or we're going to take you somewhere but they pounce on her and she has absolutely no idea who these people are where she's going she's being captured in the hospital i mean you can look at her face she's just terrorized and it's such a simple matter these are folks to be trained to people all they have to say to her is mrs stone we're going to take you into another room we're going to take you for testing we're going to take you from whatever we're going to see you on this but they don't do that there after she said that the hospital she's lost over thirty pounds she's absolutely skin and bones you can see that she's got bruising here i've seen only she said bruises covering her whole arms you can see help then she is plugged into wires this is this is not too long after you saw her when she's a perfectly vibrant vital woman and now she's in the hospital flat on her back booked up to all kinds of  and this is the notice of movie cover our way to go to court one filed a petition stating on her own notice and information that i had been tempted to remove my mother from the facility after i went in to see my mother w fact she caused me to have house arrest placed on me because of her law it's but i pointed out to the board nothing was done about it however i notice that she's no longer with the state attorney's office and watch the hearing today to the hearing today i'm not sure what the hearing today is about because i got no notice of the hearing today and did the judge the other day tell you that you got nine hours on the last hearing that's correct that's exactly correct the judge that was of an now i set this up as an emergency hearing something went on the docket i wasn't informed and i wasn't and i wasn't there and i immediately rescheduled it for the following day and they refused to do that the judge's explanation was that nobody where i've been maybe fifteen times and haven't heard one of my motion i haven't heard not one of my motions has been to come here complete waste of time complete waste of taxpayer because she's not prosecuting like she's not prosecuting criminals
reserved two minutes yes on entirely unrelated grounds to that did me he did but i think that the district court ignored the fact that that decision that factual decision which was a factual decision whether or not mr page's  point and the fact that this was a firing travel path they have under the case law to establish some sort of precautions and one which would have been just a go or stop at any point in time the they couldn't stop at that rate  the train engineer the train company has a responsibility in this area to stop the train no matter no matter what if somebody approaches a try to somebody's personal gripe to impose on the engineer they have to stop the train and so they create the condition will causes don and they didn't reason the way because there is no reasonable way you can operate a train over that track given what is there a   danger that resulted is that thank you
had and there are references to the records that show that her mother suffered from alzheimer's that she was unable to speak that she was unable to take care of herself and  had even then i'm all investigation into the matter he would have realized that that was the possibility of a fourth amendment claim and also there was the issue of whether  the search was within any scope of consent even if there had been involuntary consent let's assume all that's true and there are some procedural problems that make it difficult for us even to review what the state courts did looking for they had tips that the person had been murdered and they had already looked in the backyard and they had found that the earth was just wouldn't that it's some point it seems to me they're going to they're going to even if they need to get further investigation i'm not even sure that they did they could go to a magistrate and get a search warrant so so i'm still having a hard time seeing how ultimately that body would have been it's now well i think it's best speculation to decide that all these things would have happened because i think time and the reason why they sought a search warrant is after they were poking around in the backyard and they remove usually the attorney general is telling us why we can't decide the merits of cases but this time you seem to be telling us that we should decide the merits even though the state courts never reached the attorney general is based on a part of the direct appeal opinion with the court said that they based on the record were not convinced that it was that words can voluntarily consent and that seemed to be addressing the merits of the claim as containing the state court record medical records something that would substantiate the claim that mrs edwards was not capable of consenting to the search so what we have here are the only decision that the california supreme court reviewed so if you look at the court of appeal decision on direct appeal the record it had before it was the record of the trial and in the trial the suppression motion was never litigator and based on the bits of information that can be gleaned from the direct appeal  record the court of appeals rejection of the claim the claim being voluntary consent was at least reasonable under the at the standard that we're applying here and it's speculation to think that mrs edward than a state court record now and develop something more she had an opportunity to so she presented a disclaimer and she failed to take advantage of the opportunity he was given an opportunity for a member of entry hearing in the state and she didn't request one petition filed in the federal court only said the court the truck was ineffective for failing to present a suppression motion there were no specific facts alleged she did not make the effort to develop her claim at all
counsel if the facts in count three of the complaint don't form the basis of your client's plead of sexual battery under california penal code section two forty three point four eight what was the honor there's i don't have an answer to that ok and under under those circumstances counsel don't we really lack jurisdiction to review this matter because we're barred from  considering three mobility for somebody who has committed sexual abuse of a minor are we not that you do so why are we here i mean it's a pleasure to see you but other than that i don't know why we're here because we don't have jurisdiction if you're caught if your client pled guilty to this crime because this congress has made it very clear that we do not have jurisdiction in that case to hear this case i'm not certain of that your honor what is clear is that under california law the complaint can only be amended if it's charging the same offense for example in people versus west the court said that you can only be amended if the defendant pleads to the same type of offenses that charged so in this case the amendment was was for the same offense so it's reasonable to conclude that  the original language the facts in the original complaint don't contradict the fact that he was convicted under two forty three for a as the california court last states that they have to be reasonably related  the facts pled to work part of the amended charge more over the plea agreement says two forty three for a count three as amended in count three on its face as amended doesn't change the fact that you  this particular case was not a copy of the complaint made available so that the court could review what he did plead to it which was specifically specific being cleared of the allegations regarding the forty year old absolutely right of course is correct is he not that had the facts and not been specific had it not said that then of course we would be without the confines of the immigration statute that would bar our consideration that's correct if the fact include certain offenses then you'd be ok but in this particular case that's why we have to use the modify categorical approach because that to forty three point four eight includes more than what would  be a bar to our jurisdiction so you really have to go with a modified categorical approach you can't if you're agreeing with what judge wright hard to say then you go down the slippery slope and in my view because you necessarily could find yourself jurisdictional bar so i guess i need to know what is the government's position you sticking with the modify categorical approach are you adopting the idea that the statute on its face just could only include in this case you are i don't want to repeat myself so let me
sentence and this is point out by the washington statute nine ninety five zero one zero and that what the question is is at the end of the sentence the maximum term  point nine five one hundred creative liberty interest and the very basis of his argument apparently is the language is the same nine point nine five one hundred talks about a final discharge the final  issue was presented solely as a state law issue the responding in the case argued that despite the fact that if the issue w for review by this court was the issue of whether or not there was a federal constitutional violation
complaining and asked about you know you have a ride along program and the chief turned to him angry and says yeah you'd better wear a up bulletproof fast in a small town where there's no reason to believe that anybody was going to be shooting him by one of the police officers mr asman was eight was a citizen who had complaints against the police department and began videotaping what the police department was doing where they were going on the call how they were spending their time how long the lunch ou right to petition on it and to go to government officials and say that you ought to be doing a better job in forcing the nuisance or orton's in what way was that interfered with the fact that you know go misspent it's an open mike the record is crystal clear is that anybody can come up in use their three minutes to say anything they want and when he gets a couple of a couple of lines into it about that about the misappropriation of  said was it took strong exception to that there's no causal relationship between any of these goings on and valving the city and any exercise of free speech  protected free speech each one of the events that claim i heard that was closest to one was everybody gets three minutes to do whatever they want when i started saying that there was misapplication of on my mike was turned off my three minutes was taken away and first of all i don't think the record supports that at all this is the strongest you get and what you mean you don't think the record supports on that issue with your attorney for me to talk to ours or something about litigation or the prospect of litigation but there was never and there are certain i think there might have been a time constraint that was generally applied across the board equally but the record is devoid of anything indicating that mr weaver was cut off or  record is replete with references to the fact that mr weaver was very vocal and he would speak i think eight times out of ten that he went to council meetings that he consistently presented to the well if you could be more specific and a matter of speaking your honor the they're saying that everything that occurred whether the season patrols dance approach to patrols for example fifteen or twenty miles an hour there was a problem in chorus creek which is very close to train street where the plans reside there is dogs at large there is no evidence that this street enforcement you don't want there to see the dogs running at large and there's no privacy expectation because you know the houses in plain sight there's no evidence at all and this record that  or asking us to write an opinion that says if somebody gets up to speak person controlling the hearing has no authority to spark that person from speaking if they did that they may very well have the authority to stop it from speaking but you can't do it because of the content of the speech where you helped an open mike policy which can allow city officials to simply say we have an open mike but if you say well if you raise an issue as to whether or not we're committing fraud no