MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
this is conditional upon the following and executed policy release those are the words of mr morris and the adjuster in his e mail on  that there was here but even if there is an agreement in every issue if there is a condition to see that the matter be be finalized to the written release then that control space and you get to the twenty second and all the sudden now morrison is saying i've received a phone call this is a note that he puts it is fine i've received a phone call that you know you fall off or your client is offering to take one hundred five thousand dollars and he then e mails back to the public adjuster and says we accept your client's offer to sell four hundred five thousand dollars  that's where the judge said there was a contract couldn't be a contract in the definite cause of the law and in addition to that there was no and agreement of the minds or reading the minds of all the essential terms of the contract the contract then or the release this what i'm talking about and then releases a contract of course then a lease that was sent out not impressed the way it was almost eleven days later ninety days later with them when they finally upon by the parties the public just or anyone else in that period of turning we were talking about we exempt done so thirty minutes it does but i am also very i want to make it clear that the case officer who establishes that there is no meaning in the mines unless and until the parties agree on all ok yes i think i realise the statute that i cited the brief it's the stance that applies to public adjusters and it applies very much in the same way that the law of the case law applies to attorneys who  them the only thing i can say that i could do would be to rely on those cases that talk about the fact that anybody did steal anything with a special agent and there are several cases that have said it would be anybody's dealing
lincoln car that you're talking about if you can this is a billion legally purchase and where the clothing that you're talking about it so all of the things that the defendant hands were legal to build possessed
not apply where there is no and these two children tragically were just before the d n a tests could be carried out so at one point  basis i'm not sure i understand the question and i'm not sure i understand how the way it works i guess i'm wondering why if the children you know she had the d n a testing of the children or hers  these alleged contradictions and the government didn't even state whether those contradictions were related to the issue of the ultimate decision which was based on alien smuggling for example if they had  be sufficient to support their conclusion but that the government provided you know they didn't suggest that the children didn't really exist that they didn't really direct they weren't really the applicants that there was really just had noted that ignoring exculpatory evidence would constitute bad faith that it happened in that case that the court found that the ice agents were not acting in bad faith but that's for it as an example of what could be the government did offer an explanation they thought that the african had ties to terrorists and now we may disagree as to whether they provided sufficient proof of those ties and as to what they should be required to  an explanation and in this court's decision on the rights and all there was a page and a half decision about the alleged terrorist act of the applicant and more fit and there was an indictment for cocaine smuggling which which the court said answer that question is not a record but i'd like to address if i may there isn't in general terms there are situations where people are try right perhaps other family members and present to the council all these disrespectful to justice kennedy's language and say here is a possibility of a showing but i think it sounds like the united states is asking us  given that the court found that under these this is a national security issue terrorism is obviously a much more serious and and dangerous proposition no other evidence credibility alone can be a reason to positively determine it can also be reasons negatively determined right in the uk and fair in this case we don't know exactly what they found and about the applicants testimony but we do know that there was documentary evidence submitted that she was the parent of the child or of the two children who were just released and you know back to the question about how the waiver works officer believes that they were children then there's no smuggling she was she was applying for is actually said that exception would really only come into play usually in a border crossing situation where a mother is bringing her
aquino there is inconsistent testimony about killing and aquino whether or not they lived at the house and would have cared for d h and the son in the am so that is inconsistent testimony that testified as to what his activities were he testified about yes he was not employed but he was was the phrase used a street runner or something like that that he came and went from the house and that he was not the primary caregiver for the children and it actually were in the area they were there at the time that something allegedly may have occurred or they were the caregivers when harry was out running the street we don't know that because it's not in judge stuff or it's a bench trial find it's we don't know whether or back not we look to the record for an answer i understand but the problem is there's nothing in the record that shows that she considered henry's credibility there's no findings of his credibility was required to decide the credibility of both sides one who sued and that there has to be something on the record that indicates that the credibility was actually considered and a determination was made judge just under made a point  say she had all these other considerations all these things to consider in in terms of what to look at for on determining credibility one of the things she said was other  is is similar to what she may have done or what the judge just burped just asked about who she really really believes d h and the defendant's story is diametrically opposed that she's not will be coming home from work and about the time that these acts supposedly occur if she doesn't make a full credibility determination she chose to believe this child and i don't mean to sound cold hearted but it's almost as if she ruling that she did not consider this all she said was i considered well this is indicated by the record it doesn't answer the question of what she actually considered and best for the question was raised in the post conviction position unlikely just looking at the numbers is there any possibility that the defense counsel come didn't do the math correctly and thought it was within the ten years and made that mistake that could there's another issue in sanchez and that is that the koori should have made a determination of the credibility of the defendant and here it's not mentioned
is right next to the desert land for is because my craft gets generated self the math just keeps going on and on it never stops it just generates by itself and yet so may be some times you i like doing like yesterday in minecraft i started building in n and i started by doing leaving this game five stars because it's a free range game with a lot of action now for the nd game for tonight we personally don't like this game you need a real money to buy models now for the old and new video game mario odyssey here is a v and for ok welcome to revolutionary dot com i'm your host cherry bomb and who is this lovely lady my name is ruby ruby ok so let's start the st question where you did the revolutionary war take
good evening i'm here live at the peaches township pasco stadium where only days ago members of the boys soccer team was sucked into the field never to be seen again where did they go stuff like this just doesn't happen in peters township my boyfriend was on the team and he prove that the stadium is not haunted what's sad days these are ladies and gentlemen the very this  terrible ok i don't like your soccer skills but you know it's funny you say that because i'm pretty sure the other night when i was in goal i get that you're on the border of stuff but i don't know yeah
weapons of mass destruction okay with that
good morning your honour's my name is eric carl spangenberg for the record i am a plaintiff i'm also one of the attorneys of record in this particular matter i wanted to submit to the court under which we seek recovery in the district court judge white specifically ruled that we didn't have standing as creditors and then went to basically the standing as a siamese i believe that we do have standing as creditors for the following reason the  understand your theory and i understand argument because you're basically saying what i was thinking and therefore prevented me from perfecting my role as a judgment creditor have i contend also gotten judgments against california agriculture who was the property owner but they didn't i mean the point is a lot of things could have happened but it it seems to me from that all the way through frankly your honor i was the attorney for howard in representation unrelated to the processing that so i i can only rely on what the city intent i understand why you feel that way as a practical matter but what i'm trying to figure out is that if you play that out it would mean that in virtually every taking case we'd be in the court of appeals and we'd be trying to figure out  wonder if it was futile i wonder if they might change their mind or you know there's all kind of political and other issues that go on in this palette so how can the ninth circuit try to figure  because i think it is clear that it's creditors one has absolutely no capability of submitting any kind of plan for any kind of development as a lean over again a piece of property and thereby you are completely constrained from basically satisfying what is the first prong of williamson and on that i see an the equally relevant i believe that the make development impossible are property that is not the case one must look at what the land use controls are in this case the lender to the news control issue are more than a general function of the general plan was not to prohibit residential development on the property it was to reduce the total number of residential units which could be developed property therefore the property clearly still developed residential development was ever actually commenced on the property to assure that if i could use the vernacular that the homes built would not slide down the hill it was not her control the property in question and the simple fact that governmental entity holds when used control authority over property is not on our opinion under california law converse very int ownership or control of real property the trust in bankruptcy maintains the right to pursue the city until the very last and in the record under what are you saying that you could have the trust life we are basically bound untie by the bankruptcy laws and so that we make the people protection and due process argument regulatory takings or any kind of regulation on y m that particular corporation in this case might own it would be a different matter because then there would be no regulations that would prevent the property from
compared to other cases certainly there are more cases there are cases where the events are much more horrendous than here what makes this something that rises to the level of persecution well with we go to well founded fear well the board just  and this is where i mean i was going to get to that point but don't have a lot also threatened that and they kept it there for according to her for three hours and heard tormenting her although for her she said that they did not specifically beat her out they knew her so they so there by i mean she she can't even practice because of the problems that are witnesses of them having in and being able to establish any place of worship in russia in addition to practice of persecution against armenians in russia that's not true for the court held that there was a pattern and practice of discrimination and that pattern practice of discrimination combined with the twice in the hearing and did not make that up to anything that happened to her again let me ring come back to the beginning the court can reverse only if the fines evidence that compels contrary conclusions severe enough to constitute persecution persecution is going to extreme concept it requires really horrendous shocking crushing shocking activities and it does not include right my recollection is that they were talking about the long while the petition relies on and i'm happy to discuss that loft i think what was going on at that time was the law had been passed which restricted religious organizations  attorney can see that jehovah's witnesses are free to practice in the i guess organizations as well as the as the individual free to practice before so that really put the kybosh around he when this law was enacted there was unprecedented religion religious freedom in russia after the fall of the soviet union was a law passed everyone was permitted to practice and those witnesses increased by you page eighty five of the record that she talked about when we were harassed by russians so she did for at least something with regard to
theory of the prosecution your client was convicted because of the actions that he took or the investigation not to necessarily further the drug trafficking by mafia well by seeing what back your partner's play here and your partner is kind of in a jam and now the captain is coming down on us and now the f b i says here and they want to know what your partner did with these drugs that are missing from the evidence room and  was present when the drugs were supposedly burned and when he claimed that the c n n my attorney general authorized him to burn the drugs so that that's all basically the cover up we drug dealers all the time i said there was testimony as to what they normally did for the department of public safety and why can't the jury couple that knowledge with the testimony of the judge  maximum would be ten years usually twenty years which would have would be two years for purpose deflect attention from his partner i mean maybe he did it by his words but it's it's back to the same thing as trying to for example change the license plate on a car or hide a guy i mean he is trying to do you when you content to any knowledge present there was no evidence whatsoever in the record that my office was in any way a drug user and his partner and booth somebody would have had knowledge the jury could certainly reasonably infer about mathis's drug use if any be that the act the conduct to which you are an accessory has to have completely ended he relies on one case for that that's us versus taylor taylor found that the facts were convicted in the sensory can't be expressed read anything so of course the point of being expected to raise to aid the principle and yourself and i see him over time but i did want to address if maybe briefly the sensing argument there is no a right furthermore there was a jury verdict of ice of more than five grams in the actions of record where the verdict is found on page seventy two the jury clearly found
subsequent prosecution for her of all the session of a controlled substance in the controlled substances case case number zero eight c f three zero five eight violate those rights accordingly miscarries his conviction in the controlled simultaneous possession of items that were found in the same search the argument that the state was unaware of the multiple offenses arising from those items found in the same search is simply just not tenable and importantly i would note to the court that violation have article three section three of the criminal code in article three section four of the criminal code beginning with section three if the multiple offenses are based upon the c max known to the proper prosecuting officer at the time management of the action the state tainted a conviction for an offense and in this self you can prosecution that is for a separate offense that should have been brought in the former prosecutor and both of those elements are also status by this case there is a commission in the hand in this case in january of two thousand  show that again you know you could look at this in any number of ways illinois has to be dead in terms of simultaneous possession of masses none of those factors and i suppose that would be one of the factors under sink or with location and you know we make that  cases like this which are based on the second provision under three dash four which does not have a cation of double jeopardy but which is a separate and actually larger right given to defendants in illinois which is that they have the right it's not just on the state's burden under the discovery growth but it is awesome the defendant she heard and she wrote that she was a pro se but you know there is certainly has to be discussion between her and her defense attorneys and whether there is a defense attorney defendant could not the prosecution for the cocaine if it was raised but he did not and so we believe that there was a burden on both sides you know and we are not suggesting that we carry our burden and that we did what we should have done compulsory joining protections and double jeopardy protections in section three there are three section four are of equal importance of equal magnitude and so they are on the state level and the rate of compulsory charter is subject to the plain air doctrine and i submit that this court should section of paragraphs ago under section three article three section three if the court orders that there be a separate trial defenses that are miscible i suppose there could be a waiver but there's no evidence in the record to show that in this particular case what i'm getting at
argument fyi was lying on the bed he was sitting on the her head was in his lap he took the gun place into her forehead and of the trigger it was a click is an empty chamber and he raised the gun above or had him to that wall and you there was a comparison though made by the forensic experts back in two thousand and two and there was testimony about their comparison and so the dispute now is about whether the the the risk that we run that that the jury could find that that hundreds of an inch is significant there's a difference among the experts the state says on the bench does not make a difference and the defense says it's everything there's absolutely no risk it's our position narrowly tailored and it doesn't prohibit the state from prosecuting the defendant with the evidence that remains that's the end there is really nothing else to talk about the state doesn't seriously contend that this case can't be prosecuted prosecution that is sufficient to to find the court not abused its discretion on there isn't a single case in the state briefs that suggests that the trial court was required to go along with this proposed remedy violation the problem of the state's argument is that the trial court's broad discretion to craft an appropriate sanction does not depend at all on whether the the defendant can show that the state might be strange explanation for how we determine the lightning correction for that matter even if his personal rate was actually zero rover's still had a right to have an expert examine the bullet the state still violated discovery when it he worked on thousands of pieces but again didn't specify what type of analysis he did and in the vacuum any of them are in he didn't specify whether a second examiner or how many of those he says a second examiner would've gone in and rea procedure he asked for assigning five pieces here and random to in other examiners look at but he didn't give any specific permission about how many times water short work is evaluated the fact that the record doesn't contain a number for this he did in those cases and what the disputed conclusions were but that just means that the record is a big mess and because it's him big us it has to be construed against the state and against its claim that that number is zero  you your honor if i can is clarify one thing from my opening argument i thought this is mick tate in response to your question and agreed that we were taking a chance to put in front of the jury all of the evidence i did not think i was conceding that
all right and i have the microphone in front of you it is not for amplification it's strictly for recording and because we have a lot of competition outside if you would keep your choices up i'll be depreciated i also tell you agree to it but it sounds to me you say the standard in this whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the department the da and chase determination was clearly why is this case any different than any other administration for a few case where the circuit court simply looks at what the agency did and determines whether it was clearly erroneous what is just a question have to do with it  because it was a case of a right but now the driver under the commission i don't i don't understand how the mechanism works in terms of regents it sounds like a penalty to me employer have been doing things for years and everybody understands thing at the next going to disrupt that somehow that enters into the interpretation of the c with regard to the practices of the employer employee most of the cases talk about when you're there is a substantial issue with cannot contract for what is illegal under state law and that goes back to what i was just saying and there's nothing per se illegal abolished you're saying to a tribe or hers you gotta check the freshman states on the pad to put on shelves and you have to get it off the shelf before the sound bite we don't want stale beer on our customer shelves so you say they can't competition this even if i assume your position is even if they put it in the collective bargaining agreement that stale beer left on the shelves will result in a deduction from the point use wages for the value of the beer you would say they can't do that because of section nine right they so you're saying because of section nine that was standing in the negotiation with pays each employee each driver would have to sign an individual consent and if they didn't there's no way commission the commission paid based on still here they can do that but they have to do it in advance before the money is paid out to the employee because once the money is is a the commissions of the draw so they contend that this is somehow a component of the commission structure they they themselves admit it is a charge against the employee deduction that requires the
his position is that the jurisdiction effects of the outer scope so that for example if the quote mischaracterizes limited remained as a general agreement that would affect the jurisdiction of the court but we don't have the problem in the opposite direction and therefore it can be waived by the defendant for not raising it so i don't have enough to my knowledge that hasn't specifically been addressed by this court and the for purposes of argument that this was a general rule may and it was a court to revisit all of its initial calculations guidelines calculations conduct a sentence in the moon but it doesn't specifically require the court to calculate the guidelines range