MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
trooper that stopped him came came up to the action your side of his vehicle was the only boat out the window trooper talk to him from the passenger side of the vehicle took mr malone his license and registration the scotts one violation on the side of the road which was wow which indicated there these guys were in it this was an introduction officer based upon the information that he had  car and observed in the car at the top of what he believed it some sort of cannabis in it and he then started questioning mr maloney without the benefit what would constitute the interrogation i mean from miranda or what where he was going where he was coming from what did he have in the trunk what did he act the trunk itself those were the kind of things that were asked of him what could he actually say if i say i smell cannabis i can go ahead and search this car if there's no cannabis the guy is going to go on his way and he's not going to be complaining so we don't know whether there's a history of of positive hits or negative having this officer come ops he's had in the car claiming that he's not something but not until after he looked in this cop because he thought he was going to get his probable cause from this cop and he wanted the probable cause because talk about this this five if he this is an unusual case of the sentencing aspect the five fifty g is unconstitutional as applied to mr maloney for this reason in this world today fifteen maybe today it's seventeen percent voting off or to just past medical marijuana there's recreational marijuana available in several states just the same or said you know if i could i would give you probation you're the guy simple the test is does the sentence shop the conscience of the community and at this point in time with the gallup poll showing over i think whale fifty percent in favor of legalization fifteen seventeen states i believe have medical marijuana which unfortunately has become the wink wink of of legalization three states have legal recreational marijuana five thousand thirty three hundred grams of marijuana when five thousand can be for personal use i'm not sure how that happens but it shocks the conscience of the community to understand that penalty which is from a public policy standpoint as you probably figured out of the last twelve years my conscience doesn't get shocked that easily and that this is pretty bad and well that what we can do about it is we're in the wrong building i th what about the probable cause on this case i believe that there is the problem is that we might see it on the video pick the  never filed postville motions whatsoever so it certainly can't be said  five thousand three hundred grams it's you know tipping the scale a little bit maybe with an argument it could live given the judge they had ability there was no money found there was no you know packaging
the money from the state and down that mill to do the other right and the idea i know there are some concerns for the security so we can include that into the resolution as far as some of the for example california has brought for legislation that require that says registered sex offenders or those with violent felonies cannot be a driver so we could include that in our resolution of support i think that would be a positive  attracting new businesses into the city especially tech companies those individuals want to use tech based and lift and also creates jobs for example in chicago thousand jobs created not granted chicago is huge but it is a job creator of those in the city to have an opportunity that they might not have even on a part time basis to earn a little extra money so i think this would be a positive step for for the city this president brought up the in our conversation brought up the issue of competition from a pure economic perspective those background checks are done by the companies not done by state and i think that's something that if the state is going to do this i think they really have to push and i hope it's a state resolution that local municipalities and local counties on its own because i think that will become just too messy for everybody everywhere driver realizing coming into city is going to be known in albany county and what those rules and regulations are going to be for each of them so again i would like to see the resolution before it gets because again they're going to be regulating the fares and rules and regulations all taxicabs in the capital region and i would really like to see them undertake hooper as well if that's could be a part of it i talked to i talked to him on the the third monday for a committee cycle in january so we're going to maybe possibly a missed brazil and so on down and speak to us as a as an entire consul and just give us some updates what's happening with that and what do we need to do and more for her or do we wait for them but just to get an update i think from him would be nice as a city council as well where they're moving on that right and i know so i think this is very very good for business but i think we also need to realize that this will cut down on a lot of drinking and driving i think you know that's something that we need to kind of keep the forefront i think you know just based on a lot of the different individuals that own different stephens throughout the entire capital region and you'll see it a huge decrease in drinking and driving if we have the ability to have a new were really it's reasonable way to get home after a night of partying you know worrying about having to get behind will a car so i think it's it's
testimony about some of the purpose are the prior to that how she was looking at she was acting the one girl tried to anderson water she said is not water clearly paranoid behavior very taking you through circumstantial evidence as to a contributing cause i know that you're not arguing the cause of death but as i as i listen it's sort of sounds as though you want to create a standard persuasive argument that because of the unique facts of this case it is not enough to simply say well she took all these various drugs when i'm happy to be l s d therefore delivering more than ten objects containing it was because of their sentencing range was fifteen to thirty years in prison as opposed to what would be a normal classic six different is that correct from brittney griner i spent some time on this court i believe this to be your best evidence that she was asked to shoot anyone who was taking l s d he answered yes there was a lot of people how many people do you believe perceive this to the quote was i personally
then in chicago there was a law on the books that said in order to get a handgun to get a gun permit i believe that what you had to do some training and then it said ranges could be in the city  firearm in pubs there was a felon that was convicted in the state argued that well this is constitutional as applied to him because he's a felon and the court said no that's not how it works that's not an element of the law that doesn't say on the on its face that you have to be a felon the heller's analysis should apply which is that you know you do it historical and traditional analysis and you determine whether it's consonant with the history of the right to keep and bear arms and if the answer is no it's unconstitutional without any scrutiny analysis prevail if that level but even under intermediate scrutiny under mccall and as i said the supreme court has said you can't just immediately go to some broad prophylactic regime there was a thirty five dollars foot buffer zone around the entrance abortion clinics without trying other things st and the court specifically said if you've got some sort of outlier law that is not a law that is to put that other states have you face a headwind you know that's kind of a some evidence that you don't really need to and needs to purchase the firearm in order to possess it those are connecticut hawaii iowa maryland michigan the brask new jersey north carolina rhode island massachusetts
but i think bed regardless if he's if he's passing him at that speed you know whatever over fifty five he can he can still ask for speeding the correct interpretation of that of that should be that he she obtained reasonable grounds by observing him seems to be wrong i think that would be the proper  pass the car is that at this point i mean you don't need it you don't need a case against the defendant you don't need a case and at this point you just the probable cause you don't need
welcome to the democratic process for a time somewhere around eleven thirty before the discussion and i would also ask that all motions are to be made in the affirmative robeson or the both of his or her potential by providing quality productive educational experience the school board also always acts on behalf of the people of the community and continually lower tax rate than the prior year even though education spending is up three point seven nine percent roman is down slightly and the statewide race card rate is up two percent educational life and bed in our community thank you would be the time in which to any other related items the good and brought up at this point in time are there any issues that anyone would like to bring up that we've put money in the budget this year to tackle the deficit so our xperia no longer here with that but in order to keep from having deficits every year we have to take a look at our food service programs throughout the district driving to what is best for both the students as on and the taxpayer and that and that's what's occurring at this time differences between the programs and i couldn't tell you whether what they option if that was defeated then and if there's any other tool thank you and the other callers questions first time around yes me alone right up front  and the expertise level to manage that type of office i think that that would have to be handled through the town manager who has his hands all running our day to day and age of the rest of our long a question regarding public employee the rich being economic development maybe did a survey on line about this probably in love with the town like to see we then hired josh bessie  is there someone from what would you like to do with  allocated contracted point that you know momentary putting into it you know there might be a line that would describe that but what i what i don't see easily calculated here is is that under the thirty thousand their designated routes they don't go to town to radar seem known are you ready for the question the water you any other business
she also failed then especially when compared to what she was giving up it was so does west with distaste that she get the whole two hundred twenty three thousand back or has that been diminished over the that would be my position if we ever get and think a public interest down there is the recognizing that elderly couples do want to get married and they do want to protect their assets for their children of their prior marriage whether that remarriage ended by way of divorce or death  that yes he did not follow the agreement of the current optional agreement but they did not find that a basis to rescind the agreement they said that they would do is convert that annuity to a trust to comply with the original terms of the it's tough and they anticipate nine hundred eighty sets when they're entering into this and choosing this law provision that sometime at a later date that law and change which could make the whole agreement invalid and that's i mean you almost have to look at the changed they get older people get sick they lose them so capacities and the it would seem that the time when you should be looking is when you're actually having to deal with the issues that i agree it was a twenty nine year marriage but let's also remember that after nineteen years of this they did acknowledge that original agreement in their agenda on some realistically when we're dealing with the period of time in illinois we're dealing with a nine year period of time  and then i guess i have to go back to does this violate illinois public policy i don't think it does because i don't think they could fulfill the three factors necessary to show the unfairness provision even in the state of illinois the first of those factors has to
the real problem here cancel that although it appears that the trucker had some issues of credibility with both parties the bottom line your finances didn't produce things to back out what
on futility i haven't heard anything yet here this morning as to why the district court was wrong that giving you another chance is futile but that's that's we're here cork out well not there was anything there to get past the pleading stage but we don't have that we don't have that complaint in front of us technically in this case that you're trying to get that you are asking to have the right to amend ok so you're still going to be back in the district court with a motion to
that in my best professional opinion that c fags see s injury as a self buys her subjective complaints and nothing else and that's what's in the record and therefore the jury is free to sad that the testimony of the fourth could be surgery that the recovery from the surgery was savage that she admitted it was the wrong after the surgery she was bad she was bad so therefore the jury could have the sad that in  whether the plate to suffered a serious injury and the back question is answered in nature returning a verdict for all of her medical bills as well as answering the special interactive toy in the affirmative the jury obviously believed that not recently released to the mass sustained when you take the evidence as a whole and defense counsel is arguing for a piecemeal analysis of the evidence that was presented at trial i'm looking at direct examination and cross examination of various witnesses in a vacuum it's never and that subsequent cases including toys require the quotes you deal with the evidence as a whole and when you do would submit that under these circumstances under all of the evidence including the objective findings of the the trader's particularly dr barrett himself i would submit that they do not get to punish her to this degree and that and the extended injury only was disputed and the the jury in that case was not free too to you nothing at all or for pain lots of range of motion in lots of normalacy as well as pain and suffering that the fifteen hundred dollar words do really essentially amount to zero wor certainly states that the trial courts in the best position to evaluate the testimony of the witnesses and the credibility and set an under that standard i would certainly say that deference to get into the  a consistency between the subject of complaint and the objective factors and with the surgery or with the surgery and part of this nature fair and me the conservative treatments that were given in fail i do think that the subjective
creates a system which carries on the side of filing charges it promotes an inadequate investigation and it kind of creates a situation where prosecutors racing to bring a federal case what are the factors that the federal prosecutors are supposed to consider before  be invoked if he's sitting there in this particular case there apparently was a misunderstanding between the tribal prosecutor and the tribal defense attorney and despite this misunderstanding the dispensed attorney didn't go out and say hey why is my client still sitting  language of priority so long as it sort of fights somewhere down the line then it's ok and i would ask the courts just take a look at the record certification part of it which parts about uses the word in school compared to the first part of the and i understand your argument your argument is that as soon as the certification was filed which i presume means filed in federal court that's correct there is no corresponding document think it's filed with going to trial they know there are no other tribal charges about to be prosecuted they may be hanging out there are subtle marks they know what's the practical plan but the only reason he's now being detained is because he's about to be tried why shouldn't that
there you're really not seeing an explicit waiver you're saying there's kind of an implicit waiver in the fact that they copied the claim jim asked him to conduct interference that's back to whether this is litigation conduct what do you do with the second ninth circuit cases in the quintin and quote the say administrative procedures don't waive n really could be seen as just a judicial a stop case right they waited for the results and didn't like it and then they said all of now we're going to be immune and it was a little light isn't that a way of looking at things in new hampshire case it certainly raising the think you're not really relying on the fact that this was an administrative proceeding with a statutory appellate path one of the first things that you told us was that your argument would be the same if in fact this interference issue had been initiated in the district court rather than as an appeal that is correct yes i think it is safe to be absolutely i realize that's not the issue here right when i'm trying to understand where you believe but if you really are relying on waiver by the initiation of let's say litigation by the state don't you have a much weaker case then if you  relying on the statutory right of appeal from an administrative proceeding however the state got into the administrative proceedings i understand you say yes i think so that say that the state did not copy the claims that they were just there in the patent office did what it's supposed to do is to find conflicting claims between asked for the interference this was a contentious proceeding and doesn't clearly apply an acceptance of subsequent actions that normally result from the conclusion of an interference which is isn't this about the closest thing you can get to litigation in an administrative setting in or part one and the she ate the action there motions it proceeds under the rules of evidence office to declare it records to a long time and to its discretion to them to declare it not they could find another reason why it should not be should not be declared but here if we want to claim that this was the only way to get and we followed the because there are great differences between a direct appeal on the record and you're not naming the state it's it would be like what are you trying guard against you know you're saying that if it's on the record then issues surrounding the state may be different than if the evidence is brought out through testimony that that's exactly right in the district and i think the mckesson cases is not exactly the point that makes draws a contrast between for example the supreme court reviewing state words decisions and having the that you may file an action by naming names party and then just the fact that there's two groups doesn't mean they're both permissible in fact the supreme court upheld that one forty six is not intended to abrogate whereas all the others were related to enforcing the patent which is the form of the federal courts while part of the process i mean that it stays entitled to rais claim anything else right thank you
maybe is the way to say it is there they're not being able to look there are you saying that there's a conceptual axis because when it enters there has to be an opening motion which creates somewhat of an the first full paragraph here it will be figures one through four or is it something else or got this huge shaped spring and it's that u shaped spring that's allowing the separation was but kept a little different from the structure of the accused devices and where there is no spring there are spr the the four springs are in the base of the lower housing of the cliff and i how did those connect to the upper housing they they press the lower housing up into the up housing but there's no connection of the spring to the upper housing is there i think after reports pretty clearly state that there is a connection i have of course but when the levees annex and between the springs and the upper housing one twelve six equivalency to the doctrine or equivalence and if in fact your argument is this known for enjoyment on either theory then this line that you're asking us to draw between our cases which you've gone different ways on different facts may not be quite as compelling or i do think i do think there is a difference in the way the analysis works out in terms of what would be considered ideals of the result of the analysis would be a difference but here the mean plus function limitations does it because the presumption is not over the i'm trying to understand if your defense depends on our finding whether or not one twelve six and or separate relative to one another why aren't you separating the and the springs or allowing that separation and therefore why isn't the specification structure
bridge to collapse with the weight of the st man and horse across so falls a little downstream from the brain i know what if the man goes over the holes he will have a chance i don't want to have a chance neither do i want his death to look like murder it must look like an far to lose those far and have a lone ranger die with them and rescue them most ironic of all is the fact that the lone ranger will die of the hands of the law executed as a worst kind of criminal by the very people he wanted to help ahead we all get the hang if you don't want to be social should i be i don't know anything about you before you know it much as we do about you say what are you here for anyways for the night being moved in the morning and now to continue our story a lone ranger was in jail hoping to learn something from them the men who were with him and he was king of the united states marshall had died when a bridge collapsed the marshal was the only person who could prove that the lone ranger was not you can't you speak any more you that's just what i figured krech never would have suspected that he could have been bribed now you're in for a teacher unless i know enough to interest the right people in getting me out and maybe we can do business start talking they've got a good friend here a mighty powerful friend to reach from the east from washington how do you know that's where the most current leaders of the black reckon self which of the leaders came here and you never hear the name drake said make the right keep it under your hat when i can get word to him i'll let him know that you can take it to the lone ranger if you are let out along with us sure you can do it show you the lone ranger you must have been working some distance from here and we don't know you i have been getting instruction from a different source than you that's what it must depend reckon we're all working for the same  but there isn't a plan to get those five out of jail you'll have some explaining to