MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
six is never used i think that by the way there's a good reason for that is an economic reason rather than a legal reason since the end of world war two housing prices real estate prices have generally risen and when prices are rising there was room very little need to have a sale of we're we're not where the sale is insufficient to pay off believes the mortgages and the flames and it's only in our recent years particularly since the recession  in two thousand and eight that this has become an issue and i believe it is a major issue here i think there is the horse trouble or was stuck am and frankly lost in terms of two statutes secure creditor fully secured with get fully paid out of the proceeds of the sale first they saw the case that said you can have satisfaction without full payment which is true but you need to call you needed agreement and in this
whatever you like and identify yourself for the record pl ok that was inconsistent with your client's statement to the police as to what occurred that night those droplets if in fact they were i standing with it and it's completely inconsistent with his client state yet the the seats and run of the rest of the seats and i believe one of the window shades the interior of them so when you say phew i mean it's it's probably it doesn't that i'm in the other locations so away from the area and this is an unusual closely balance because there was no alternative theory really there was a circumstantial case by the state i think we all agreed circumstantial there was no direct
judgment just for the judge to figure out what's going to be admissible evidence at the time of trial and i know that it is far as a given question for example which by the way is not one of the boston seven
a storm water drainage across this farm that has cause problems with the farm so down planning times eight parts of the far we in this section it grants discretionary unity yes the nation's given by the only supreme court for there to be discretionary immunity there first of all has to be some public policy issue pushed it on this and made you know he just altered the direction of the water was flowing and forced it on to this farm which is you know the opposite of the way it's supposed to occur and that's why god has such a al al and in turn from new york by she lives on the yang the yangtze river in china that's where her home is it's the third largest stream beach basin in the world and if i if there are no more questions thank you for your cou didn't rebuild the right place but three larger dollars under the road and to prevent the water from coming over the top of the road there for thereby making the road say i don't think it's fair for the how to argue that there was a change in the drain briefs the argument is is presented that the trial court somehow didn't explain rationally i think the absence of a bystander for which he had every right to do that every betaine safer roads and that whole policy and an discretionary act balances the interests of the various parties which is another standard here for reviewing actually wrote it or if the ac
statements from each side you have to have a statement concerning offer no statement regarding the acceptance statements going back and forth this is the one of the courage of the agreement promises all of this is agreement where the oral or any record or that were created however is very well for the court understand that none of those various versions of the settlement agreement changed any substantive terms they were minute small changes in release language for
if i doubt she hates seems to go to waste and especially since it's already paid for honest i just can't  started on your career right now go on let's go rehearse they just audition and i go out tonight we're going to bring you somebody that didn't even auditioned as a matter of fact i don't even know his name so let's bring him out of the big  don't remember you being up there before i used to live here you didn't know i know you're a singer i got some your records back to correct i used to be  it's not all story very tiring a few years ago the fashion was handsome young man with wavy hair now it's kid you don't even have to understand the word thing you ever have to pay for anything no room you know why because you can't you haven't got any money at him no i don't that's part of the golden i guess nothing lasts forever so mike and i decided to go our separate ways that was the day i got the fat and the what you never heard of a fast pencil all large you will and when you are turned out i could show us a set of books that turns over and plays that every nickel that comes in goes out for expenses somewhere along the line you sign away all your oil why no you're not just saying all this because well because i'm a drunk or has been bo publicity stunt i heard a couple of guys tackle a publicity stunt just the sort of thing that a stinker would call stingaree you heard me needed a place to sleep he's a good work hard you should be careful you don't know anything about him you might still everything in the place it's a matter of fact he does x i'll get rid of it right now that's five calls today i don't know what they're worried about is that good don't show up i'm the one that's going down the great a and the penalties for parts for all those they averaged out at take mccauley for twenty dollars i won't tell the newspapers don't know about that but i thought we agreed that you wouldn't leave me you know who that is of my kids so far million records does seven t v shows and i don't know how many personal parents every kid in this country is buying stuff with my picture on it and i haven't got anything on except six suits and one a good time and i left all those back are you saying i cheated you didn't show up you want to come down the office look at the ok we've got everything up everybody come on out sure i guess you met my brother ted your brother what is he was told you but in case you forgot it's on the tape an honest cop from now on me i wouldn't keep you around but think you can use you he says you're smart nice ever to say that so there's more going on line once we put this tape recording on the hit parade
paid up way ceased well only covering whatever test that there may have been but also future sales school the duration of the pets that's true isn't and the distinction it should be of a mystery about this but there is  the trial court is that he was approached by security he testified that they were unsure what they were going to do in the future but they wanted to make sure that their private lives were going to be covered if stand in the shoes of the parties and what we have in this case is a defendant that was essentially selling devices that they bought they were not made even the vices the other licensees were manufacturers
so much trouble is plenty of land here for everybody and a few acres where you have can cause any hard feelings i should think this could be settled in a friendly way i have to pass morgan's right on my way
eighteen must be accompanied by an adult close or just some would say the december case that i'm aware of requires that the person who should have done something needs to say to affirmatively affirmatively say i accept that thirty the question is not whether they say i accept the jury but whether the person in mr ross assures under these circumstances might mission of really believe that that person will in fact do something and the irony here is sheer greed i should have done something so the very thing that mr
to know first should we be looking at this person and we're retaliation in the context of a private citizen or public employee troopers your honor i believe that there are other reasons for justifying the district court's decision i've had to find strong credibility and agreed with the idea that it clearly does upholding the district court's decision on
yes and i think that's important thank you again because we can't tell whether michael smith was the last one to have sexual relations with mary smith that's a task is there any conflict between the testimony of witness byrd versus witness paulson as here no conclusion could be drawn
the only testimony could be what would likely happen in alexander county when i read it what he said was that the testimony of drips revealed that he did not have a sufficient basis to render wife but i guess the question isn't what i'm leading to this if dress testimony was it was negligence to follow him and alexander county but then drip says that i really don't know anything about  never have a case there and so that's the basis upon judge top hopkins decision that he had an insufficient body of knowledge or experience or whatever to render that opinion  ok now now that that brings up a good point because the way i read judge parks decision he's saying ok you could send a disclosure he's going to rely on the statistical analysis but you provided just part with no affidavit or  step was before the court then your summary yes so we have to find that judge parker error of finding that because you didn't follow two thirteen affidavit and drabs but for that fact you would be entitled to go forward with your with down and testify i've reviewed this i've studied whatever alexander county cases you know you know i've never tried one here myself but i've done a study of this and in my opinion the place should've got more than two hundred thousand
charges the substance of the charges of this he was present in an apartment one witness said he wasn't invited he said he was invited by her boyfriend or was it was it whether it was a h or in the judge to this point what evidence is there to infer that the defendant knew he was being chased by the police that the police were investigating  the person being chased asked the defendant do any if he was that concerned about him being apprehended by the police and it doesn't show that for it so
case here and obviously the question is whether there was qualified immunity did he ever make any of the statements outside the office did he call a press conference was he interviewed publicly  correct me my understanding is that he brought this issue about these false allegedly false florence to his supervisor you know and all of this discussion of that when i was within the office he even though it was he was speaking and writing simply reporting problems in the department was supposed to be investigating by the public concerned so how are we misconduct and they lied on a search warrant we should prosecute and suppress that information that's correct i think the critical difference here is fear's time and again i don't have the benefit and i do remember a lot of cases in a belief in doing his professional duties to call a press conference where they've been going to the supervisor and say look there's there's police misconduct here and rather than go believed firmly by leave that the officer was absolutely lionel tate actually manufactured and let's just take it make a little more hypothetical that was that there was it wasn't even a close call in his mind it was a much more material aspect not just the distinction between a driveway industry and in fact they dropped the gun there or they have you know all the things we hear that cops can do to manufacture evidence he had but his supervisor said no you're not going to our job is to investigation so it's a real problem the question that's being posed here and that they're trying to present in their arguments and their brief says this is a little blowing on police misconduct in the sheriff's department and he was squelched and you're saying no it's the first between whatever the speech was and the bad things that started to happen to the requirement is that there has to be a substantial or a motivating factor speculating but those investigative reports didn't necessarily have to you know include ultimately i think i don't think implicated what the  when you view the parts of the case in its proper context we have here a memorandum that is unusual in one respect it directly and indirectly accuses police officers of fabricating in probable cause fabricating evidence that think or now that or whether he just assumed responsibility for the cates himself because what i wanted to focus on at this point was that this was not a routine memorandum and also the full context of what happened in street we do not believe that he was permitted to do that because of the constant objections by the by this my superior that we didn't take the hair off but when we are in a in a courthouse in a motion to traverse in a public courthouse now we have a public made outside the office i thought he told me no i can't answer for him but i'm just looking at the record that you have before you and in the record that you have before you hear me in the transcript of the hearing did in this case triggered the retaliation from resigning and of murder cases taking off of murder cases really therapy but it was part and parcel of what he was doing what i wanted to focus on is that this is not as my honorable
scrutiny to apply in regards to this matter and i was admit they clearly strict scrutiny is warranted it is warranted here for a number of reasons first of all i like both arms and hands this and that in across the board public nudity prohibition justice o'connor in writing to the plurality in past space behind them time again we know that this is that across the board prohibition the mere fact that one of the reasons that the governments might summary judgments to the city of beverly hills and this issue of number one the closing requirements of the ordinance and the expansion of licensing and regulate regulatory provisions in regard to substantiation the government then didn't present any new evidence for your current type of justification what the government did was they presented to the court the case or to levy the california court of appeals decision which of then later in he is clearly in his first ruling he denies the motion for permanent injunction then i think by only motion for summary i'm sorry a motion for reconsideration and i said we'll only thing left open is the question on whether this court has jurisdiction you can consider the subsequent september order which tonight and summary judgment under the almeida both cases i believe the court believes that there was an adequate evidence three days of this before the city council to support its adoption only thing that the trial court district court ruled on there are a ton of other objections constitutional challenges which he has left to articulate exceptions all of that doesn't exist here give the appeal they have attempted now to appeal that holding if we simply affirm of the district court would they be barred from challenging that holding back in the district court i believe so they would be barred from really getting the we've got a lot of agree that we've been trying to clear away at least that and the issue on the parking and a couple of the other issues that he dealt with in the order it seems to me from now when we're back for the ninth circuit really arguing this question of the evidence tree basis for the ninety nine and the one ordinance is it's a problem with piecemeal appeals frankly so but yes slipper made a couple of offhand remarks there potentially have very consequences if the court were to take him seriously he said for example that the ordinance ought to be subjected to strict scrutiny it was the same hundred dealers and prohibition against ordinance and entertainment and entertainment and the supreme court make a finding things are content neutral we don't care what you say it's the fact that you're saying that we're regularly right and that it is my belief what  in the last time i checked that was the first requirement
marriage it has been contended by point is that there has been a violation of their copyright of their rights under the copyright malleable if you will that you could take disparate were somewhat inconsistent positions subject matter of the contract between that that may be the case except is there anything in the corpus mcgraw hill agree that entitle the photographers to these  model of those documents but assuming that of those photography photographs that were authorized by virtue of those ingredients results in the e u specifically identification of these photographers and as a result of that dedication and purchase of is conserved correct but we would submit not so far as the copyright act presents for copyright infringement is a claim better than it it is it's a jag s doesn't it matter whether or not the existence of them license is conceded and we we're talking out of a contract countries between chorus and mcgraw but ultimately if there were a license to be found here that license would be arriving from the contractual arrangement between your client word search the word doesn't appear anywhere in the thing so in addition to where we sort of chastised mr hard about that a panel of this court can overturn a prior pedal we also nature of the relief side here mandamus i was going to ask you if just a split among the judges in the eastern district of pennsylvania points to arise from the copyright that well or somehow you take an affirmative defense because in the affirmative defense you may have some evidence to the feds yourself for lessons that somehow
again this is one of the five guys and wells that are all around western pennsylvania we had the well tested up reconstruction and post contraction to make sure that there wasn't any leakage and the the banks which are getting a little more particular in a lot of areas they seem to have pushed back on these kind of things because of it d p says they've had calls and threats from turney's and homeowners i can't buy th space which used to be its would still be used by tracts farms as it has a farming area the the top of the hour right now is about eight foot below the final surface there isn't so it's referencing sunnydale lane but it's not written right on the road so in the serv crime was going to increase property values are going to decrease traffic was a bit of a concern you know there were other positive comments about the open initiatives by the township accounting to incentivize someone to say four percent of all units is to be set aside for low income which there is a push for that now nationally but it's not yet hit or a local l
minds with lying about their parents to make your children fear their parents that's what happened here there were three unbiased professionals in that room well that expect in a civil court trying to determine the best interests of a child problem problem will cause is the equivalent of proponents of the evidence and no cl based on all the evidence you heard including every seen the witnesses and their demeanor and decided he wanted to believe that rauf was the better it was hear if there is some reason that you are uncomfortable with that i ask you to please remanded with instructions and have another hearing but it would be best for this to be completed so the children finally settle in a place where they know where they are going to be your reply brief you have that you say that it's this patience father states that the patient told him that she was hit by a mother with a flyswatter posable is that what we're talking about in the emergency room report or all say it same thing if it should not and cannot be disregarded it's simply cannot be in the best interest of nicky and likely to be raised in a household where their mother will be vilified revile
i pronouncing that correctly background to this case in this well over is a major brazilian who speaks four languages and has an undergraduate degree from a higher state university in international relations but it was the withdrawal was based on her conduct you see in terms of the process to be in a straighter process and and the hearing itself said she would so what do we do in that circumstance where relying upon her commitments or representations in the flight court there's two points i want to may first to clarify the factual circumstances around the hearing and the judge's absence which are relied on so heavily leave a message asking her well what about my witnesses they won't be available on monday are you will you will you guarantee that we'll have a hearing later and said he simply left a message saying i've discussed with my client lan appeal joint appendix one fifty eight was faxed to the board so when the judge returned to the office on wednesday she had not only the message from the judge of the phone message but she had  resolved this all of the things to predominantly focus on the testimony of them on this one witnesses accusations whenever we want to call them they were relied on upon by the agency were they not taking the action against the appellant the princes so with the agency planning on calling this witness this person is a witness and board precedents that suggest that a procedural error in the course of the proceedings can render the withdrawal of the appeal involuntary you know i don't believe there are any cases and i didn't find any collective bargaining grievance procedure where there are various rules you might tell us that withdrawing their appeal because they thought that would ensure them of the ability to go to arbitration agreements but they were wrong classic type of dog to learn about whether these actions are going to be taken at face value or not and you know there are some mitigating circumstances like this which you can bring forward and it's my understanding that our judges generally in the appellant will make take greater pain sure that they understand what they're doing but here we have a motion that says the petitioner hereby moves to dismiss  case was absolutely a violation of due process in terms of the way the pretrial methods were conducted it's your view that under certain circumstances that would justify been withdrawn before hand or is your view that that c were seeking extraordinary early intervention by the board would be permitted sort of like a mandate so i don't know many cases like that it just seems that withdraw all intuitively jackley the wrong thing to do because that prevents further review which is what you want of course in those situations ok the judge len you have any questions for mr maher i have further ok thank you  nothing nothing for
honor it's not really in the reason that it's different there is that and in that case the issue was whether or not the person should be granted asylum in judge anything from the court deciding the main issue in this case was which is requested a meeting on that is who is the proper facility in for immigration cases no matter what happens the court is going to be manned the case back to the district court for determination  several months at least and and i can find those dates i don't have those and funny when weren't we have nothing further than what the government submitted to confirm that but but what i'd say about that is that we don't believe that the doctrine should be applied here even if you assume that he has let us before we get to that just let me ask one more question and then you can live through with what you want to say about that issue how long should the court wait how long should we wait for gone well what i think should happen in this case and that is that the current the court as it's has has devoted such as so many resources to this case in this issue already and as the parties to be first extensively over the last couple years and because it's  no no i mean with respect to whether or not i don't think that with respect to whether or not there for a role should be revoked i think that those decisions are made after the individual has been arrested and then by the field office director if i'm not
the the procedural versus something to the distinction must be take into consideration when you're looking at that line and what it what those liabilities mean we have all these cases out there
which the allegation was that a traffic sign was in the stall in that case immunity would not apply because they decided that it was a ministerial