MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
me like he was according to him at least being persecuted from day one i mean it is he's being chased around people are after him the police are mistreating him his wife had to flee all the stuff is going on what is i'm i'm wondering what the change condition was didn't solve the sound pretty terrible from day one relevant to the changed circumstances i mean i don't think this is what i would change yeah i mean i had a law clerk many years ago whose husband was a coptic christian had to flee many many many years ago that's not in this record but i mean even from your clients own assertions he was being chased around he was being discriminated against his life was threatened officials were not the police were not helping him in fact there were police that were apparently in cahoots with the radical group all of this happened from day one so i mean what it what is the change condition that's what i think asking well thinking himself or rather vocal opponent but the problem is that they were after him before anyway i mean it's not like he was accepted member of society can the united states exercise what we  consider our first amendment rights he was very vocal criticizing then all of a sudden the death threats started that would be a clear change of conditions but they were chasing him around before work they were very not  asylum and we still don't have to reopen that so they haven't given him an opportunity to really present his case for a need for promptness there is a need to prevent endless delay of removal proceedings and so the burden is on the alien to act diligently to act promptly otherwise as a supreme  evidence of change country conditions took place between december one thousand nine hundred eighty and later two thousand and one six months after that last event when his father was attacked in egypt in the two thousand and one martin gras his second advance may i mean it's one thing for i mean it's awful but it's one thing for small groups to be kind of upset and chasing them around it's another thing for the you know the mullahs to be causing calling for him to and i can think of a lot you can too placed in the position of having to be returned this is only possible really for him at th  his christian religion they were there it looked like more of an extortion it looked like he had a look at complaint so he didn't have a very strong case i think
thank you thank you well i took it to mean although i have to admit now looking at it again i'm not sure that i was correct in my interpretation when i received the order i took it to me that we could grant circuit cation at any existentially i think the court appeal which was in fact presented to this horse between february of two thousand and one in august of two thousand and one you know i was just interested in that because i think it's a matter of fact that that ruling
title of the chapter regarding it's a constitutional challenge didn't say u s constitutional challenge and the federal cases were submitted but the question is whether or not that puts cal supreme court i noticed as you have a very very has he has a what he thinks is a good faith noir like sustainable he hopes argument that the claim is exhausted he has to in the face of of the possibility of that point the claim is not requested to be done in this case we had the opportunity to do
to the other error interpreting the contract is a matter of law by the district court and this is really the st mean issue that we briefed in the papers the district court misconstrue get understanding it at least the part of the purpose of the d the agreements in their various forms was that one corner was going to then make some changes and hansen's to the to the product to do that seems to me you have to have the recipe you're going to add a little more than l or something and two to the recipe so why wouldn't that necessarily sort of imply code it does not allow one to transfer the source code to any other party including the members of the sea and what they've done here is one point to transfer the source code to the members of the  in the contract that require one point to keep the code confidential knew where the contract allowed one point to transfer the source code to anyone outside of one point including the members and your  have the argument changed the hearing is changed now and that's why counsel led with it because it's really an argument that wasn't presented in the original papers as well as  addressed in his written opinion for sure and i would suspect that that's probably because the actual software license agreement itself is physically allows the use of the software products by the paragraph twenty eight dollars so i suspect that the district court didn't pay a lot of attention to the membership of this agreement because in the primary license documents it's allowed to go to sell by looking at the member agreement and the member raymond is allows for escrow the co's for the for the benefit of the companies member as notion that there is a difference i don't know if i've answered your owners question but i think the courts focus was on the license agreement because the license agreement is our defense to the copyright claims and it's actually pretty good bet you're going for twenty years one point our defense to the claims of copyright infringement is the fact that we are licensed under the software development and license agreement and that agreement allows licensing to that is is considered to be extreme to begin with we have had it not routinely granted when we have a party that has paid significantly by and for
interpretation to the national people's division and i believe the language was to the extent they have the authority to do so seven c f r levon point eight prohibits the national peals division from engaging in any hundred eighty nine this court in watkins of the united states army set forth the standard by which equitable stop of planes against the united states government or allies one of the failings in the district court's decision promulgated by congress in fact the one nine hundred eighty seven act credit act itself some nine hundred pages long in the preamble states just that because this agency as well so many regulations themselves talk about three conditions proceed and that if one of those happens over the first five years there's a seventy five percent recapture in the second five years there's a fifty percent and then it says the agreement expires  it's important for you consider the context here which was that congress there were widespread foreclosures congress had created a culture credit act which provided for a number of different kinds of programs to try to help with
case here where the plaintiffs was treating with a primary care physician dating back prior to two thousand and ten and she had a course of treatment over the course of five years at which time she was being treated by this primary care physician during which time she had no knowledge of a brain tumor that was growing inside her and this is the exact type of factor that our supreme court  be no reason to have a rule of talk about continuous medical treatment more a warning to the doctor is going to treat that patient based off of the x stadium over the next five years without their time but it was at every single instance where the doctor conferred with the patient about the the patient's general health and that's one of the things that i think illinois with the advent of the discovery rule in the statute of limitations there was a long tail to the claims made under medical malpractise actions in the general assembly side this is mission is fleeing the state insurers raising their premiums to the point where doctors couldn't practice in order to address that crisis is the term they use they enacted the statute of the polls and the illinois supreme court and the review boards have said that while the statute of continuous course of negligent medical treatment doctrine does not apply to the failure to report on the test results even if we accept that somehow in the four corners time this complaint we can tell that there was iteration of use is when you overlook a great they have global brands going i don't know i don't know i don't know where she went back in to see the physician for this was her primary care physician it might have been for a sinus infection it might have been for because the courts have determined that a failure to advise a test results doesn't constitute medical treatment if it's not medical treatment it can be just the source of continuing negligent movies ordinary  sixteen hearing lies no one except a dismissal with prejudice and i do think that that is a waiver of his attempt to argue that there were any other facts that would have allowed in the state of contacts so cunningham doesn't help that acts that would be a continuous course of negligent treatment that's pacifically referred to in cutting him so that we don't wind up with a situation like we have right now where
all right as are the filming murder
time of the settlement the motion read the content records were made that the district court made no findings of fact no conclusions of law the allegations that were r may your honor when but had a  old where the delaware supreme court found that we superior court in iowa near a decision which was the decision relied upon by the district work but delaware supreme court found secondary basis and if that one of the supreme court held in diamonds was that once you go down the road court said in the dining telegraph case so the concept of indicated were incorrect was that all of the money out of the settlement trust had been improperly distributed back with the evidence demonstrated was that all of the plaintiffs in exactly what they were entitled to receive
pension benefits and the pension plan has been terminated in placed into a trust by the wholly owned fair organization that was created specifically to do just that federal organization that will determine whether or not there's a deficiency will determine whether or not that pension has to be placed into receivership will collect s s distribute assets and eclipse the liability
this appeal present two issues the first being the other mr scott's two convictions and sentences for aggravated battery can stand under the one act one crime won't and the second is whether the state proved there are big facts and little the facts in the case and facts which you would in theory clearly remember in a case such as this one it seems like a really big fact and something you would clearly remember whether or  you know from a medical expert that this laceration is caused by the butt of a gun or a gun in general and the way accidents in two years from sensing the way that mr scott says this incident happened you know he says he fell down the through and then you also have michael williams his wife who changes her testimony quite shockingly that i never saw a gun and i never grasp for a time the idea is that you don't have one single credible witness wh evidence reasonable doubt but i'm distinguishing that case because we have the basically explains that he feared for his safety we have the reasons for the inconsistency is and there are cases in which you know the supreme court has overturned because they think it's just too improbable based on the record mr williams to be is being interviewed by a detective or officer florence correct almost contemporaneously with the event to mean the officer gets there and he's still on the ground that's right now just in the fact that he has blood all over his face and on his hands and they go to the police station  the reason that mr williams was there in the first place was he cons she home said that she is she had too much to drink in she was not going to be able to drive right and then she did here i think tells the officer that was sound asleep when he got there which might be consistent with having too much to drink so we've got some reason in the record for her memory either be not so good or maybe not very effective at the time serious offense in which one should be vacated well  witnesses testimony should also been repeatedly peached and there was also the allegation in that case that she may have had in fact a motive to lie and going back to a question that this court raised  mr williams responds no but we also know that he's been inconsistent with how many times he's been over at that house he says at least ten times in the ocean to suppress and that changes that story at trial cases where for instance you know it's two home invasion counts i don't know where in those cases where they've said that they're free sentencing or it that it has to go back but it does go back in cases where you know agree with my argument that they didn't prove beyond reasonable doubt the deadly weapon that one crime issue is no longer relevant because we're down to the one conviction
review the interview correct and so like you agree that if the situation is one where the state had custody or d c offense had custody carty ship or her children and she was at the mercy of the state in terms of whether or not she would have her children returned to her that that with you know foster traditional foster yes families so i know really quite understand why the fact that they were temporarily place with relatives how that necessarily diminishes the possible inference that the you're making their origin of based upon that the testimony from the victims was similar to what they conveyed to whitaker yes and the video was played through the jury yes ok and you're saying well i guess the way i'm coming trying to look at the totality of circumstances if you know it makes a difference if you say will this hurt you know we had a falling out and she said i'm going to get you or whatever and then the children were taken and the statements were made to me it just adds to what bias and what basis there might be for her to testify and georgina to testify in a certain way i mean you know on one hand you could say well she had it out for him and she coached her girls into making these statements and then while this is standing the state took her children and that gave  even more reason to stick by the story that she had developed and to testify in the way that the state wanted her to testify so that she can get her back i mean is that one way to be reasonable to look at it what i'm just saying to me it somewhat diminishes your argument that she could have been rehabilitated with a prior consistent statement because now there opposing counsel about as far as some type of before disagreement that existed prior to the girl's schooling making the statement to be interviewed yes there there was a
was at work one is one area apparently and i don't know a lot about tests but it's my understanding that she had information regarding the government i don't i'm not sure court's decision on the direct appeal the court found that the fifty six was based upon mr rivera's testimony he provided  she is in charge of being enhanced with something that happened somewhere else she starts with conspiracy which includes the fifty six or so she's attributable to those drugs that were that were found to be part of the conspiracy right correct your o on tape or conceal four kilograms of cocaine on the body of the cooperating witness and then take him back to the burbank airport of the attorneys an explanation as to why he did not make more of the i was at work the count with respect to december eighth and in september twenty sixth i think the answer is there's nothing in the record there is not a transfer explanation that's
argument before the nonprofessional just off the street and nonprofessional off the street but keeping in mind that this was not a staged photograph this was a photograph that africans because at that point in time is like a snapshot that occurs part of their commercial campaign and the question becomes how those commercials start to finish there's no that's right we don't question about that there's actually no question about that but the reason that's a good question because one of the cases  here's value actually increases because the falle you've become something of importance to quicksilver so that's the whole purpose of unjust enrichment that's the way i see it or i would argue to the court one of the primary holdings and he's in israel i would like to reserve sometime to go here stipulated that he was not seeking damages based on a loss of income slash reasonable value approach he cannot prove damages for is unjust and unjust enrichment claim what do you mean  was understanding that he was going to basically from from what i understood happening again hundred dollars a day we recognize that we pay you for your new services but we now like to use this picture with you five thousand dollars is going to wins over you're not here we're not here everything's taken care of everybody's hands but what have in your honor is what  to walk in and at this point i think mister goal here we've simply except some money i mean it took them a while to even accept the ten thousand but realistically that's where he was before the motion for
well maybe maybe he could've argued richard condition is sort of an undeveloped argument they're throwing out possibilities that i could have gone in and said  throwing house out or something like that well i mean if we get right down to it is th signed up for who needed so at that point i guess the defense is saying well i should be creative and come up with equitable stuff or so they even though his greeter condition for filing  there or there was some options some i'm respectfully submitted to this or that at the very least if there was some creative option that i didn't come up with that that as you just keep going when it's apparently case that in the war of applying any but there there was a prematurity argument that could have been made and that was not made so i don't know why it was not made but it was as well whether or not there is a side agreement how does that relate to real practice such that you need some expert testimony to suggest what these standards were the duty for the the damages perspective i think that's kind of what happens here i think the damages are speculative in that we don't know how this case would have played out we don't know what what would have happened we don't know whether or not hans would have raised these similar issues we don't know whether or maybe in so will cases where somebody committed a real practice in the inception of the document and then later on a lawyer or a law firm blew the statute because they filed a claim late there would need to know practices but you don't i don't recall ever reading a case where two lawyers  which means that it is not with prejudice does that make sense to you or that not only makes sense just as clear but i had a federal judge to grant lucy motion dismissed with prejudice and then when i moved client was required to do that as far as the expert testimony which that came up when you were questioning calls normally an expert is required  roof inspection report and the roofing contractor testified in the underlying case before this court decided on the st appeal in cases which i did want to say something about the force
without mentioning the campground property whatsoever it's it seems to me that this is a simple case and if that's what happened you would have reserve even to grant or for errors successors in the sign and then continues to talk about these people to the north for the free and uninterrupted use libert says she has no control over that she can't stop these people coming in so doesn't that create i mean i know all that you know there's some disagreement about whether there's there's more hampers or less campers but really when you're talking about easement increase the question is what is the burden on the street when you start having commercial trucks in and  issue on the quite nearly if you have fifty guests in your backyard that's different than having fifty nine guests in your backyard and i just i bring that up in the example in that when going to use it to benefit the property she's worse the restriction in these
were file additional motions if you believe more discovery was needed other than the full discovery you're corey or you're asked him under the sun with texas certainly doesn't and the record reflects that that motion was made in the sense that the critical is because the illinois supreme court as well as the st district court and also the u s district court in the southern district have all found that and recognize that you don't need to have a deceptive x in order to have a policy or be in moral and ethical oppressive unscrupulous or result in a substantial injury to consumers so again it doesn't have to be all three of those things it could just be one and in this situation what mr bradley specifically alleged and what i think the courts and the three other cases that involves this particular defendant have noted with that their conduct was directly affecting simmers in the way and manner in which they as a matter of law address the rule that this was not unfair consumer friday with the courts the court did not use if you're out of questions to use the word of fair no i didn't use the word unfair that's true but what he did say  was is there was an ace there was no evidence because what had been just what this case was about and what the court made clear with just judge where he was looking at was this was a case about whether you can properly investigate that's their claim not material misrepresentations such as not listing them or vehicle as part of the policyholders household vehicles on their insurance application was it to do an investigation they're alleging it was unfair because it issue did they not challenge whether or not there was a material misrepresentation on this issue about the lamberts car that they made that point here are but if if that was it improper rescission that's merely a breach of contract that's not consumer fr for my attention we're your policy is my number of household is not defined by her it is in the application of god that doesn't make it that doesn't make a consumer fraud it does it make it mean it may make it in the us it may be that you can to the point is that the truck that they went at this is about the improper investigation and the investigation and that's what they chose to do we were prepared to meet whether they want to talk about improper marking they want to talk about unscrupulous unethical or any of the things on that and so that we come to the investigation the investigation again they wish we didn't do and that investigation is set forth in great detail why we took so warm in our we came forward with the evidence from this memoranda that set forth that the allegations were true that the things that they had alleged that was the of among the affirmative matter the reason why we haven't focused on the city they said this was a marketing hype they have they said that in their