MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
you're on as i'm sure you want us lawyers get to work on these things we overlook some very basic principles and sometimes it doesn't help you but i has occurred to me two things that i want to address making which is really sort of a backwards claims for you argument is inconsistent with their state jurisdiction their state of jurisdiction which is accurate and which nobody gets to someone involved in one incident and not just someone who observed the incident also relevant was the fact that he was a probationary officer coming up on the end of his tenure as a probationary officer so meeting between the two captains would certainly put someone in reasonable fear that perhaps from this meeting was going to come some discipline that could affect his ability to become a permanent member of the force that was sufficient evidence here for the one to find a weingarten violation it was not clear
interest in there's plenty of coverage either way for them so i'd like to use my time this morning to discuss the trial court's ery looking beyond the face of mr carter's complaint to assess the duty to defend and the proper course of error in excluding as originally submitted on the motions the issues frankly were not well separated on a motion for reconsideration they were precisely separated and we pointed out to the court in the court agreed on the motion for re is just very very clear it looked beyond the allegations of the complaint if there were no insurance carrier to catch if you will the the part that they say they don't cover they would never admit that argument but because there is an insurer here you can understand well let's just sort this out let's come pay attention to the allegations of the complaint this year i was really going on here there's simply no rule that allows  evidence here and also put on evidence of the intent of the parties when they place the policy if the underlying case it gone to trial and were findings of fact we begin the same situation at the fifth circuit was in illinois last case  cry al there was a finding of no liability on the vessel or part and at that point there's nothing left to litigate but that didn't happen here so we'll have to do that in this case this case is unlike the city of san francisco case decided by and make is very unlike the city of sea cisco case the differences for the differences are stark and they are significant the issue of the intent of the parties is extraordinarily important judge brown in the last decision out of the fifth circuit indicated that the line between coverage and i'm coverage on a piano i policy is a weighty one and if the court the district court had considered the evidence sophisticated package that covered kelly ryan and coverdale perfectly the courts said the district court explicitly said i will not consider evidence of intent absent an ambiguity in the policy for additional troops in the pm i policy was intended to cover for traditional crew working shore so if you can't actually gives a slightly different meaning to this p is raised red herring trying to blame the negligence of the captain of the captain i think it's fairly clear from the record had no involvement in the operation whatsoever and the fact that one hundred twenty one the route he was involved in a decision making process is he wasn't involved in choosing construction workers who happened because of the vagaries of maritime law to be able to be called masters and members of the crew for the evidence of intent would have made it clear that a strict crew it's the p and i policy as to the non
address income but what we're talking values is there they're supposed to be giving him a notice for due process purposes and they know not only does he come back he doesn't come back and say nobody's what you have we don't have the application  actually i think that was qualifying relatives will suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship on the record at the hearing the immigration judge said the steps explained that standard in his decision the immigration judge
already issued its final order what i'm trying to find out is if i understood it right you can't get naturalized unless you're in lawful permanent not have jurisdiction to order the interim order removal no and void the other problems with this case is the fact that the district courts contravene the law in other and if there is a final order for movability naturalization cannot go forward so either way when this case the district court the truth have been dismissed without prejudice because there was a remov pending and if it had been overlooked and it sat around till there was a final removal order it should have been dismissed because there was a final removal order either way it gets don't spot things at the get go but if it had been spotted if if you had a court with nothing to do and it coming and removal proceedings pending goodbye dismissed without based on and if one is the substantive good moral character issue why couldn't they look at the interim order of removal it was not final because you're always looking jurisdiction first and there's nothing wrong with the ins making and then he can try to get naturalized what you don't want clear the removal order but what would happen is if the board of immigration appeals grants the motion to reopen they would probably either give him maybe another b schedule or just start the clock ticking under thirty days so he can file and if they deny it will be before this court and this court can review it at decision and if it's if the disagrees with the v a can order
trucks are kind of scary ok if i'm a small the echo or something great big truck can be scary and so it is like this sequence of this is down because people don't know it's a one way street so you get a lot of both ways but first some of us work down there we always look both ways but when one of the fs truck is going down that road if for any trucks are going down that road
where it seems to me to leave this gap to to say if the change in box reads aren't going to educate the plaintiffs any differently there's more to educational welfare the facilities them sols and therefore because you know i'm a student you clearly stated wish that factors were affected if it meant for a significant direct educational benefit to
though his statement needs that amount to a full opinion or even formal findings of fact and conclusions of law so how is what happened here contrary to the go go or holding no notice because they stay certainly she was provided with a hearing she was provided with an opportunity to present and confront witnesses she was provided with a decision she was given several  fact they didn't mention it and the fact  constituted mayhem that she didn't notice to the school the parent to do something different but they have kids running through the hallways spraying each other with so it's quite a strain for a bunch of adolescents and during that i would the more in wrote it to adequately state of forcible clay him for a relief this is it incident that that took place in about ten seconds in the hallway as the students who coming  that she was injured as a result of the incident with the other student that she sustained a concussion but the complaint is not away what injuries resulted from this the lane evaluation by the school nurse  if i could go back to the to the sanctions issue i just want to touch on a couple of what i think a very clear examples of the allegations in the complaint that were subject of sanctions the st of all is the including count three for a constitutional conspiracy under section one hundred and eighty five a claim that requires that the plaintiff's share of the defendants conspired it could be you don't i'm not saying it's not out there i haven't done that i haven't done that research to see whether there is another case out there where there has been a finding of in use discretion but i think in the wake of this court's ruling in injury versus jamestown housing frivolous a common reasonably competent attorney resorting to draft this complaint should not happen who did that count in this complaint another a brief example is the fact that we have a suit against the chair of the school committee the only factual allegation with respect to the keeper of the school committee is that he was a member of the school committee that heard of the deal and as the key or sign the decision of the hallway he's included in account for intentional infliction of emotional distress that kind of shotgun approach just isn't isn't permitted and reef deal should have resulted in an sanctions and we would request the court remain in the so you're on oprah on ars over the past two years as well as have submitted mountains of paper to the district court to this court and yet they still have failed to provide the specific factual content that they need to provide in
and then he gets to the end of the bus and you said just that he was asleep perhaps he was asleep perhaps he was conscious it's unknown and at this point there's is a question of fact as to whether he just walked away from the bus without trying to rouse the man and and whether he acted reasonably under those circumstances that's the point i mean i don't expect that the bus driver would have known that he would that he when he was lying there on the seat to somebody pickpocket him and took his phone he shouldn't have known that but he certainly knew that the man was intoxicated it took eight minutes before according to the timeline that we have from the time he got on the bus at two hundred and fifty two until the time when he accepted him as a passenger or three o'clock to during that time he was staggering in and then he was obviously intoxicated he took after taking the smith he threw the bottle out the front door and then he passed out and when he gets you can't he can't just leave the guy sitting on the bus and walk see that your trunk into unable to take care of yourself i'm not gonna care i have the highest degree of care to you it's in the stamp list there shouldn't be a question about duty here the only question is is it reasonable hadn't been drinkin or you know ducks occasion there and no specific facts well planned in this case was shown by any type of evidence that would have put anyone including the bus driver on notice that had true and accurate depiction of what transpired on an in the vicinity of the bars on much thirty two thousand and eighteen the busty do is the stick in the same condition as when the hard drive was pulled from the bus so this is competent evidence that would have been bus driver knew that he had been drinking and that's what the court can and there isn't actually help so the keys boils down to what happened at the end of the bus route when danielle failed to exit the bus we do not need the thirty minutes ago so he did have notice that he wasn't even awake so now the changes to the call was made two minutes after the staff there's a there's still a disputed fact as to whether he did that presumably counsel says the driver called the dispatcher this presumably i don't think we can do that as a matter of law i'm not saying that the driver had a duty to go back and physically rouse to me and touch him but but you cannot say is a matter of law that you don't need audio to know that the dryer driver amplified his voice to tell the people to get off the bus because he was handed was raised he could have been saying think dad i'm done with work today we don't know what he said so i do think it's unfair to say it's a matter
the with respect to his underlying crime in this case you know it's it's not necessary that the underlying crime where they initiate the s t p a proceedings for that crime to necessarily be a sex offen
moving into discrimination or equal protection you're also moving into the mindset of the decision maker which relies on circumstantial evidence in a case like this you have licenses remotivate of bi racial animus in the final point of bike to address is the plaintiff's pretext argument as it relates to the first amendment claim in this case a reasonable jury who got a call on the radio that officers outside and needed help do all the fighting going on outside so that officer responded outside to help with a felony and while that was going on in officers were arresting another one the woman who tried to grab the officers going in with bias came out and punched that woman in the face there were six arrests during that time there was another force in a short period of time with about eight months or so hours acts of whiplash including someone in a parking lot patrons running over somebody in the parking lot purposely boston police the game had contacted store employees and said there is a lot of gaming activity there w in that they were open more than two nights a week but he couldn't be more specific so that's the only evidence in the record that they're open more than two nights but the district court found that the violence it really bash is even more pronounced because they're only open friday and saturday nights in the place of even testified that when the music of the entertainment doesn't even start to arrive it may have to clear out by twelve thirty or so that's when everyone shows up so there's a very narrow period of time at  these acts of violence to occur or so contrast that with the compares and what was going on there all the police activity that the plaintiff talks about was often proactive measures by the police such as a patrol check that means they drive by there such as a compliance check the officer goes in just to make sure everything's going on or sometimes it's a proactive measure of these other stablish minutes but the police will just show up at closing time so there's a police presence
individuals but that evening he testified that he had watched television he spoke with his children on the phone and then he went to bed now is the last thing he remembered when he will that he was in the hospital and had my whole train injuries and for the rest of law that says they engage in to know their legal activity takes away from the safely safety of the home or the protection that the victim but he still has in this case when he went to sleep he didn't know he was going to be attacked with in saying that because she had drugs in the motel room that somehow took away the category of being a drug well it was a drug dealer so obviously the whole intent was to get a lot of money i
peter's township but now we're in a little bit more populated down here in mcmurray and we're touring one of the expansions of one of our original restaurants in venetia i remember we talked about every village constituted a village as four elements and that is a church and school a pub of some kind and a store we have all of those things in our little village of a nisha and invite you to go to village of any should dot com and look up some of the events that continue to go on down there in our little village right off of venetia road anyway one of the expansions from the open restaurant that's been open three years right beneath the post office is open remember if you've been a longtime resident of peter's township it's really old kandor color is kinda color was a german restaurant right in senator it's rode for a long period of time also great authentic german food but that's been closed personal and one is intimate and if a village is properly constructed and has all the elements all four of those spaces for human interaction can take place and this is one of them here  social social interaction that can take place right here at the at the open restaurant the we're going to interview one of the the leading persons on the team here we're also going to talk to the cook in the back and deciles and then we have a twelve layer lasagna on the italian side road is just really big and now we have our chicken parm we saw a lot of those you get a plant you know we have vegetarian dishes are no problem is that true are they both i know the same recipes we use the same roast feeds both locations same products there's no difference whatsoever ok all right and that and the same concept i mean it's all the same concept same menu every day and eleven o'clock right now tuesday through thursday we close it ten friday saturday we close at eleven sorry let me rephrase that tuesday through saturday or open eleven to ten sunday eleven and nine we're currently closed on mondays but that will be changing soon we do plan on opening up on mondays well now that you have banquet facilities here standing here we do have a nice room in the back that  a large parties where we could do to some nice sized party for people be a semi private or block it off wow because i know down at the other restaurant with your guys were getting kind of crowded before you moved up here i mean there were several times when parties know a lot of people here and peter's yeah right right and so what are your hopes for that place i mean not not the change of subject but your hopes you saw the clientele you saw the potential for rolling hills when you were there i mean they're talking about new high to long and well what's your what's your favorite part of the i've had a chance to kind of see you when you were here stephanie working what's your favorite part of the position that you have here is it foreign hardly remember the old place but everything so far it's been very famous yeah yeah yeah yeah i can hardly remember when you commit to something new it's hard to remember how it was before right now right yeah and great great folks who had originally
the complainant to that would take the allegations because he was having sex with a young boy i think that context is important as you get to the end in determining what impact the error here specific are you surprised about the recantation in this case and while i think the defense position would be stronger had the question in the end do you believe she was have presented evidence that he was on the lam when and if the recantation occurred loads of weapons and then issue was resolved against him on direct appeal and that's not an issue in this case and so the only thing that this question is the that wasn't the question there was specific to this child yes but there was no is far i mean the only issue here is whether the experts testimony violates the rule under state law and state versus middleton that's the only objection there is priest well that's what i'm saying to you it doesn't sound to me like a hypothetical to an expert it sounds easier like an argumentative question a question
investigation of a crime for which the investigation is complete there's a danger it to return evidence that seized in the course of the investigat where property is is seems held by district attorney here is some dispute the criminal case is resolved the property belongs not to the criminal defendant but pharaoh officer exercises control over the car by giving it inconsistent with any procedure inconsistent with any right as a police officer to be to company in fact no school to provide the plaintiff of his so it does seem here that you basically had the car and determined it wasn't evidence of a crime they knew he'd know the person wants it back and yet they think that effectively transfers you thank you i would ask i don't have time to rebut everything but there are statements in the record about him not not wanting to car i don't know that they're in the record i would ask the court can find them i think the evidence is that this testing couldn't afford to buy a car seat let alone and that's why she was so concerned about going back she certainly couldn't afford what her testimony was is she didn't have the or given the property to the person holding the property in such a case it's appropriate that the that the owner of the property ask for it back before you go to court this is a different
the other three allegations were allegedly spoken to mr knox not recorded prior to trial the government said it was going to call mr knox to prove all four threats that were left in the indictment it also or virtually identical similar threat was communicated to me and they actually we actually moved on to the process we try to identify people why isn't that probative of your client's intent with respect to the  how can we infer from this time a record that the judge plainly hear it because the court reporter order heard it even though we all agree it was directed to counsel i'm having trouble figuring out how we can infer th evidence at all that the judge heard it st of all the judge is much further back then he then the court reporter much closer and on the same level as that i'm not in the position to draw your friends i'll tell you there for sure because i know is a matter of fact that it was true over thirty two years that it is you don't necessarily hear everything because who knows what the judge is doing at that
or the words are we've locked all the doors you can't get out so the person's body is is held against as well maybe in their particular case but you can like we do that in the federal system all the time in the southern california cases where people get four points off for leading beyond what they're allowed to get under the guidelines well that may have been the case but we don't know what happened in this case but those are actually it strikes me as just like the discounts for pleading and the in the southern district of california there more than the guidelines allow and i can't remember what they call it some sort of expedited kind of a shorthand and i look at the case california case law and imprisonment it appears to be that's a fairly standard instruction and so when they're talking about the aisle for example on one of the documents here that's entirely consistent with it being here violence or menace idea or instruction let me ask another question that's related here and that is i'm looking at the actual information and it and four respectively of the information so it looks to me as so i don't need to wonder whether video means violence i don't need to draw an inference from the fact that he committed felon in possession at the same time all i have to do is look at camp four and see what the allegations are and then when i look back account for and one of the allegations is that he personally and well fully used a fire politically reviewed all the evidence was ready prepared to rule defense counsel reminded the government of the the court of its burden of the government's burden and the standard which it was applied to leave the court went on to say surely you have not overcome the evidence presented by by the government which convinces me that this is why i have not found your objection persuasive therefore i'm going to apply the enhanced when you can maybe help the fact that this crime may have been committed by fraud or risky there's not even an implication and in fact all of the contractual evidence such as charges which the defendant did not with guilty or no contest you suggest th
car there were these are but these were fingerprints lifts right yes so a little bit different than some other kinds of fingerprint analysis list because it's true the kind of resource but the record that was supplied by the status of the hair shows that there was some confusion in the record and that there is no hair and that your client did not produce any evidence show been fifteen years has has been a series of hearings in which not initial compound questioning has been remember this remember this reporter and or misrepresented as