MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
violence act which defines a caregiver is a person who stands in a position of trust and confidence which is what you have to be in a confidential relationship those factors are close personal relationship for over two years maybe nearly two and a half years sherry gardner provided care for  during the first day she had that show she had another stroke in south bend just before she came back she had further strokes and hips and city she had received disability  made out the checks for signature she heard the extra help she range the yard work she arranged her best since medical appointments if all this is there is a reason to find that that is not evidence bus stop well who decides that the trial court the trial court didn't decide that there's a trial court never understood because this is a woman till the very end even after may two thousand a she had a stroke had to come home by a car by just by sheer sure it became her way or just never mind according to all the health care providers in the nursing home i think she went in capable decisions concerning to medical treatment for instance that he is providing why wouldn't that be something that he would think should be noted because perhaps a third party should be  only says quote that both during my initial meeting with jessica smith and of course twenty seventh two thousand and eight april thirtieth two thousand and eight just because myth related to me that her sister and niece and nephews
because interpretation of course but i think once you got
now how we would have the world in the trial court but did the trial court judge abuse his discretion in making this ruling what what factors should we hang our hat on if if we were to rule over you when
life more severe on him didn't the trial judge go through these things if you recall this sentencing hearing took place if you're the juvenile was found guilty which you know even under the very small area one person was was killed murdered if your eagles found that he attempted to murder two other individuals one of them was fairly seriously wounded and the other was shot it wasn't of whether it's like when you're saying person is convicted of robbery and burglary and they receive thirty five years it's completely different from a person who made a murder and get de facto life sentence or what isn't mr dorsey is just  actuarial straight people of different genders don't have the same life expenses for different races don't have a life expectancy we could and having a body of case law that says three years for a thirty year old in america sentence in that case actually consider the fact that he would likely he's been required to serve eighty five percent which would actually bring the sentence down to thirty years and seven months so there is a factor that the
discussion now in this case i think there is a question on the verbiage that we had at the trial court in my home did not discuss the plaintiff's proven injuries but simply said i'm going to defer to the jur decision which i find is not reason again without discussing provisions that does not appear the court exercise discretion on that issue so on that issue of her injuries standard should be no on the other hand she or they chose to ignore the instructions or this was a compromise verdict in what's compromised there were a couple of different cases that one of them
in that goes to
filing a motion styled as a motion for summary judgment right ok i think you know particular waiting for this decision to come through it took them such an extended period of time to come up with such a arbitrary and i would consider them begin with decision that doesn't really consider all the based on whether they would prevail or not but whether the opposing party would be able to continue to prevent evidence of my evidence is extensive it basically what's going on here is was taken over by capital one and end in shuttered shortly by capital wanted two thousand and seven meanwhile in two thousand and nine a group of didn't get the money or was wasn't entitled to the money the state court gave mr odom's of all hearing on every aspect of his found that everything happened according to way a foreclosure is happening there's nothing in the plea and whatsoever nothing in the notice of fraud nothing in any of the pleadings i've been able to find in the state court nothing in the eastern district complaint that raises any issue whatsoever at any time concerning its inability to get any monies that he might be entitled to and see whether the state court went ahead and did it the right way he had a full and fair litigation there were numerous appeal there were four or five written opinions this never came up at all so in some sense your honor respectfully it's almost as if it's a red herring this could have been dealt with in any way shape and form within the new york proceeding whether it's a request for a new trial or pursuant to c p l or if the fifteen looking to vacate a judgment or make a motion to the sheriff and say there's a surplus all of the senior  i really can't answer that and that's sort of picking apart a scary small piece of what went on in the state for closure that went on it was pretty tragic that for numerous years and wondering well my intention was really to raise additional issues that makes what happened in the state court you know
twelve and i think the best illustration of the commission doing their job in this case is the treatment of the two accidents in their decision they look at the first accident cl back injury work that he was taking only four times a day like it testified to and then they looked for any other evidence that they could find to substantiate his claim of the seventeen reason for the two of them to converse well even if the commission were to find him tell me if i'm wrong here that that conversation never took place as i understand the record chancellor acknowledged that he became aware of the claimants of injury the couple of days or couple weeks judge in this case that was in the room with the petition at the time he testified said he is not credible and i realize that the legal fact of the commission reviewing it they sit as you know and in the shoes of the arbitrator but they were there and they are when the petitioner mr parker was testifying when this if i was testifying he was testifying to not only an accident alleged accident in november fourteenth twenty twelve but also want an audience of twenty eleven your are yes but when you look at how he did it it's questionable and they're saying we don't believe you regarding the bag but we will believe you regarding the hour which is the really the only injury that matters here because it's going to require judge you can write them and then as we affirm the circuit court decision because the circuit court gave the commission two times now come on two times to write their decision to explain what their bases where for their decision and the  decision well it's a little bit of a non sequitur because that left effect that made that statement it runs contrary to the well so will we have for the decision that the reason so even if the reasoning in the given case you want to get is totally wrong if commission was going to overturn the archer's decision regarding the right of all the hartleys commission still articulate in some very specific reasons why the upheld the second claim that claimants the you know in providing a consistent history of
at that to decide if it presumes the constitutionality of the satchel or in this and in such a situation of them wants to see is there any interpretation of the statute that would allow it to survive constitutional scrutiny and therefore the only cut the only bill regulation that would be inconsistent with customer use is one that allows billboards above section six so any regulation that allows the words below the standards in section six is consistent customary use that's not the forty economic doesn't this implicate the economic interests of advertisers and if these regulations are so severe area that it becomes economically feasible that would be a prohibition seen pleading standard applies they're trying to invalidate the sidelines altogether they're saying that it can't be validly applied as to any single property within the village right based upon the preemption statutory preemption if we think that ultimately is a constitutional question as they ra standard to find that they had satisfied this person to say that the cycle and its is invalid in every circumstance that there is no location in the village working for me and so i could be s like questions that he came up with that dealt with whether or not language isn't as precise as i'd like to use it it's just that they don't have the power we're not going to presume that it's constitutional because in another place that this may not be a pro issue if it's a prohibition and that location it's a prohibition because
he only had one tree with its on he was a one million shoppers initially twenty one months later after twenty one payments of approximately fourteen hundred dollars per month in maintaining  actually don't know if i can raise that issue on the bottle i'll get that number for you i don't have an exact number so back to what i was saying here the reason the calculation court decided it was incorrect is because they quantity necessarily for damages but here we are the fact that the case took as long as it has unfortunately we've been able to in real life actual lies the payment plan that he put together and actual your honour's the purchase of the national group training then with the purchase price of two hundred sixty eight thousand and seventy one interest rate included rowsell costs included after that and then of course you had an reasonable in the sense that we're not looking for a windfall we're looking for the actual out of pocket costs that the plaintiff had nothing more nothing less the total amount of damages that we were seeking from the the various permutations that has taken over the years it was really far more than twelve years ago complaint and another count but i repeat that you've got a pickle horse here i'm not sure what this appeal to his appeal is asking for if he's asking with this cour fair market value of the the property at the time it was taken it was no evidence at all presented as to that issue  we told him we'd help me get a plane if you took care of our daughter financial she was living with him at the time me the issue only on the appeal with regard to the calculation of damages again i spoke the first thing we need to figure out is the standard of review was to perform his duties when he was to perform on the contract all contract was take possession maintain it pay for like good insurance for it and make the payments he did all consideration i do believe the poem coming in the score in twenty ten said the same thing you know it was in the context of the conversion going telling me specifically where the chocolate correctly rule it was in his or even more of their credit it's called a straw man purchase and it happens in it happened here that's what this agreement
wait a minute they're still on the green that's good so damn i don't know what time it is so by the way what time is it i don't know and fifteen got up what now i guess when you look at  you're not really going to fly
to follow your answer to as to what is so everything you're saying is just challenging how significant the evidence that was obtained potentially independent of the tracking was written testimony that he was at that bank performing that robbery is there evidence of a volvo having this license plate introduced and did the evidence also then get introduced that that license plate traced to this person the evidence at trial would have showed that there was a volvo with this license plate that this license plate traced to this person and that that volvo was seen for miles from the bank that was robbed at another bank that was ro in this time period not that far from it and then you have a person who was in on it supposedly testified that this is the guy who did it so why would that be overwhelming  followed the acura from their peers and certainly was not required to bring you his motion to suppress after trial he could have done so and that he did not i would say it just was because there was no for the record to develop in this and if it's just silent on this point the question is sort of whose fault is it that silent is it his fault because he didn't have the record that it was used or is it the government's fault because they never disputed that it was going to be used relate it to add information to if that's not otherwise there once you delete the false information because i don't see why under good faith there be any reason to credit the reliance on the word because they're on the face of the affidavit nothing in it bank that had license plate so what sense does it say that therefore we should just imagine license plate number but returning to your honor's question about extension versus correction i i think if you look at the rationale behind what the caller is doing in the case of intentionally  that statement were in the case of an admission it adds to the statement and i think what the court is trying to do is to put the government position and what at the end but for the misstatement just as we see in the context for example an inevitable discovery and and interest so you want to put in the information not in the warrant affidavit which is something about where that license plate number comes from and i'm just as is there any authority that suggests under frames the government is intitled to do that corrected would still support the probable cause determination of the statement  and here that evidence came in the form of these surveillance or rights which supported the district court's ultimate determination first that the statement was it intentional or reckless and that secondly that
hello and welcome to our period five suspense showcase my name is not a morgan and i am valerie sugar today we will be showcasing suspense projects created by the students in the fifth period broadcasting class and in the past couple of weeks our class has been learning about the different ways to create suspense in a film or series of clips we watch different examples of films that use a variety of techniques to build tension in the spirit of halloween we then developed projects that incorporated the techniques that we studied this includes long adding and using creative camera angles today we are joined by sarah campbell and parker smith who also worked with daniel ferguson they filmed five individual scenes and we'll be taking a look at the two that demonstrate long shots so parker we knew you worked on the storyboards so what was the hardest part about setting it up before hand the hardest part i would say was having everything set up perfectly before we started shooting considering is just one shot and we had the yapping perfect yeah we can all relate to that so sarah you were editor what was the hardest part of editing it wasn't really about cutting the shot that much it was more about adding audio so it self is pretty easy all right let's take a look at the video that long shot was great now let's see how the second one  questions what inspired this idea for you guys and this video so inspired us was we're walking the hallways and we're like thinking what can we do for the credit angles and then we saw all these big trash cans i was like no i think because we put someone in the trash can have been like a demon and so what was your favorite camera angle that used a favorite angle is the one where we put the camera in the trash can and then like i look over it i think i really just like it's pretty spooky and creative sophia what do you think the most challenging part of this project was good job ladies and this next project we see reagan will be known as the actress in calling up his behind the camera there are videos called the pass they created suspense by using creative camera angles and using the lights in the auditorium to add jump scares now let's watch th really and reagan it says to the auditorium guys listen up i have something very very important to share with you she is a very dear to my heart ok she's going to be our last and you will respect her ok her name is  what is wrong with you what is that now that you did it's probably just somebody walking down the hallway your side keep walking or
especially in the california hierarchy we have first and second degree murder and manslaughter and as they answer or factors that will reduce the crime from one to another include provocation law quite a look at the entire record if there is evidence supporting it the fence theory even if there was a ton of everything's going the other way isn't california law the guy gets a call from a girlfriend and we have some of the does that he didn't care for her before she had she was the mother of his trial yes and she says  else i think the record shows that he certainly was not acting and if you have two or provocation number one he met her approximately forty five minutes after the phone call number two he never really cared for young  strong back to the to the question of whether on ask i presence let's say we look at the evidence and find concrete what you would like us to find that there was evidence supporting the destruction
constitution they are fundamental policy statements seized me by the founding fathers that people are not going to be transported long distances for trials when there is an american court americans mowing gauge from this economic development you would expect to find something like this there but i think it's important to ask what is the core doing the situation obviously the logical solution is for congress to have to ask is what is the consequence if we permit the government to do this how easy would it be for someone to defend a criminal prosecution if they are in jail in the federal detention center here in honolulu brain hijackers skyjackers boat jackers all over the world anywhere to be tried well that is you that is very simple certain crimes have long been recognized in international law as having universal jurisdiction and this is a well established international law what about slavery or i think slavery maybe if you're talking about from a foreign country but this is not an international law case factory i think we have to look at this was standpoint of our national well do we really want to set the precedent that people can be removed when there is an american federal court there and an american jury that can hear the ca me not like the districts that are prescribed for the our state's history courts we know for example china was a district during the period that the united states court for chinese system and we know very clearly from  united states i in american samoa that is a very different question though as to whether or not they are a federal district court in american samoa or with the equivalent jurisdiction most of the cases are much older and that's because with at the time that the united states was first founded there were many churches and it was quite common because there were very few federal cold would be applied in situations during instances locations where there was a territory and then thirty two thirty eight would be applied and the person would be tried to the place where he was first or she was  american samoa is not and how can it be said that we're going to do to our colony what the british did to us i mean this is fundamentally fancy there is no reason why the high court of american samoa cannot hear this case before a local
rights that quote each of those four times goes so we're getting to that point that you're guarding a defense body part always touched her of the victims lower body part in the front which was a private area on her it's your position it was a proper redirect to permit the state to bring out the rape again language yes ok now here's here's the thing wanted to express really create that impression if he was a liar he's telling you on the one hand he'd rather be beaten than molester or god or the yet he's saying that this fear of being beaten is what caused her to molest her daughter so then by using that as a shield create an impression he knows is not true because there's more to the story is just that he's been able to keep that is that appropriate and isn't that in fact well i am and i don't see how could be anything else well and we should conclude that the trial court's hearing this is such a monstrous abuse of discretion meaning no reasonable judge in the appropriate is to remove the correct and unfavorable inference which counsel knows is not tru previous the other thing is
because of ethnic issues ethnic cleansing programs and whether or not the government would in fact directly involved with with this programs it's clear the government had no interest in protecting the or mean it's up to today there's almost virtually affidavits from the los angeles deputy port director which sets forth that on arrival when an alien summits this i ninety four is checked against the passport they verify that the information that was filled out this is just one factor there you don't have to have establish your citizenship in a country again here as evidenced by the state department letter as well as the country report that was submitted into evidence by  you know that if you are entitled and you have you know the documents then that it constitutes an offer however in distinguishing the cases where you have either remitted or found only a settlement that was when there are the alien only we got the government went well over but it wasn't quite the government's fault we have we encourage the government of former us with all due respect i'm not sure of why the government's trying so hard to just ignore the finding for him or are you in this case and it's very very obvious that th
cash call it all jams is to administer not the sa so you're asking us to redirect contract aren't you now as you said we did not believe that out that the trauma administer is intended to be different from conduct that to my representative up to try and sue in order for those two clauses to survive each other one they have to be ready such that triplane james gets to administer and the arbitration must can be conducted you can see the briefing concedes that there is no c r s keep representative arbitration available it's not exist and then the next question is ok what else is your agreement speak  provision rat rather was not to arbitrate was but to avoid federal state law or state for we think that is incorrect and we think that because a third circuit is consistent with recognized the significant impact of a severability provision that yes you can now go to aaa or jams which clearly is a respectable hour respectable or are arbitration for however to the extent if there is any concern that it was not
way to construe a contract by looking at the four corners of the contract in considering all the provisions as a whole that's correct you are it will be harmonious right and you know so i mean  this it's one thing to have a definite duration and then a statement you're in at will employee and it could be discussion about whether or not those are two diametrically opposed rely on in determining whether or not a contract is for a definite term or employment contract or whether it's an at will type of employment and so forth and that's the context in which the circuit court and now school b provisions in the contract the problem is in the tween it says would can be interpreted at least as the employer having the right to change the duration but again keep in mind it's only only the employer half that  dealing with us that