MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
assault not to include the subsection defining with a deadly weapon or against a police officer it does not appear to be coming on the defense identified one case one supplier court case in which that happened and in the court they have to it the fact is that i can say historically it is not uncommon but but when this what has occurred in what i have seen crude in pennsylvania is at the bottom of the information for is a citation it's a general citation that a want to take but as you pointed out in one of your earlier humans here it's entered by what is actually specifically listed in the body of the information that the government is urging the court to address this not in a presidential opinion and i do think that it is important to do so but it is also important to keep in mind that when we're looking at this aggravated assault statute we're looking at it on all the supreme court has said very explicitly in the application of the category of approach you do not use what they call legal imagination around here if you come up with some plot hypothetical such as i can her school child will be guilty of
mr nicholas see amount this is a question about the amount of the drugs
reason she didn't realize the amount of money that she was expecting to realize when the property was sold or that there were new additional expense use it anymore in other words nobody can ever know the future from day to day what people came recently anticipate the certain things will happen unless it's something outside of the norm and and because we didn't in my opinion they didn't meet that threshold requirement of showing a substantial change of circumstances we'll get to the point of having to have another desh area here is on the as to whether or not really should be granted i couldn't find a case where there's a definition of substantial change in circumstances i think you just look at substantially in something residence it also stated that home mr malcolm was going to put claim the deed to her at the closing of his interest in the property if he felt that she was you know selling something for less than what she should ever get didn't accrue the transaction he could refuse to execute that deed his his name was still on the title of the property according to him are you aware of the burden of proof is relative to tends to be somewhat different in the sense that the defendant is usually not attempting to establish an affirmative back but is attempting to refute the allegations that are set forth in the kitchen of the complaint and that standard is  has to be some basis some benchmark to gauge whether or not somebody should have been allowed to leave dover you don't ask the people over them maybe that's moot but we're trying our questions are primarily designed to get to the philosophical aspects of the war which we then are supposed to go back and collaborated and apply the wall that we euro i believe the flat the facts were that the financial circumstances have changed i believe that at the very least that could provide an opportunity for
there is no evidence then he knew she had been teased about the ego activity that was referenced on the board i think there is evidence that he knew about it and that he knew about the teasing complaint that she was bringing to the world and therefore you could infer that when you put out the activity he was doing that already of the mindset of having made the kind of comment he did about her going to dunbar about that the ear to me such that he writes it on the board i don't think there's no direct reference to in there in the record about his knowledge or i don't think there's any question that he knew this complaint process was going on and now you know he is simply not sufficient to meet the president in a very standard it's notable that after the incident was put on the way forward there was a month and a half between i notation and the time that she retired and there was no evidence of any  given seems unusual to probe the whereabouts of somebody on the board they could find it was unusual but again there is no injury that flowed from that that we're now we're back to the st point which is posting a sign saying and it's put on by her supervisor who has made a karma about her having raised the substance of objections there are undermining your complaint and there is no other evidence as to why he did that could situation the court found there that the number of derogatory comments about the plaintiff psychological condition and by the supervisor and my coworkers there were not sufficient to meet the burlington northern suit or it also discussed no yellow as the plaintiff pointed out
when they divide up the property what's important is the parties have basically the same amount of property made an argument that all argument regarding how the trial corps should calculate each party's income based on the assets that each party received will settle substantial issues in the case and then come to trial or to resolve the main issues such as child support maintenance the parties did come it didn't go through is to come to a property settlement and the value of the assets they were awarded to each party were the value of the assets the interest income that was received by the parties in jeans case the  include in christie's income the actual interest the actual rate of return that she receives from those investments but in a decision that is very favorable to christie the court actually reduce the asset that she received by the dad as she was don't exactly match up that's not really how we calculate incomes are really how we calculate property distributions the we can look at the the twenty seven thousand versus the sixty one thousand we have to look at is what the he got paid twice for that but she can
says the emotional impact on well what i'm saying is is that you were asking the question your honor and with all due respect you were asking the question of the court giving mr glass the opportunity  saw mr conaway there there was no way that they would have been able to contradict her on that point and have about the issue because at one point in the ender i'm not sure what but it was a way of delineating with some specificity without going violating the course directive not to get in the underlying fact that it was happened after that and do i have the impression that there was not a formal objection on the record from the plainest counsel but that there was some sort of informal conference with the judge it was that's correct your honor the this but you know the february ninety nine thing was right at the end of one day and there was a request for a sidebar and judge for them to back to you know not take this any he had told her he had a doctor's appointment he would be able to look after their child and so that's what she accepted and then she better restaurants some place she hears something about jury selection and she realizes oh he's not at a doctor's appointment he's in trial she somehow is able to get my phone number she calls my office and learns in fact a trial taking place she traveled one hundred miles from baker city to and i said fine if you can get here i will put you up overnight we will go in the court together the next morning early transportation that's fine as greyhound i find out because she called me seven o'clock the next morning she said she right to bring her in to have her testify and i can show her false statement that she made a false statement about restraining or i can put on evidence that would show that my client in fact was never there and we have evidence to prove that it was never there
trying to understand what has jurisdiction over in the district court right now could claim to if try to collect against the commonwealth in this action when the commonwealth is not a party to it based on the settlement agreement i judgment and after the settlement was reached as a matter of fact there was no motion to there is no answer because there was no action they they stated there was an act to enforce the settlement when the motion was filed not even the first installment was do this now there was not even a breach by apple and of the settlement agreement honor this is or simply refused to recognize the application of the state it did not grant a relief that was not the matter post before it as a matter of fact it was a notice of state but those no specific requests to that effect that of right now your honor we do have an avenue before the district court because the district court according to the judgment as well as the confidential settlement agreement retain jurisdiction to do until all the terms and conditions of the from the district court not against the commonwealth against the defendants uplands who are the ones bind by this agreement is because the proceedings in the district court were stayed pending this appeal and under this you could granted that state while the fact that puerto rican on a marina in which is the statute that provides for legal assistant legal counsel and indemnification of all public employees being sued in their personal capacity does not turn the commonwealth into a party does not go directly for individual capacity on for four violations of federal protected rights under the color of law that is why you are on the supreme court case kentucky was to greet him it held that the imposition that a debtor chose to agree to pay that defendant's liability and the settlement agreement was entered on that understanding you're saying that's essentially the same case as this you have no ability to go after that debt or write that bankrupt all there is is just some side agreement that led to the dismissal if the money doesn't come through then the contingency of this mosul won't have been met and the ground for the dismissal for the settlement will be gone and then you won't dismiss the case anymore and the court just retain federally protected rights now in that under the california code the city has to pay any judgment or settlement for those public employees public officials sued in their personal capacity nine and i thought i thought i already made reference to your indirect claims as well so if the commonwealth is ultimately going to be responsible i still think there's an issue there there are exceptions under law at night where the attorney general secretary of justice might my first reaction was to prove prophetic whining of the george orwell's animal farm which states all animals are equal but some animals are born equal than others how convenient would be for the com
training answers the fact that we weren't as pacific because well i just said ok i hope that answers your question in any case this takes me back  suggesting there was a failure to suggesting that the apple inc well knew what she was doing by filing this complaint and that was to go back to what judge shooter was talking about hey this is a divorce improper or incorrect to relate to the four i know you cited to be the environmental case that wasn't divorced was it now you have the motion for sanctions was treated we're not talking about almost procedural history of which judge sure was able to gauge what was beyond the pale  mentioned just just souter when he was a tiny from the bench basically said this may be a divorce case but i find nothing that warrants sanctions here  years past the initial pleading only for the purposes of determine exemptions the judge and rioli discovery had engaged in multiple factual hearings out at your hearing since the defendant had submitted offers of proof and the judge said without reaching
man and a original member manager of speed loop i was very close to mr parrish here they have years of successful relationship and business centered around  the speed of relating to this and so we've got a situation where he has no remedy unless this court remands the case and lets the matter chris see in the normal interests that would be would be evaluated and straightened out in the normal course of events now this is not an attack on the terrorists and family decision or the missouri those cases where consolidated together and in the judge's dismissal of the high speed the pace is a consolidated case it was very important for our purposes that the it's important to remember the case for a full amplification of all of the parties rights with respect to boat live it liability company otherwise we don't have clarity
read the transcript of the original trial read judge two mins comments about his reluctance to give him the mandatory sentence he said that he read the reports of the medical experts he said that he's taking into consideration his  presented there nothing you know there was no testimony presented they basically just relied on the same records because going to just discussed a moment ago there was nothing presented at all to give the judge any background as to the defendant's experience individual with an intellectual disability we're going to say you can't you can't do mandatory natural life and someone like this you have to go back and exercise discretion he exercise discretion he had ten less than the maximum force training still to this disappointing pattern of criminal behavior every time he gets out within a short period of time he's going back in for some serious offense these are not minor offenses so i think the judge who is looking at it and looking at the notion of the seriousness of suggest this court has the power to make this decision it can reduce the sentence on this one time case if it chooses but how does that benefit anyone that's just a number and where you basing that number from we're just going to let him
something about weakness because it affects soldiers six basically the way around nothing can be done about the two thousand and four election is that the yam conduct is minute challenge to the recall election of the governor of california and it turned out that we've we've managed to review it and it was something versus shelley gare for the name  case but it's of recall case we had and i'm foka we had a three judge panel and then we had it on fox we had a decision full deal also i had a case on motions and screaming every judge get some every election year every even numbered november first so i have ralph nader campaign whine and injunction to change something in them and they yet election and nevada presidential there must be a fifth line where you have to file for election and at that point you've got some period of time between your filing and the actual election am how long is it because you home based on or not based on the waiting for an income judge i guess the question that we have to answer is whether it's impossible well were highly impractical to get review to get his decision in the view of the what's your question one hundred in my argument because my arguments this you extend the option on the ballot statement but even if you get past that if we talk about election places and we talk about things like columbia river gorge and sol exactly know what nominating period means does that mean that they have to decide whether they're going to charge or not before people put their names in yes so they don't know who's running what exactly is the church exactly  think they're right on point in terms of a first amendment equal protection argument probably we're required by law even through a sponsor if it's not race to determine whether we have jurisdiction before we go to the merits  so we can't get the castle in and then double a c p until we decide whether it's moot we've got this big body of cases that says the election law faces are capable of repetition and yet evading review we also have a yes yes but you know when the ninth circuit on constitutional arguments on that line i'm a change election challenges as opposed to the governor i am not necessarily routines that i think that's the difference yeah you don't get review on routinely just so i guess if you want to call this a routine here i guess in terms of a judicial candidate and in terms of the statewide office like the governor ships we don't have them all the time when most of the approaching the election we always do some expedited review of election cases and i haven't noticed that they're all blockbusters some of them seem really seen italy they're blockbusters and i just i just don't know what's on it's a long process it's a complicated process it's not easy why not like alpine county we don't have thirteen hundred residents one of the largest voting jurisdictions in the united states elections in los angeles county
fifteen works for two weeks he himself at that point says i can't work anymore i'm done yet he still actively treated well it's always the purpose for paying the statutory amputation benefit even if you continue to work hear so if it says kneecap in state there's no other qualifying language why doesn't that simply need a median now president that's the point that we're trying to make because if you look at it it's that simple but that's not what they held last further into the confusion he indicated testimony of the record indicates that he was returned from the date that he returned to worst only four works one day he's off one day he works two days he leaves a couple of hours early it's a there's not any real test when you record because it wasn't a dispute that period the first period of time he's working there was no dispute about benefits that there are no penalties and if you look at the wider decision yard or treaters decision sets that you're sure was paid temporary disability in a timely manner that's that's an important determination in her to apply the interpretation of the wall that we have we have lester and then we have the commission applying muster and the commission gives the case that says it's only sixty days and responded how can you say the response that was unreasonable and fixations if there is different interpretations that's the point to get back to your question manifest way to have is it possible that any person can come to a work or sixty days from the date of the accident the other cases that they're applying in the rationale of the other trader which was adopted and wired talks about fourteen months from the date of the fourteen months in wester the penalties awarded in western fourteen months is not the time period within which he responded pay the benefits and luster they actually pay the benefits sixteen months after the date of the accident so it would appear by implication to mean that it's fourteen months from the date of the return to work i had to respond and pay the benefits they waited until february twenty seventh two thousand i said if they wait until the claimant in this case had hired objected that was the state there is never any testimony in the records to this effect so the commission issued that the commission said it in a ruling but that's not in the record nice cour benefits it was twelve weeks or so a day so i think for purposes of this case it doesn't make any difference but i think the argument th off with a reason and that my are not i cannot contest that if if the legislature had included that the record we wouldn't have a problem it's not in here you may say it's not relevant but if it was that is required because there are different interpretations based on the case law obviously look at the arbitrator and look at the commission in this case byerly this is one of the holding up they came to a different conclusion so we need some direction where we need to refer to the to the legislature for them to come up and say there is a clear time for pain just briefly with regard to the medical folks here only evidence in the record about the late payment is the actual
standby counsel as suggested by the defendant himself and before i get into the meat and bones of this argument i feel minister is the necessity to clarify issue that i believe on is different in the record the august seventh hearing which was requested by the government after reading mr body as pro state motion where he stated that if he had off three attorneys he would be real roaded interpersonal and close that the government requested a hearing  so that the record would be complete and ultimately get out at that hearing the idea of all three attorneys was put aside and asked mr bott how much condition given that it appears to be from a completely unrelated this case this case has nothing to do with you know with twenty two fifty three which is the statute that was that was mentioned here
as to get the contract sales yes and did and you claim you were legally obligated to pay and as i understand as it they say that doesn't actually got the case after it was our ready file and arbitrated so i didn't have any decision on that and i can not answer what the other attorney this is why because it seems to me that now that you've taken the position as the owner back as opposed to contribution or some of the money bag in this case that right there isn't that they'll take it that way you take the position that it doesn't matter whether you're obligated to pay or not and basing it on the contract and i also view of it in other words we don't have to prove an obligation to say we paid it so you rolls the breach the contract is kind of a strict and in the end in the indemnity situation along clear that there has to be sound obligation to pay right but you're not taking that position even though you called indemnification you're basing it on this language of contract we are basing it on this language of the contract and as indemnification setting the code i'm having trouble with that and we believe it's a thrill corners of the contract this is what it said this is what you say you know everybody agreed to that  and that is the language that we that we agreed to so basically we agreed with you that you could have paid one hundred thousand dollars and collect if there's no further question
violated this federal regulation and whether or not the federal regulation violation had anything to do with an older car no matter how slight was the dates of the herd so i mean we're here because the  disputed so they had to cut it out of the train and they were out there on the main line so it's important fact that they left on the main line because a locomotive on the main line is a news in the round house under the control of the rock making this people so they this was a over the road conductor and he's with us over the road locomotive engineer and their normal job duties or five different times that it wasn't communicating and it's required by federal law community and it wasn't and that's why i was left there and it comes then you know it's a given skase that i'm sure going to say use it's when it gets to the repair shop and now you have a hostler who maybe has had an error trap or mechanical department we hasn't any air traffic and is going to pull them to the stop well and that you know period of time all were they were back in and out of the stall and even those mechanical department person he was on the yard track bringing in the whole get up to the train and because he was so close to being an actor in person and having the same goal and he used that we're going to say in yes indeed it clearly from the facts in this case had been withdrawn from the news it had been taken away as well from the clearance train which were wrong to complete its it's wrong to his destination the the engine was taken off it was placed on the side europe and just because you did it in a hypothetical just because you have the training and or a corner that might have an issue that you need to bring back the yard the fact that you're bringing it back from the yard to be repaired or inspected further doesn't lite back in the old days when i was still fire and the federal regulation required would be like six feet high and that was so that other ships could see this have occasionally for a slow skiff in the harbor where they only had three feet high big rocks and he slipped and twisted is the wall trying to get out so that's another jury question whether is a reasonably safe place for him to be working when that left this locomotive the crew is on it they could have easily moved effects of the actual track