MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
statutes of the state of why where there's a collective bargaining agreement members of the balcony here paid least their fair share or they can join the union as a result of should seven hundred now you know responsible hundred seven twenty six best in numbers from a different union seven fourteen they were in the same space on december thirty running wearing a level seven twenty six pack as the around january second at the very next year or in the seven hundred they were the same group of people as you point out they tend to enjoy ok they're the same group of people there's no question about that the connect with at seven twenty six had entered into on behalf of its members with the amount of sleep and paying rent for the really just concluded it would be unfair to me nth degree to conclude the fifteen fifty should be penalized because of the conduct at these levels unions and mr
and speculate on it and hold it as long as they want to in order to make again they're not in the business of real estate bearers for lack of a better term they are often moved to attempt to s property the soon as practicable and have to keep all the documents showing that they have made those efforts the statute in the regulations require the bears to sell them within five years if they cannot sell over the five years so long question to answer i think so i think there are a lot of parts to a lot of parts too to the way the answer will do my best to keep track of all but i think the the first thing is that is a hypothetical that is not an issue in this case because you have here is the confirmation of the genders judicial said the sale of the property in the recovery within four i could get as well know that speculative you could get a so it's it's just as likely or more than likely that the bank may sell that at a loss and there will be no change to the bank's was so i think in those judgement to mitigate i mean in this case thing they mitigated they've gotten a lot more than what they were asked to work so why should there not be an equity will i stop or why should they not be able to for like three hundred thousand and they sell it for eight hundred thousand did they satisfied it judgement no and they own the property it's theirs since there is for your for them to do what they want for if you were to accept this set off ition one of the things you would be doing is saying that whatever the banks and labor saw are whether whatever they put into the property where they bring to the it's it's fairly rare now as far as the federal regulation is concerned the defendants say that there is this continuous chain between the wasis well that's not the case and you would find that the that the federal regulations actually on the i'm always thinking in the mindful of the supreme court transit park illinois supreme court recently the supreme court on perhaps some foreclosure mediation laws rules written supreme court rule aside i don't believe that they have pled the aliments necessary for at least set off the action they cite are a lot of cases but those cases require that does that right  in the bank sold the property at a higher price would if if someone came some third party buyer which would which would have if your third party buyer bought the property because it will from the bank but if some sucker calls it and pays fifty million dollars for this property the bank reduces its walls and so any assumptions as to the appraisals through foreclosure process
likelihoods we've already got something that appears to be fairly characterized as at least a close question why would we question the district court process is acting as the cheat why isn't that support mr fink's argument that the excess material already present in the process could also act as the  that we've put a still shot in our brief you have to go to the sample that we saw today is different it's different because those elements are not standing for hour like in the
anything other than what
that one must register within three days of a conviction but i read that as being convicted of a sex offense which requires you to register not three days of a conviction for britain is within three days of release and then i think separately if there is a problem with this trucking instrument did we get to that the variance question which as i say registered anywhere everyone including the defendant and the record reflects this news that the time period in question started the day he was released from prison information didn't mislead the defendant in this the fence and
know any other questions the issue that we're having is the read great examination about haley murphy's ability to recall the whip circumstances that they
start quite honest this case basically stripped of the two crucial defenses we had with judge white refusing that made a very big difference now you know a whole rule of an issue i've never seen anything like in thirty thirty nine years of practice what i can only attribute it to the  when i first got here i didn't know where the farmer's house was and the purpose appeared to be he was trying to elicit mr gubb as an ownership of the cocaine intruder instead of the defense interest so he's going the record that he got what he needed from m jury giving them a full and fair opportunity to evaluate whether or not they had an impact on the jury's perspective on things that were also played in the context of about it doesn't capes in which mr french only wants to keep himself knowledgably saying specifically the one that was raised on a definition of distribution and also the question of whether or not contract it was an issue of states those questions were response of a district court before the guilty verdict and i didn't recall that i could certainly go in by counsel
second r i think that the court's questioning in the proceeding cases relevant i want to have an overly thought before i guess the specific substance of the argument and that is when you're thinking about the northwest power ha after last week when we know what the cafe actually is about what happened in these contracts keep in mind seven the jewish state primarily rate issue what happened in the contrast is
fail so sure get sued would they then be required to send a nd or this to phoenix saying by the way we get sued yes so you're requiring two notices under under this policy are you saying that phoenix is entitle to notice two separate notices extra would say three notices notice
that orders had to be screened for possible copyright infringement he knew that the copyright law and he didn't do anything to implement procedures to prevent copyrights from being copyright attorney said and this is a quote from the case the copyright situation is a mask nevertheless this man went on to distribute recordings containing this music and also into the analysis so we think the standard is reckless disregard and you think there are strong policy reasons why it should be because otherwise you are effectively creating an affirmative incentive for people not to check to see whether their potential copyright issues involved and the facts of this case which are discussed to be more gaffes in a moment really illustrate why that is so the right law wasn't being violated and we have a defendant running a company that did not have his company implemented and the procedures whatsoever to do you know you have to screen and there's enough other evidence by his own admission knew there was a potential problem because according to him it was his idea to bring the r i from your customers the only documentation that mr chan could point to you no evidence of what he did to prevent happy right infringement or three indemnity agreement from three customers not even he doesn't even tire them and you and your recordings in this particular case and it's only those three when the evidence is that a minimum this is a company that had hundreds and hundreds of trained that one of the ways that you can tell if something is a potential problem is if you listen to it and you recognize the artists in the popular artist popular artists by and large are signed to major record companies and so if you certainly had reason to know i would also point out your honour's that other than the times that they are i came to give training mr ch no training at all in how do you know systems in place to prevent have the right infringement in a business and i'm sorry to repeat myself that in a business which replicates intellectual property and if you look at mr jim's deposition testimony he said that when he came to the company he didn't even know copyright infringement was a concern he got no training it wasn't until you've been there that they had a big turnover of employees and that information that should have gotten to people about how to prevent copyright infringement frequently didn't get their point taken you're back in the verdict is in the record they came back with a verdict of ninety thousand dollars per infringement and i would submit to your honor that a jury looked at this conduct and found it sufficiently courageous to put it on the high troubling that if if enough protons order is allowed in this context then and i'm not saying it's this case but in another case a debtor could rely on the automatic stay  will i usually the law and you go to the federal district court to proceed on additional action so that's what i think i think their argument is and this case at the bank he did have the option of going you know some other remedies in front of the federal district
start with the facts the trial lasted a week it was a jury trial and late on friday afternoon the jury presented a small piece of paper  instruction if there is an instruction given to the jury and there is no alternate structuring offer by the pool or an injection to that instruction then review plan for pain and suffering and loss during pain suffering itself is a subjective element the jury heard all the evidence and that's when they saw fit to war in that category for lost earnings there was
section of the armor their own modern troops the argument that knowing violation argument i think that this can be tripped up a lot and one of the problems is the case law is not very good and the same goes for this business when you go and look at the automotive repair act and the definition section about the exclusions and you know does a business deal in the commercial vehicles count does it not count as a on the repair facility subject to waive giving the use by the court talking about exceptions they're not evaluating in that case whether or not there's a commercial exemption it's not before the court and they don't call that such i'm sorry i asked and i mentioned i prefer this court better issue if it's willing to home repair a brochure for a repair and then have that held against that when it was accidental has nothing to do with knowledge of the law has to do with intent to act clearly the record reflects that defendant intended not to give an estimate and continue to do the written waiver son and i operate on what repair shop and i find this out before open after i open it any point and i don't want to do it because it hurts my bottom dollar because then i'm back home by those written estimates you have to get written estimate you can only would be absolutely ridiculous it would allow all you know years of wrongful actions followed by you know a coming to the right type of court appearance and then from then on they could be held to the status of the law and the law isn't supposed to merely applied to individuals and fraud and the fact that there is no no we require a consumer fraud so this section to bring in all these other applications added that knowing back in so that negligence or accidental violations of those laws would be actionable because again you  and say i didn't ask the man you know are recalling this or you could come back and get it later it's it's there for their convenience it's not to say that just because you have a business vehicle or that your vehicles use primarily for business that you don't have to give an estimate that this big business transactions for thousands of dollars it's probably not as applicable to you because you're in a negotiating standpoint you can get the benefits of the ongoing maintenance contract in agreement you're going to be my primary provider for maintenance in this area that you're going to cut me a deal on prices it may be considered a commercial we you go into it it doesn't matter it absolutely doesn't matter because there is no repair or bigness transaction involving two or more of those vehicles and on the other end of c s t i know the council made the argument
emotionally open ruled on by the court because he overstayed grant a voluntary departure i think it would be helpful to go over a time line on april seventeenth that date or whether we're in a situation where we really need to the board and then finds out that he overstayed after august five it won't be able to do anything anyway
checking they're actually they say they are in the region when you sign up they they ask you five very specific kind of uncountable questions maybe from like fifteen years ago like where did you live fifteen years ago
because the call came in by a reporting person the next door neighbor that she made a statement to fact that he believes the state police are in his ad spying on him people are shooting b b guns in his backyard throwing water balloons from her parents property among other things she believes him to have accidently discharge firearms in his home in the past but does not he still possesses weapons so to the extent that my mother makes the argument that there was no issue whatsoever after bettina's talk to have this conversation with when it doesn't end right there is just justice souter mentioned there's a heightened sense of scrutiny of the heightened sense of concern i think when you
assault and he was charged with attempted murder and the court said we can infer the elements of aggravated assault because the indictment alleges that the defendant read the victim and pulled the trigger that is a fact that sets out the parties are playing with a closed set affects everyone is on notice the possible charges are because the facts in the indictment set the limits of well charges the defendant has to defend against in kid was reasonable to infer that the victim was placed in reasonable apprehension of battery because based on the factual universe alleged in the indictment which was that the defendant pointed  battery for there to a ban assault because the assault would be complete if a person is placed in a reasonable apprehension of that night i also point out that that second theory reasonable apprehension did appear to be the one adopted by the regardless of how perhaps troubling that video might be secondly i want to search on the states are you bet the initial battery some no cause an apprehension of a subsequent battery and that still encounters the same problem if we if we accept that that argument we say will the first initial contact cause an apprehension that came with every engine that he was going to receive another battery a different battery the indictment doesn't contain a geisha as that would allow that inference either and what i mean by that is that is the basis for believing that he was going to receive a subsequent battery there isn't one in the embedded it's just the initial contact which is going down the p subsequent batteries and the apprehension of those subsequent hypothetical batteries isn't present in the indictment and it's one thing to make an inference the right call where the inference was a strong when you have a defendant who's charged with committing a act of sexual penetration and use that to infer the element of a criminal sexual abuse which is that it was done for the purposes of sexual gratification arousal there's a strong interest that if someone commits an act of sexual penetration excuse me that it was done for sexual gratification or else that's not a stretch four you can punch in the back of the head they can be shot from one hundred yards away or any number of ways you can receive a battery and not have apprehension of that battery and will we need in the indictment or facts that would allow that inference and not just for us to say and to speculate and say well if there is a battery he was probably apprehensive that's not enough we have to look at what the human actually says and what the allegations are because we're talking about when we talk about the notice of the charges against a person is not what we probably think and know what might happen a defendant has to know what he's actually charged and what he's
integrated in this lifestyle is part of this unity and again his immersion in this culture is what they want you to show that he is guilty in this case now turning to the specific text messages again here again shows that there was not a careful but careful finding of let's limit the number of text messages let's just take out a few of these even  three pounds of marijuana so we're not talking about small amounts of marijuana and someone increases their risk level to be involved ok but again we have no specific and just briefly the text messages reference
who found that there was no exceptions to the one year rule and then stood to see the petitioner had a clear probability of harm if he was returned to the problem with that is if that petition in fact had an exception to the one year to a resident citizen of the united states can you know yes but under a different statue of course if you're already married while while why don't you just go through the adjustment and why go through political sig marriage i have the impression from reading the brief that he was the equivalent of a mail order husband but that he arrived here and basically never consummated the marriage and immediately commenced divorce proceedings he moved that wife he live i i might agree with you if i thought there was a colorable claim to a legitimate marriage but the problem i'm having is he didn't file his application within a year i j basically made a finding that whatever the status of the married was it didn't last and you can see that he didn't raise the attack on the one year silence statute to the b a a some wondering whether we even have jurisdiction to mean that you have been persecuted yes it certainly is a scratch and harassment are sufficient and the equivalent of persecution in your argument if the threats that's the fish in the totality of his restaurant in our political scheme all the time around here well thank god there's more  and they want to see everything in their i mean they take all that stuff away though a lot of that lot of the literature had to be smuggled out so i didn't want you to think you know when you don't want to come
identify as particular false questions and what we're saying is in these group homes morals if not all of these patients are covered by medicare and so when the facility goes to submit claims for the embarrassment they are necessarily s they admit that the treatment of these patients is highly individualized your setting or your device could be totally different than mine because your centers are much more intensive much more often so there's all kinds of individual issues that come up in this and obviously the district didn't reach this don't think you can get by with just one ok and i feel so have to make sure that you've covered three elements you have to show that that question was actually covered by a government health plan subjected to a medically unnecessary procedure and that there was a claim for payment submitted to the government  case in which the course says no there's evidence here that some people are not who are covered by medicare are nonetheless paying for it outside that is not in terms of the inference here where you're talking about a thirty four thousand dollars procedure supreme court has said well it is unrealistic to think that related to come forward with details on payments that is helpful to the united states about produce the interest the false claims act is when they give us details of the fraud and then enough to satisfy us t
that requirement of the attorney being notified because it's not we would just accept what they say and then you go to it would you go to the next step now bring it to the next step why don't you have to comply with notifying council hav we have nothing in a record that effects or if the formalities of those are to have not been complied with then how do we go to the next step and to your argument the next step would be that it shows from the face of the re isn't of it are you trying to are you saying that is it is the thread in the other cases and i read them and i'm trying to sort this out too that somehow the record shows the record of the case some sort of attempt to do a bare bones assertion or look at the record are we lawyers than for the lawyer in trying to address this trial strategy unless we have the lawyers response or some showing so we can get the lawyers response well if there is no contains far less evidence than is already in the record that requirement to file those forms has been waived by the board and present cases so that's it's an n c requirements and in fact this court submitted and we appreciate the arguments of both parties
there's a struggle for the gun there will be evidence of such abrasions bruising something on the hands that struggle this was a misstatement of the evidence that went to a key issue at trial but the prosecutors not only misstated the date invented them for instance prosecutor shelby invented a damning exchange between prosecutor strong and defense witnesses keyshia cole and brianna kelly money and i knew that this was consistent with her this is statements at trial and other words prosecutor shelby manufactured a prior consistent statement that effectively trysts the state's theory of mind it now looking at for his behavior she essentially conflated the jury jury situ nation of waltz's credibility to its finding of his guilt this was a misstatement and a mis application of the law the jury was entitle to find referred to as a kid and remarked on the fact that he looked like a baby each time encouraging the jurors to associate him with a member of a class that society regards as vulnerable they implied that was communicating blacks mr wall this case and the trial the state entered into evidence of foam that they claimed belonged to mr wells and they also claim that it was collected from him when he had turned himself into the police discrepancy in the fire at the five twenty eight date on the fact there was no due complained about the phone numbers so what the trial judge did in making his decision was based on the defendant's and i don't recall i believe all the systems were there but he did testify that she had another sister but i don't have that i believe it's in the  the results one structure is regarding second degree murder there is a burden on the defendant to you in a second degree murder to disprove the element and in that case as far as testified in the the prosecution has the right to criticize the credibility of the defendant and to criticize the theory of the defense case set forth evidence that would disprove that you acted in self  invention invention an act literal invention of testimony that serves to discredit the defense witnesses and the state also invented wire startling different and so for the state to say well this is a minor mis remembrance it wasn't he was safe it was even latent ever kishen of testimony that never happened and it wasn't the only fabrication of testimony  to justice o'brien's question about whether or not you know your sister was at the party there's absolutely no evidence in the record that the other sister was a party and again it's state's only right that the state's only response to this argument is one that is not based at all on the record i think should be telling and finally