MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
regards to hair is usually more of a european standpoint and so it's very difficult as women of color to really be able to be comfortable with our hair and to do the things that we buy to do with our here and when we have this competition of when we look at a magazine only look at a billboard of what we see on t v and what beauty how beauty is defined in that way the media plays a very large role in how we perceive ourselves and how we perceive  esteem in regards to their hair and within their own body image and beauty and i cut my hair because i needed to make a point and prove a point to my daughter and to my sisters and to the people around me  character and nothing to do with my integrity or who i am who i represent as a one and i i believe it was really important for me for her to see that lesson and what better way than for me to show her myself not just point out point in the magazine or point out things that we happened to run across i'm a woman with short hair out in the corner dealer as we're shopping at the mall or anything but i want her to see that i  yeah i think this is  screaming and laughing and doing things it's a combination of the codes love working with the students to you know the ones i want to work anyways the other ones i just kind of send them out ideas and now i feel it's not my job to you know get them working if they don't want to work with  it when i call it operation no we have to plan that the planning operational work is time to execute it let's do it you know just the mind reader operation no work is made of four basic steps in order to succeed the question is will we with our almighty power speaking conquer the world so i'm sure we can conquer this classroom let's put this into effect is made of four basic steps in order to succeed the question is will
anyone can self exclude sure we did wrong and there are a thousand things we may have done wrong but there's no fraud nothing years before the company went public the fact that but for the false financial state the company would have to fall to get all of these things concrete benefits to individuals in the company as opposed to potential recalls a corporate accounting personal often joke that a d s did not follow gap but rather sap or sturgeon approved accounting principles so at least in the first part of that there's a specific
was no evidence presented was simply the representation of counsel asking for the we can substitute them what makes this appropriate that there's no finding there's no evidence did these three individuals are in fact the only heirs to this estate income is x y z and the judge will say are you make fifty dollars a week that's a modification of the terms of restitution arguably the terms of probation i don't you don't have to make a finding that
i mean and i don't really i can tell the court that as a public defender i didn't need any places where people are driving a car that is not registered to them as they cross the border i think that is a common occurrence so i don't think that the seven seventy five seven seventy seven they said they were deadlocked and then they wanted to see the marijuana again and then they still deliberated another half a day before coming back with a guilty verdict on the other cases which have been rever
not arguing are you there this was this was an intentional withholding of information you were saying that it was an omission correct correct it was a mission that he doesn't describe describe the identity very well it's a black man it's a scruffy here scruffy appearance how does this relate to because fabrication position on why it should not be allowed so we'll have the information the vicar didn't have that we need to decide it's there it's a significant difference isn't it i wouldn't say it they come to court didn't sunday best and he had either for or done something with thier dress differently than the police officer described him on that night correct doesn't mean a separation in this case of prosecution was report he did not talk about any gun in his report there were there was no evidence that he went over the line there was no evidence regarding field sobriety test there is no evidence regarding a blow and in and eleven should be given not material there's no and they talk about you crush crucial elements which are issues on field sobriety tests which go to whether or not you're under the influence and driving over the line which is whether or not you peoples of safely drive so i would think that that there's a significant difference between the materiality of those facts and i curse is what we had here which is the trooper just wasn't as descriptive as he was at the trial where he was signed as to those issues think i think he i would argue that he did identify he did identify who he saw in the police report the fact that he provided more description at the trial i don't know  characterize it as he was silent he knew that he had to live we had an opportunity to make those statements and at the time and to put those statements in the report he chose not to correct yes he did not he did not put them in the report but i believe that the material the material the nd prong of that analysis is whether or not putting those in that information is something that is a normal part of the course of the description that he recalls a time trial and that but possibly an earlier grand jury testimony is is from where where is it coming from his excellent well when he when he went with the rd trooper to the home in i guess it was late in the hills and saw the vehicle backing out did it was there any question as he looked at mr singleton that that was the person he had seen i mean did he say i'm not sure or did he say that's the guy
own that there would be believe that you know i need i need to get i need to get discovery either formal or informal in order to actually figure out what they did wrong i did know that it's not wrong but i don't know what i've got to figure it out now doesn't that it does seem like  in some ways that would counsel in favor of of of at least deference to the district court judges saying no we're not going to be doing this you know you don't know you don't know but is there any case saw that sort of says that we apply there after asking about the i'm asking about the other way is there any case law that says that that if they're an outsider you have a little last empathy or it's kind of intuitive it outside or you're so the weight so sort of put that in the context of the district court judges evaluation of whether to grant leave to amend or not or whether to dispense the edges which you would you put that in the attic and be wrong of prejudice to the defendant you when judge sonia found with prejudice he found it not just because of its option or because he presumed that he found it because the defendants presented actual evidence of the harm seen caused to their business
as raised in the court the love of the court focus quite a bit on the source of the thoughts and under a six nineteen motion of course the court's not permitted to have the trial court level definition of bad as a player the ownership of property basically transfers of the rights and property transfers upon the back of whoever created the trust document i do believe that that would apply but   because it's not saying there is no difference in the ultimate everybody the six kids get their share is how does how does that get implemented and i think that someone should actually kind of like you're funds need to be withheld for the purpose of continuing the farm on the farm land because the trust provide for violence that that farming coming off the land will be distributed to each one of the plaintiffs at the end of every year reading back would now automatically lead someone to conclude that more than half the funds are being retained for this farming operation when you're looking at
she could work more she has no obligation to work more years life so we find it interesting when we talk about numbers affinity for finite number as being speculative who had he had a certain income and at the time of the hearing she had a certain income was making less than he was correct one one just point of clarification is a modification if the mishal request i mean another was a temporary order it's a good three hundred dollars a month because substantial change of circumstances you and only then you find that there is a substantial change then you move to all these other you back on the right so if the court found no substantial can you tell me what you think the difference was between how much let's say a mom she her again how much the court said she couldn't leave if she was working full thousand dollars a month alone again and the best what's in the best interest of the child you know is it better to stick them in child care and you make exactly the same amount of money or a few bucks  never did go back to full time and the reason the fact that at the time of the requested child support you know the post judgment request the fact that there had one from an employee to full time employment at ninety thousand dollars one side of this equation that was looked at by the trial court and that was mom and it disregard the fact that i was now making from zero to ninety thousand and that that would have been perhaps a better time to do the equation of what what's both it was but that just the fact that he went from unemployed to employed was substantial enough change of circumstances to get past that hurdle and then perhaps month or something like that but the stock of those substantial change in circumstances without taking into account that you know and i don't see anything evidence that she took into account that is employment at that point that's  seven hundred twenty five dollars her mom at the time of the hearing in march of two thousand sixteen reposition stating that she was making three thousand two hundred fifty dollars per month and  determine that there was a substantial it's very clear from
gets recognition for that he's been wounded in service he also gets access to his military id card which gives him access through privileges on the base privileges going to the movie theater privileges and when he shows and so there are many or reasons why he wants to do this and granite v a benefits in general can offset military medical work hard or even to military medical separation but the ultimate goal isn't always money your writing can increase over time that is where there is that service connection but the separation kind of sets in time whatever reading you received at the separation it wasn't distinctions enough to kind of cast a question on whether or not we should compare the two top i would say in some cases yes in many you know the military had no plans for this kind of casualty there was no allegation in this case about systematic downgrading it's been her by i mean to try to see whether whether you accept or not but he seems to think that whatever evidence was in existence before the v a in two thousand and five was also in existence in two thousand and four and should have been shared with e r so that the army could have made a higher determination at that time i think that's
in any event he will listen to the tapes and we will consult with him before we issue a decision in this case so if we're ready to proceed it's very unusual for cases like this to be brought to put appeal i've been practicing law in this area for fifty three years may and i would like to refer the court to the record page eighty three part of the protective that they're using some of their their grain for their own animals possibly even their domestic again but i mean how can we just try to remove commercial and we don't cultivation as we normally understand it eight to ten bales of grass constituted an agricultural activity yielding fifty to one hundred dollars a year i think not legitimize the action that was being taken that is being taken that was taken by the defendants i believe the assertions of the different are wrong through these three reasons requires that the entity take place for one year we know that for the twenty four years that the village occupied the premises there was no farming activity whatsoever is in the record yes on the property it was only then that they graded a portion of this parcel hand seeded some grass or headache and then claim it over a period of two years to have removed  requisite forming activity necessary for one year to award for cation of the act it doesn't shield the defendant's actions from the city's nuisance prosecution for protected from the villages nuisance quite apart from ritual to form a nuisance apt a reasonable reading of the statute of ways that sort of interpretive train wreck that cannot have been the intention of the use and enjoyment of adjacent property in lafayette a change of land from crops to livestock was never at issue and let me repeat that is often get a change from quote we do not believe the legislature intended this fish to cover situations in which a partner fundamentally changes the nature of the agricultural activity it conclusion if or if the change of form you should be protected by the format in illinois as for those reasons we just with you from the decision of the trial court we believe it is consistent with the former in many respects it is a question of first impression additional thing that i think is very important for a message from this court is that judicial decisions should be made based upon evidence presented that's the nature of what we do and in this case unfortunately the courts seem t
interpret a deed and then explain try to put to make sense out of these deeds and i'll be the first to admit it and i think everybody who's touched this case would admit these were mass i mean some of these descriptions are as long as you both these were made so they could construct a slate which they did and now i don't know if the city contends that there's a dispute i mean we've had one hundred eighteen years now for hundred seventeen years since since that plate was buil i mean it obviously is not going to matter more than a bit a few feet and i don't know that we've ever had a flood that extended what is normally a normal pool to the through extensively but but we're happy to do that must first decide whether there was any ambiguity if there's no ambiguity you don't go outside the gate at all you just interpret the language of the deed as it is written and if you look lines and and titles is that all cases say that the central point is what is trying to ascertain the intent of the parties and we don't get into rules of construction we don't have to beef we know what the intent of the parties is and what could be more crystal clear to determine what the intent of the parties is then an expressed expression on the face of the deed that said it's the intent of the parties were s a but but even if even if you would said that they had that argument that that it is going more to like a secondary element of trying to figure out what was intended here well what did they pay ever claim title to anything other than the war delivered to its citizens as a polymer water supply so the suggestion now that the city owns that is is i think that was paid for what they believed to be
petition for custody change we know she got the petition but i'm trying to find out what in crawford county is the custom and practice court getting the notice to the other individual if there's going to be a hearing on that petition you show up for the hearing really it would have been in your file that no notice one hour and we went ahead and proceeded with the default judgment that's why would that be and if you knew at the time that you were responsible for the notice
you're just saying that the theory of the countability was a surprise and if he was aware of that he would have proceeded in a different way to rebut that i'm just curious as if given the case and i and i will this case other than what you're saying as a jury versus a bench trial then i would presume that a poor would be and i would think that be your argument situation than was the kind of killing instructions given during the him i understand ok what what you're trying to present but i still have it knowing that he's admitted to the police that he was there that they all had guns and that they went there that the forensic guy says well i don't know you know nobody could tell who's gonna wise but for whatever reason he had a router there and he said well it wasn't that router i the first time that accountability came out specifically was in closing arguments but that was before the defendant defense counsel has a chance to respond and did not respond to the if the trial had started on the basis of both your the defense counsel would may have to shoot a different trial strategy defense counsel must know about the possibility of him being found guilty on the theory of the count ability because when you look at opening statements this is what she said when during opening statement she discussed that recorded statement of the defendant and she urged that this report that statement would only show his presence and that having a nine millimeter gun or a group  state would have to show something more than mere presence and that is the theory of accountability you have to show that the defendant aided or attempted in another in the mission like you have to show that they kill so understood because she's articulate mere presence and that that is something that she's trying to do to avoid guilt by theory of accountability so i think it was  which should make no difference because in this case the only evidence that i mean there's no surprise about what evidence is going to be presented there's no discover there's no new evidence and they come and they don't complain that counsel was ineffective for not into dissipating this am and apparently she did because of what is contained in the opening s surprise especially given the nature of the evidence that was going to him which is the defendant's statement which is the only thing that actually ties the defendant to this were in the parameters of the
court apparently the through the litigation both the trial level and before this court that he owns the properties why should he not be able to assert that sudden arrest is not responsible
and the conservation restriction y well you know what i hope you understand what's going on here that this is going to have to go to change i'm going to have to go back to work tell me so you're going to get you're going to hear it you won't and
does aj jazz plan on doing to address this population
cheated in dispersed into the general funds from accounts of the commonwealth but that has to the post two thousand and six premiums they are apparently being held in reserve account but i think what we're asking for is not is there are some type of contractual undertaking for per se for to see you but instead is there anything that confer on take ownership of the property between agreement that says the car is my car and we agreed that if i show up on thursday you'll let me drive it away and we'll hang onto it and longer as opposed to the agreement that says we have a dispute over that the settlement is i understand the settlement agreement is of the latter type of undertaking and hence your action that you wish to bring this an action for damages for preacher contract as opposed to a more equitable proceeding for return of rely on my description right to settlement agreement said what i'm trying to find out is to rise up have you complied with and in this to spin for a number if you care is so we have some interest in knowing how fast this process is going to happen even if there were if ownership was ever decided thank you thank you
during this argument i'd like to focus on issues one and two from mr cobbles opening brief but i would be happy to answer any questions the party has about the other issue chapter one issue two is that the state improperly foerster the credibility of its police witnesses by telling the jury the police would have risked their careers  the only evidence in this case came from the two sets of witnesses the state witnesses related to that time they were all police officers and after they were called to but that the police overreacted after he chuckled at them because they asked blanch at the same questions about well over and over again during the state's case sergeant can drag and related t shabbes not only is this improper double hearsay but this is an incredibly damaging piece of evidence for the jury to hear domestic violence is a sensitive emotional issue because this was introduced through he the jury could have been told just police policy and he said domestic how about using the word violence because it's the most i could be screaming or anything like that just the word call you know we responded to a call we needed to talk to everybody is enough to tell the jury why they were there the testimony of the police witnesses and in time this magnify the earlier error because the combination of these two errors have the effect of pushing caldwell blanchard's credibility down while at the same time pushing the police witness friend ability they he did answer their questions and that he and minute maybe behaving like a smart alec chuckling at them when they seemed overly concerned so that the other story from the defense side is the thing the police overreacted to his smart alec behavior grabbed him through him to the ground and then arrested him so he didn't resist arrest but but the police you know out of anger may be overreact heard me earlier i was saying that it doesn't there's no way to value what instruction would be given if it you know if the judge gave a terse instruction or a more detailed instructions that might affect the strength of the issue but in this even the fact that the car that it was the police officer saying that the dispatcher said that the caller said that somehow the jury there's a strong implication that he did it in a college calling nine one one based on something it's giving the jury information he's committed this this other offense it's well right and they had a policy to you know present a call to residence to check on everyone it's simple enough and that's why they needed to talk to everyone on the crimes resisting arrest so they didn't really need to go any further than that certainly not into the actual substance of the i'm on call   and you can list all sorts of alleged criminal activity and you're saying there shouldn't be anything at all descriptive about the purpose of here or not about not getting into other crimes or any kind of the that the argument relies on speculation about the impact of this on the jury on just her mind according again to the judge somebody who is legally trained not to consider your say first truth she she considered this this
courts i don't understand i understand they don't argue a lot every motion but i am concerned about some of those findings and how we should treat them down here because basically our court agreed  workers saying oh we're defending you go by the way we're taking these actions and saying you go past this point on her in your peril and we are changing her position on the appeal ability of prior coverage which i know have been raised by travelers as an issue and you go past this point by your behavior for your pay a settlement amount in excess it's a living i said i'm not i'm not asking about the limits i'm asking about the caliber of the actions of the insured in relationship to its insured and whether a
a motion to reconsider as i find that very odd that put your own attorney are we in a motion to reconsider all do you believe that the information from that hearing so obviously otherwise this would be  you know that as a part of this advice there was a motion to reconsider and i understand that these allegations were raised but i'm talking about an opportunity here at that hearing it's my understanding tha not giving you that great and that the result will be a substantial likelihood of an hour of a different but what that's my question is that you have a the defendant has the burden of showing