MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
remember more than twenty years ago when radio was learning to talk and then radio moved up from the salad to the pub earphones replaced by a handsome cone speaker big enough but bad to get a whole head in is a still pride but this may be cincinnati direct on a clear evening but it was a magic night hundred twenty six when dad switched to a global things and found that it was linked by telephone lines to nineteen other states by the national broadcasting company the creation of this pioneer network meant that a broadcast originating from any of these affiliated stations could be heard clearly in the area by all the other always at the same spot on dad now radio was going by and n b c went with extending it across the pacific america's number one network more than one hundred and seventy stations independent community state which only six are owned and operated by n the n b c guide would have to be graduate engineers to answer all the questions that people ask on a regular to about how a radio show was actually put on the ng that was the simplest dorie in the whole day when this antique master control that took you know what you'll hear on the air represents only a fraction of the act but that goes into network radio the microphone doesn't pick up for example the sound of the teletype in the communications department which connect directly sending and handle the three thousand messages a day which are necessary to bring your shows in on cue you can tune in on the cabinet department either but without it no telling what you'd get naturally always want to see some of the boxes that they hear every day at home so they usually stop then on a rampage and studio in air behind a soundproof window they can eavesdrop on a popular daytime serial getting a final run through before a and news enough to be sure but certain to not fall together hopeless to the men who make a living slamming doors and breaking the radio is also the anonymous penned by pianist on a moment's notice must fill an emergency silence with music preparation of a musical program every selection must be investigated for clearance and performance right when the numbers have been cleared for broadcast some are turned over to the composing staff and special arrangements are prepared the balance of the program they come from occupations on pilot indeed from the largest most complete working music library in the world containing everything from swing to symp heard but neither network nor sponsors ultimately decide to determine the most popular type of radio entertainment n b c engages in constant research by telephone the more than two decades of n b c radio have been dedicated to the spirit of public service now in bringing television network television out of the laboratory and into your living room n b c rededicate sit down in the same spirit provide the greatest medium of mass information and mass entertainment in the world and focus on tomorrow
letter is is because it was not any more adequate than the other is because what would be adequate would be for wells fargo to have provided the borrower a had to be included in the calculation that's correct your response to that but the judges calculation also relieves some some pieces of us saying for example the most  judge is since we don't get as far as speculation as to why the judge is own calculation is incorrect is is primarily because of the the principle of forgiveness that is not a part of it
with this case comes down to is that regardless of the definition of that you use whether it's the federal law definition which i argue is the correct definition or even the broader definition which really is in the definition of the because that is something that's fundamentally it's been in the common law all there's been no change to it as is the five there are other within the generic definition and it comes down to whether or not the property owner has given over the property willingly and the connecticut supreme court has said that consent that is in my private is not knowing consent at all so ye was left open by the board and because the connecticut courts had said that he thought is not taking it which the property is given over with no i consent this court can address that issue by looking at
no we don't you don't need a gun you're going to ha point apparently and walker is that something i believe that sandy said something to the effect of cool however there was no indication by any of the evidence or was no mention of the gun there was no display of the gun and the government believes that because the day before there was reference and the invisibility of the gun was visible that that carries over to the following and angle and in which the definition and angle and not necessarily definition but an explanation that's visible restraint usually requires something more than what happened in this  sanders and we do not believe that there was sufficient evidence to establish that certainly mr sanders was there at some point in time that mr harkins was there however we do have the few small details saying that i was i would be pretty much jumping over the counter i handing them a note jumping over the counter telling them to escort me to the  to direct them to the vault in either case this was going to be a takeover bank robbery there's other evidence that the defendant intended this to be a takeover bank robbery which includes giving hopkins  the robbery and actually helped him find someone to go in the bank with him as i mentioned the record makes clear that sanders intended all along for hawkins to jump over the teller counter and take one of the tellers to actual knowledge as to the weapons to be able to be liable under a pink and pinkerton theory in this case the defendant did have actual knowledge of the weapon as your honor pointed out the detent when told by walker that he was going to use the gun said i don't think you need it but that's cool go ahead use the gun so dependent is in fact liable under pinkerton theory of liability for the nine twenty four contested came from him and in this declaration and encouraged hopkins to lie under oath perjure himself by signing the declaration that the defendant was not involved in the bank robbery the circumstances surrounding that because he called in through the fence and said thanks and that i'll put money on your books for doing that the declaration itself was from the defendant because it actually in the cover letter to the declaration  have the defendant the name of the defendant's lawyer which hopkins testified he didn't know he had never met that lawyer he didn't know his name he had never spoken to him the cover letter in the declaration also both included hopkins registration number which hopkins testified he gave to defendant when they were incarcerated together kern county jail and then after that declaration was delivered the defendant
that's not the way i see you believe me you see it wrong to give me a chance up and send me a postcard that you want me to watch this beautiful thing i've ever known but i
underlying compensation award of permanent total disability was fired off because the employer didn't appeal that it was not something that could be altered or changed or reduced in any way on appeal and his underlying cottons attorney f versus great lakes international shipping case which this court followed in thomson versus protection the construction company in the wells case there was an underlying topic station award in favor of the injured worker and it was an attorney feel for it in favor as that and held that because the employer had appealed that award wasn't fined off and if if they didn't force as they did affirm the district court the lawyer would be in the very uncomfortable  keeping the money and it in an interest bearing a trust account subject to having to pay it back to the employer i don't later date and and the court threw judge posner said that we don't think that congress intended this time as a result of that case if speak claimant only had appealed that award there wouldn't would not have been any possibility of the claim that having to hold the money in a trust account and then having to pay it back in every case the district court  d was where the employer only had appealed the only case on record where the claimant only had a deal because he didn't feel the award was inadequate was the benefits review board decision and from france on house versus angle ship award and apply the maximum compensation rate to the combined awards and first christians on appeal on that basis and as a result of that appeal the employer contended that the attorneys fees  is said that the attorney if they enforced the perceiving if they have harmed the district court and entered the enforcement for stealing and wells what they would have what the attorney would have to do is hold the money the attorney faith  trust account because there's a risk that he would have to pay it back either all of it or some of it to the employer and they didn't think that congress create one exact kind of a situation to occur but if the attorney f final in order to address the effect of delayed payment is that you can't force the order of earlier so if there's been too much time you can ask for the order to be supplemented by really wouldn't unless someone was going to be willing to kind of blink at it and you know give you a large reward as of then to make up for the interest you're not getting things like you wants to look for those i ask to send a letter to the clerk with the current address because you're not going to find it if you try when i put in the great i think there's no more of an ethical problem in the situation th argument the johnson case was an appeal solely by the employer and the insurance carrier was not an appeal by the client what happened in johnson it was a hearing last playing the employer appealed to the benefits review board and eventually l
think you understand that to be jurisdictional at the sense that we couldn't reach the merits or or some kind of thing that's called feeling that is really a marriage issue i'm not biggest problems from the more typical one that applies here the nd there not just the reason the vagueness argument i mean i don't understand why that's a standing argument it seems like you are really just saying that this categor flight challenge because we know the
s consistent with someone who do believe in methamphetamine that would be different than him and that with the death penalty is one thing but then he took one step further and said that my client had the knowledge and spoke to my then he had he even knew how long other people had been dealing for narcotics again that could be consistent with a range of of of things he did say it's clear that this man was dealing has had this was that he had extensive knowledge in the dealing of methamphetamine he could've been his statements are consistent with someone who was familiar with methamphetamine transactions then that would have been ok i think that would be a different situation so consistent but not a question about  distribute and that's exactly what happened in this particular case in this phase the it's not a hypothetical perfect the problem in this case and why the line drawn is there for cole is the expert here is talking about his knowledge based on the amount of drugs found on a person would indicate whether it was possessed for use for distribution and both of those cases the experts were discussing a hypothetical situation basically indicating whether or  the government's evidence basically consists of the recorded meetings between mr mendez and become the confidential informant basically the confidential informant and moreover every time there was no the there may have been drugs found in this case but there is nothing to indicate that the drugs did or did not come from jose and whether or not the
you know you have five minutes good morning eva jerome from the new york city lot of apartment on behalf of the medical and municipal of police there appellant has had ample opportunity to present a meritorious case and she's been litigating these hospitalizations for fourteen years trying different courts to assert the claims based on the exact same facts she sought to appeal to the court of appeals she sought to appeal to the supreme court of the united states futile exercise to allow her to amend again the absence of a constitutional claim i want to just touch briefly on a few points that the appellant raised one is that she had a full and fair opportunity to expectation of continuous treatment for a condition she denies ever having had the last point i'd like to make is that with respect to the municipal defendants the grounds for dismissing them in addition to what the district court ruled which is that she has failed to plead any monera liability whatsoever and she is alleged no personal involvement
not worth it and they file titian with the circuit court asking for guidance if you will instead of making the decision on their own if they aren't strenuously we should not spend money on the residences that are on this land that was given to my client this lady is gone but because it's not over instead we should preserve the half million dollars they argue that the university of illinois foundation was a contingent beneficiary of this process and i suggest you they are not my client did have orders to represent her through the throughout th point one they are not a contingent beneficiary in fact they are not even a runner oh ok your main argument is that university of illinois foundation is a necessary let's get this thing where it needs to be ok and that didn't the trial judge implicitly determine that the blood descendants did not mean nieces and nephews by determining that they were not necessary parties by denying your motion descended then they have to be brought in and be allowed to make their case even if they're going to get rules in other words the old the determination of the issue is not what's important for due process it's whether or not we allow the parties to appear and make their arguments in this particular case it's a simple as that of the trustee not going to all the necessary parties to the action then there is no discretion for the trustee of that one time i do believe that the
i don't disagree with anything you've said but let let me go right to the heart of my concern as i read the supreme court decision i guess it was a metropolitan stevedoring company versus rambo the court snack and without being unfair in characterizing your argument it seems to me that that's what you're asking us to do here and i mean there is a compensation scheme that has scheduled injuries nonscheduled injuries and how do i get around he would be able to continue to have that excess for tool i would raise one other hypothetical situation what is his shoulder injury deteriorated to the point where he had to have additional surgery possibly a fusion of the joint at that point then he wouldn't be schedule injury and indicated that is actually my understanding with a long time but you know long was the back and it was talking about the lighting in there i mean they're all the bodies interconnected in many ways so i understand that i'm just trying to understand son because at you determine actual injury and schedule that that remark the foreman job is persuasive however that administrative law judge had evidence presented to her and decided that the evidence presented was not persuasive and doubled it's kind of the injury he's in a better place than he what his argument is that he had to forgo the farm position because he can perform the functions therefore he would have gotten him so that would have been his actual we have two folders to the nature shoulder or two surgeries to the major shoulder joint with a lifetime limitation on the work you can perform and there's no medical dispute in the record whatsoever that he has on structures that have prevented the kind of work very briefly higher wages do not necessarily mean that there's no loss of wage earning capacity you have lots of wagering is that even in the presence of higher wages it's granted by all here that generally higher wages are going to
front of the property and then again you know there is testimony well i didn't see it but it was you know it was it's because a boy in the pictures and i'm looking at those pictures and i don't think that's very  certainly that he walked in off the door and said don't move i'm going to put the dog away you stay right where you are but i also don't you know there's been testimony certainly that he invited them in for he talked about this is  from the m i believe that we'll have that in terms of landmarks of the trees about halfway up the driveway from it but s walking up to the house but the nd issue of whether or not you can sit there because there's the initial interest of the property and then there's whether or not they had consent to search his home and when they walked up to the property rights are respected and your and your privacy rights respected you know this guy here why him and why him fans if your intent is well let's just let let the public get there's no testimony that he had i don't want  was perfectly reasonable for them to go get a warrant i think this is something that needs to be investigated it's not reasonable to say it was just dispense with the warrant there was no testimony this would be a different exception but there is no testimony that he was
anything there were no trespassing signs in other parts of this facility that customers were allowed to enter into the specific area in question where this attack occurred had a deed that was open or broken and not more so you have a twenty foot opening where this was down it was not marked to keep out no mark is no trespassing because the skeet was missing so mr ed and i are is following the path to leave the facility and he enters into this area that from the defendant's perspective is a private area no trespassing but there is no notice to the plaintiff on that day that he cannot be in there the second there were verbal warnings that defended and some of his employees discussed but these were not sufficient is that it's either the owner of the facility can't recall ever personally told the plaintiff himself and two of the employees testified as well one thinks he was aware he told the plate at one point imagine that someone told him to stay out and the other one says that he tells a new face in the office of the private area when he sees it but there's no testimony about that day this man knowing to not be in there he says the plaintiff he was never told to not be in the presence of that building the second major one i want to touch upon is the provocation issue and there is no direct evidence of provocation in this case plaintiff testifies he was attacked from behind by the dog and this is the only direct testimony the only witness to the actual attack the only indirect evidence is alleged statement that one of the employees said the plan to monitor when he came back inference but i don't think it's sufficient enough in this case to overcome what plane it was demonstrated so the evidence from the place perspective overwhelmingly favors the plaintiff that this verdict cannot stand or request for relief is outlined in the weight of the evidence to your honor's he's not arguing that there is no evidence he simply wants you to come to a different conclusion i will submit that the facts in this case were sufficient for a jury to go found to the point that they were also sufficient to find for the defendant and that is the province of the jury and i would guess that your honor is not reversed that step in and substitute your judgment for there is the if you know it's a two count point one to the animal jury deliberations we were only able to find one case that ever discussed that language a statute that was the garcia vs nelson case and basically said simply that means that the plaintiff was not just asking the jury was instructed  he'd been there forty or fifty thousand over the years and that open about half the time pointed him self testified that he was where there were no cars for picking it was nothing in there for customers to go in for and that this was nothing but but the evidence there was certain sufficient evidence for the jury to determine otherwise on the circumstances of that accident of that character is completely separate this is a serviceman walked into the yard dog charged for him but st
stand the rationale of stop was what i'm trying to say this particular defendant suffered no consequence that the pearson warnings were meant to avoid because the court permitted t
here these are council there is perhaps nothing more central to the attorney client relationship point there's a there are a couple saying it's a make you think that there were something in the records that didn't necessarily come out but we don't notice it was in the police reports trial testimony is often different it's in the police report we learned about that some of the some of that in this case because she talks about must have felt comfortable after interviewing the victim that yes we can continue otherwise why would she said i would like to continue in this matter all she is for was can i also put my investigator and witness  the evidence to she was given time to to take the evidence three in her you know she heard this distance opening statement and she didn't she did nothing to change her statement which i think goes back to the minute making these changes in the middle of trial deciding whether or not to at any point testify or decisions that i think are worthy of more than just sort of a thirty second analysis there are decisions that are made with consultation usually
your honour's may please the court the decision in this case by the district court denying or dismissing the hadiths petition by mr murray was in error  and i say error using that word loosely realizing that the standard that this court in that the district court looks at on a hatless matter is whether or not the california state quark is a state court i prolly either you we disagree with you find that claim was not exhausted honor because in the first instance the judge just said you will get twenty years so if you've got if you go to trial are found guilty in the second hypothesis you gave me i've got to give me he simply indicating the potential of what may or may not happen he hasn't facts so that would be a fact finding of which about i believe so your honor reasonable yes your honor if i like the choice by pointing out the counsel that i started talking about the need for an evidentiary hearing i think that issues additionally way because
the future follow the rules here not in rise or suggestions  well if they can't do without a reason and they have a reason but there's no evidence newsworthy did he ever reported any form of bad problems until nine months after july eleventh and by the way even though he was outside his restrictions with me and was injured then we can't have any impairment of our names because the restrictions out of lokomotiv or wherever they came from said we can only work