MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
more than often more sundays than usual and sundays also so i just want them to be mentioned in the committee for all the hard work that they're doing all right let's get started with the regulatory basis financial state this is the balance sheet of our general as of december thirty first two thousand and fourteen and i just want you to know the line before the bottom line there is a total fund balance in two thousand and fourteen o this the general fund had a fine balance of sixteen point eight million dollars this is a seventy percent growth from about two thousand and thirteen which had a fourteen point four million dollars balance but included in that sixteen point eight is a seven point seven transfer we still would have a six point six million dollars under strict to fund balance remaining and of course you've got to remember we used for over four hundred thirty thousand just for the j street fighter so that's where the numbers at the six point six is still thirteen look at that statement of ready to send expenditures for the general fund that the comparison of actual revenues to revise revenue to look at the revenue side of the budgets excluding that appropriate from downs which was not needed shows that the revenues exceeded budgeted revenues by one point nine million dollars they are looking at the various would actually be two point three million dollars or eleven percent of the budget the other big factor was workers compensation was under by seven hundred thirty two thousand and this is mainly due to the payments to medical providers and our credit card transactions were were over by nineteen thousand so those are the two big reason why they were not under budget key areas were expenditures were over budget or exceeded  course public safety overall the police department was over budget by eight hundred sixty one thousand over the police overtime was over by nine hundred seventy six thousand so even though over time  haiti this year we are going to a put two million dollars we're going to add to the capital reserve and once again this increases our you know our ability to of fun fund expenditures without going components where expenditures were less than what it include home and community service departments which were on there by nine hundred forty thousand reservoir and pumping together were under by five hundred seventy two thousand and water this river water and general general government support apartments rather budget by seven hundred thirty thousand i distribute expenses one hundred sites seven hundred thirty five seven hundred twenty seven thousand i just want to make another note on  yeah yeah right  s well yeah share through the city six percent or five hundred forty thousand was through homeland security in your state and the federal government that provides us with a lot of the camera equipment and equipment  their information challenges so they can be better supers and technology system and you have everything that you meet that we're going to focus on sharing between the cities but if you don't what are the things that you need to do and it schenectady already have a deep dive look we have to do
the reason was because he knew where his money was coming from and he realized that if he had given the disclosure that's possible that that was service relationship with yasid who was willing to hear thousands of dollars  constitutional rights i cannot be excluded on the show no matter how you may fine and i must say that this case
struck us that there wasn't anything that was what is really important protected material in cases that come before us and i just want to inquire of the two of you if we are discuss this with your client i would hope that you would emphasize the need to be extremely sparing in any assertions of confidentiality and which there has to be some real need frequently we see claims of confidentiality would hope would be limited to those matters that are really critical if any understood your ok very first person then on that basis mister making underlying the conclusion of summary let's just assume we accept your interpretation of the quaint language but nonetheless we have some statements of fact that seem to be triggers i had the same question used as judgement pieces of evidence that you were talking about just to make sure were on the same page as yours is more than a deposition and the declaration was attached to the response of
if you don't like that why don't we get all all right if you do please make it known at this time it's not or never will your
in a matter which is harmful to the prince so both of these are involved in that case not thomas and or shelter like a lot of people today are of the statutory form of power of attorney for property and like a lot of couples that have children they named each other as the primary agent and they named their children as the successor eaters and of course you can only name one age another time conveying the property to rodney and ronnie's wife now we demonstrated to the court in morris in front of judge peterson that doris shelton of the time of these deeds was incompetent successor each of which is a wonderful provision in the powers of attorney so that we always can easily of moved on to the next engine i call that when i do and for people all death you want to have lots of death so you his cooperation in going and getting a doctor's solidification he wants to hide behind the fact that he was a second and in fact he was not a psych because he knew  responsibilities and it is that you find that out two years later that be because because with what your are going to do is it or was the agency obligation to the success rate it was on the first one yes but not in the second one not in the second we're not we're not talking about activating rodney as the first agent on the second one we're talking about the statute that says when he you see that they implicitly recognize a legislature that perhaps a successor agent must actually in fact be on an agent  my client mr shelton at the rodney there are no moral decisions in this case in any meeting that there was under the influence that there was actual fraudulent conduct and there was nothing just section but i've heard a lot of that as a tree in fact under that instrument they only become worn when the conditions and circumstances are met under that instrument which has to be strictly construed so with him in power they don't have any ability to go out and do those things a all the time so if we rule that she cannot do that then a person in the second asian position is going to be free to use it because he's not going to go into certification why would he have to create the presumption of fraud in them since all i'm going to do this stuff and i'm going to hide behind my mother's shirts  time some thinking this is an area of new a new area that we're plowing but we're we're seeing those were children are obtaining property from your parents while the parents are alive used to
matters that an officer described what he saw with respect to the crime drug sale or controlled sale and didn't in that testimony refer to the church as a kind of landmark with reference to the evidence of the crime and ask why all three of those cases the state was wired to go back and separately show that the drug transaction occurred near a church and then prove whether the church testified that during the search which occurred on the hill in the charge date of january two thousand and thirteen a prescription bottle it was taken in evidence and part of the evidence against the ban it was found in the yard of the residence issue and that it was specifically it's clear from the testimony that the officers were referring to the church as a landmark with reference to where they decided to do and where the evidence was found and that's the difference between  challenge the issue in foster was whether the stipulated name of the building was sufficient to prove that the bill is primary use was a place of worship and the answer to that question was god's and foster was following in the sentence opinion at paragraph to go cross the street and look at the site where this had had occurred
staff nursing staff that's the decision that constituted had first action and it's the adverse action under these bylaws and by the way the licensing act that triggers the hearing i mean it's a little bit out of the wa individual this is not a state action type of thing but using state actions as an analogy can you point to me or to my colleagues any instance in which a preliminary finding or am door recommendation is made by a board of the a group this is the m e c it's subject to review concurrence diminish or accentuation by you need no other decision making body and this is the board have and there is absolutely no notice no or no opportunity for the rogers involved situations where a doctor had placed on probation and told you know you got any of your back and this was a professional behavior you know dr who was mistreating staff and they said you need to immediate danger exists and if that happens then it triggers a whole different set of changes the following year including a nearly need hearing five days because it's so serious you've
how would you have somebody put these things in  necessary that you pay attention to professor reid on the go get a cup of coffee and another piece of pie rangebound we are here all those matters i've been reading about books you know the things we couldn't understand quality i'd like to miss martin but you see i really do need a vacation monk you even consider me well i might be able to arrange it but you see i've been planning to be back in the off within two weeks oh two weeks you c the kind of cattle they've got on this right when if you tell me i hadn't a chance i think i might bring a pretty big responsibility on that i hope i deserve all this confidence i'm sure you do was sure you are be more careful in the future as thank you very much for questioning me engine be taken in by a couple of fake she's no sap let's meddle and so stuck on putting over that no business she's ready to believe any of the sides this house a smooth talker he's a kind of a guy that but he seems to be doing quite well it didn't work that's a look right at that guy that if you step you'll be getting a lot of money why are you so so so i guess i just don't like to admit i've been licked it is a case of being late suppose we just say you have sense enough not to throw good money after bad but isn't the money i wouldn't try to make this place go for myself when dad came out here this country was practically a frontier he fought his way up until he became one of the biggest cattle men an  practical question in your opinion do you think this dairy has a chance to succeed play second today or why didn't you tell me so before all i had been having to have i've been telling you what is right you've been telling this mar to do let's roll you on this ranch do you think you could make it pay if we have a chance of helping that scale there's no doubt about it would you say it was worth giving up a vacation to try confidence just so you could the started to me now wait a minute that it's true that i do work for the broader trust company that i came out here on a job i thought was in your interests that realize what this ranch means do i don't think you should sell  over still upset or i just can't get over being so taken in i suppose i deserve it i should have had so much confidence in him forget it and i was  oh i know how you feel about old times your father i've admired your spunk if you haven't had a chance from the start you need someone to take care of them i think i've proved myself for you proving yourself all right great home and be careful with my back the property and three what do you think you're going to do
the case he's on the phone and prepared to go forward  based on their registered religious affiliation the court wanted to know whether there was the penal logical interest supporting a policy that restricted jewish unmet nomic and only permitted registered as ross the  this practice the rule of with respect to the head gear and the others were following that rule is that right your honor you're right there are a number and  affect the inquiry of the district court as to his behavior in a different way and ask a different question than that of those who who who  followed what cannot all of a large human door policy was i mean how do you look at the person and how how differently was the district court supposed to look at the creator of the policy and  declaration that he was involved in implementing it so why why would he not have had that foundation to explain what the purpose was based on his being involved in the implementation of the direct i think that's a fair point i think that he and so they were good they would have been required it's definitely i should point out something that isn't entirely obvious in the sort of the us and that is you have three male judge voices and it's a little difficult for you to know judges as whereas you know who you are so it makes a little difficult but the question then is to me is is whether the fact the question for me is whether i'm i'm a i'm a guard and i'm told by my by the my by my seniors that i have to do this with respect to headgear and make them take it off and i am required then  beliefs simply on the basis that that person is registered with a different religion it would be unreasonable for an officer to think that would be that the opposite i think that would be appropriate or constitutional defendants here did not confiscate plaintiff's headgear which as we now know and and agree with the court was not constitutionally permissible but at the time they did not believe they believed that it was a legitimate interest but also security with further with respect to the district court's examination of whether a right was clearly established  understood that he would not post the have and there or was reasonable for them at the time given the information they had to say that the people who would be permitted to have a  saying well we were concerned about it we had security concerns and so therefore we limited the use of the wearing of this this particular type of device to those who were specifically express their religious  interest that's been offered is also questionable because the record the judge that barnes had where would have been confiscated regardless of whether it had any potential as a hiding spot for contraband as long as it was anything other than the amish which it probably  understood to be the only religion governing farms permitted the wire another point i'd like to reiterate is that the question in this case is not whether security concerns could constitute a legitimate you know logical address justifying prison restrictions
without but just by
dollars waste
questions everybody has that any time you could just feel free to ask we also have some at the end of the presentation we have some buy one get one for butter at the restaurant for all or operating and you can see the burgers at work are a lot better definitely all the stuff you could do at home is pretty pretty easy  but it also gets to spend so in red cabbage thing to cook you know other than add the fish and everything you do you know within ten minutes you could be sitting down after you don't eat so we get our first from  last dish is going to be the reason why i like this is because at the end of the night we get a lot of these and usually man has a couple so it's a little game when we play it's like it's when you want to really really h want to make sure you go right into the  this is real popular this is really pretty on the plate a lot of colors and albums in the scouse are just amazing that is a very delicate di
of this issue here it just seems that the issue is not so much it's what she did after she took the men and allowed them to get sick and that's where it seems to be a problem and then i can't bring anything out outside the record we don't know even if she might have been open basement windows for cats coming in and out of them i mean the record is pretty much silent over these cats are coming and going into the house where the places where there's food i tend to look at this little bit more will stick with me when i say that i mean the standard that we're supposed to be applying it with no reason will or no rational prior bad conclude that your point was guilty it's wasn't clear from the defense brief that she was challenging or arguing for the inclusion of an intent element to this and for that reason because the senate failed to make that argument in her brief should cat because of for example several days went by or more than was she ever had any contact that had been it could be also argued to feel or to provide material treatment from the neglect of knots in should the animals continuing where well being animal control officer at the show in the earlier i it doesn't say exactly why she why she decided to follow him although it could be argued that just merely calling him a control is not going to cure cannot suffer because it's dead so definition for humane dealing with compassion for suffering is not going to apply in that situation which is why the supreme court if the united states has struggled with that definition in that particular cont case said in the states brief do not have a similar problem and found that the word humane there could be could be defined with respect to demonstrating compassion and i did so with an exception for what is permitted to
that the basis of his most recent incarceration impacts the reflexion on the past in other words if you look at me i mean i'm going to i'm going to be a good father and the c f s will probably emplacement me i mean that's his only testimony is what happened in the past and it seems to me that and i know you're saying that the judge did not consider the future but it seems like there had to be some consideration of future or at least of the crime i mean but it that way of the crime that facts without the benefit of the presumption and that's what the trial judge here explicitly said he was doing and that he said the weight of the evidence is in favor of the state's claim of depravity and given well just that testimony alone the fact that you could provide for them defeats the presumption and then the court looked at all of sexual misconduct when you was over seventeen in the final of the vigil i know the person under thirteen i mean the court looked at all of the good nature of the convictions not just the fact that he had honest wife and mother just chill his actions have resulted in lengthy prison sentences for him which has prevented him from being a father and consequently brain damage to the children's mother which may prevent her from we have the very definition of repeated incarceration nine hundred ninety six so that the five year for criminal sexual abuse is just it's no this is a he was over seventeen then and the victim was by someone else who mistook him under who was the youngest child has only spent five months the first few months of his life he spent in and he was born longer and then the oldest girl he'd be on he spent a little bit more time with basically she'd spend some time with your dad and then off he goes to prison for a few years and fourth district case and in it would be which is it is arising out of this for the course of sit when repeated incarceration prevent a father from providing emotional and financial support  stability that trail needs and deserves a father that will continue to be available and an excuse me mr that the father will continue to be in the mail and inadequate as a parent i mean do you think it's an issue here in this case the court didn't consider in those upcoming years or is there enough in the record now not the only thing we need a moral support we need stability weak children who are raised in the family where violence is not is is pretty much set for the state's brief but i just got to say one thing the big thing that is in the best interest argument is that well it should be a guardianship not not a determination they are with the mother's sister so even though parental rights may be trying to u
mary language are all of the a b c is raising issues of burden fitness motions then it goes on to say when a bona fide out of the defendant's fitness is raised the courts sha have the state's response to that is that if there was any confusion it was laid out here by the way the defendant approached this issue the defendant approached this issue not as a a  and the argument that the state responded to the hearing since it since the defendant pressed it was not an art not an argument there was a need to have good reasons for don't you want to be sure
didn't decide they were not in the position where they didn't think they could take all of this granted skinner the evidence put it together in a picture that the twelve of them could agree on th fact could have found a lack of justifiable force by the defendants and on the what we have really is not only a witness who definitely is me that you know he was drunk but he still gives a consistent totally incredible and it's rebutted by an independent witness and i do believe that mr baucus is our most important witness because he has no relationship with either the defendants he has no relationship with m wrong he's looking out the window and he reports what he sees and what he sees is a physical confrontation in which our certainly the level of force you use with this statement and the amount of  this might have happened first where this was a simultaneous action because what we have is we have mr parker charging for my taste and at the same time or just about the same time within a few seconds or a minute we have the defendant doesn't matter that it turned into something different with the stabbing there is no need for any words of agreement and we don't have that here but we can look to the relevant circumstances and those circumstances are not one of the ones i just pointed out but we can also look to those which away she followed him and they left without making any type of police report in fact importantly we have evidence that he and some of the two employees of the liquor store that i know appearing after this in the store and very distinguishable and there it really turned out the lack of credibility of the witnesses in terms of better not there was some type of act that was made in furtherance of of the criminal well as the codefendant and that he wasn't out so we know he was involved in a criminal act is that the testimony here is not incredible the way it was in the washington case so i measure us have other questions least right in the sense of showing motive but i think that's really what that evidence was there for that there was a time because down despite the fact that he didn't identify defendant as one of them and he said it was two black males forty to fifty wearing a gray s and defended fit that description and of course this happened just a few minutes later as he pulled in just you know maybe couple hundred feet down the road and he even was attacked by mr amin parker from the attic think that there's an inference that these two things are related but of mr parker of course he never did say in fact i don't think they ever asked him whether parker had also been involved in a carjacking and honestly i think that's something that he would have volunteered
can all agree on doing so my question was on february sixth twenty fifteen if you have all these back issues whether they were related or not related to being on duty working does that really ma wasn't working and had an injury or two or seven isn't that like dr gordon that testified to that this was a cumulative effect work related that ultimately  visible there was between twenty fourteen and twenty two and by my count in seventy four of those issues he described symptoms of back