MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
committing exposure and certainly when you look at our common understanding of exposure it would not be covered by clothing so i think that is what we need to look at here and i guess when you look at  that she was looking at a park bench and she's walking up to it because she normally waves and says look we were sitting there because normally it's some friend of hers so but again i don't disagree with the idea that exposure means to me make  is used that must be what it means i think you have to give the words common ordinary meaning that would make sense in the contacts and i think given the context of good exposure it does need to encompass something we uncover evidence as of today because the fact it would be presenting to the jury evidence as of right now if you were to testify or anything else you would present would be current so the only thing to do would be to have a fitness hearing that is pro specter that is current because we can't determine what the status would have been two years ago because that entire procedure was lost there was four is still available defense counsel can be called in to testify to his observations of the defendant the system the state's attorney can be part of the test and the judge can be called makes all the time so i don't really think if this was maybe he used down the line but this two years is relatively fresh in everyone's mind and i think this bill this is this court is you know well able to  that's the part that's really important here i mean it's natural that he was exposed but he's doing it for his sexual desires when the victim walked up to me she  of fact because he said you have all the information you give him the facts he didn't offer any definitions correct on this my understanding right now but i have my memory isn't that perfect on th and why why doesn't this more clearly fall under the other section st dictionary definition as well as the definition here i said it's very clear that the common understanding of expose is the opposite of copper and i guess it's really i think this tricky issue when we consider to be convert but certainly that's not
and i believe that that's not so and it might agree i say that it's not just foreseeability but it's the likelihood of was their only home i don't think so
mother and his mother and sister beat each other while acting basic needs like food shelter and clothing poisoned by his mother's drugs and toxic chemicals in the air around his home watching developed a significant cognitive and social and behavioral deficit is full scale i q is seventy five years or old in the ninth grade at age twenty he cannot solve basic problems lacks basic skills like math and reading he cannot even buy all of the items off of a list from a corner store he does not develop strong relationships he's eager to fit in he's an easy scapegoat he's a follower and i will quote from the medication the court has a gang leaders dream because he is so easy to manipulate and yes the trial judge in this asian aggravation ah and then he said actually i will do that and then he considered everything and then he set up based upon my view of everything it's been  or third stage purposes because in that case the individual was nineteen and just turned nineteen you know mom at the time of the ration is there anything you think that would actually prevent a subsequent theory should the legislature changed the law in this case because actually preserved this is the beat any problem down the road if he were to make this here i'm not sure i guess it would is there anything in this record to suggest that in fact he was manipulated this wasn't his idea that somebody above him said you must do this he said ok yes sure we don't have any affirmative to the draft mitigation report it was a page document you give the medication he did it was part of the ruling and he says the fact that he conducts that balancing test and that's the important distinction that we have in this there was also some references to the low i q and i also remember the fact that there were based upon that that part of chicago was near where the steel mills were that there was some fella who actually beat his mother then we've got the other being the sister and we've got that he wants a second great twice there's all sorts of information about how limited he is very careful at the sentencing hearing so we actually considered goals things that are allowed for and not me and the reason that when he stated what he was doing yes the statutory framework it's one thing to consider the character in history of the offended because developmental background his impetuosity his immaturity his recklessness so no i don't believe that there's no showing i that i did affirmative consideration
considered significant the problem is we've got suspicious activity started here the very day he blew the whistle and the thing went in the hyperspeed within  and they're and they did not go through any progression just on the whole they went from ground zero terminated like that even though there was
substitution of one judge as of right to allow good shopping i mean you get one without giving any reason or excuse well in some respects i think that's the principle in how reaches over all these cases and not the specific fact of whether this is a completely new act and we're refile back to the continuation of an act and it's the concept in the concept is important because that's how the little difference to make a big difference you can just lump everything together that's why i work mainly through a long time ago that words make a difference that's why there's a difference between a lightning rod and almighty but you can't just throw everything all
the exemption under the statute that basically says the act doesn't apply to certain types of contracts one quarter as the very first thing that it does doesn't have to figure no does the act applied because you want me to act under including arbitration clause causes and venue clauses so that's point number one number two with respect to whether this is a threshold question that the courts need to decide i don't think so because there something when congress deprives the court of power to do something in the statute can abandon abdicated its responsibility there it has to make that judgment as to whether it is the kind to do what you want and that's  deal at all with the fact that the actual contract period issue is not with heel client but is with an l l c and they are seeking to compel the client to arbitrate under that agreement maintaining he's industry that's actually not strange at all if we remember that the statute was passed in name hundred twenty five since before the commerce clause resolution which means congress didn't have the power to regulate anywhere there's except people in the transportation industry the independent contractors almost no workers at all when it had a federal dispute resolution statute in fact of congress having independent contractors here they were basically even singling out a very small number of independent contractors to have a federal statute that nobody else had and there's evidence actually in the hearings that congress particularly didn't need to do that so i'm here tonight in ten of the name nine hundred twenty three hearings on which talks about various kinds of independent contractors they talk about said no no no those contracts are covered by this exception even those independent contractors they fall within this exception and of course that they didn't but congress would have been doing is creating a conflict between the transportation act that's just not the case when circuit city says it is you have to follow the meaning of the statute even if you think if congress were legislating now they would have done something differently so in with you think it's kind of strange that in the transformation of the commerce clause with is yes we agree we think what they would have wanted to do now is probably different but you can't over buy into plain meaning based on what you think congress may have done at it now and things are changed and it didn't say that particularly because the agreement and so that's the one and that is an agreement he would like the court to enforce yes and conversely said if you have jurisdiction court you can force that as long as it's not of railroad employee in which case you can force it so before
government's position on this issue was correct these they knew the food that the victim had been associating with the supposedly assaulted girl from they knew that the defend the been working with the former employees of the associat there was there was no evidence from richmond jury could infer that the defendants were aware that the victim about this particular axe why does that have to be shown isn't it just as important that the defendant actually had that the the more there's a risk of u applied and instances in which the business owner is drawing the funds from the business in response to extortionate rather than and rather than riches and to infuse money into the executed contract in place with an insurance company say that we should go the wrong way round the barn and engage with you want a fiction to try to cover off the government's frame i mean i hate to be blunt about it but that's one of amounts to and i'm trying to tell you that i  says that that part of it is is not as important and therefore this is marginally relevant evidence or relevant but to marginal effect i think is the real point
have jurisdiction yes a final order simply some medical computation by looking at the paper was that all the commission was supposed to do oh yes so that's the worst main issue in the case is whether the matter language that was used in the remainder by the circuit court in this case was the exact same language used in the a o smith be missing a very important factor in the facts everything was stipulated t and i think at the end of the day i think that the similar language the exact same language was used in a u s mint and in our case means that this case can be properly heard and that the commission decision can be reinstated at this point in the room  concept that it's a it's not just a business stirs diction but then it actually makes the process official so that everyone knows what their job is and they're only doing their job and holding their job mentioned is very instructive in their case the only issue was an award of penalties for their case more so than this one it's even less good question in fact because the penalties were awarded what's the amount of them and even in man case this court felt that that's a factual question
in this case and think that that's that's where the back to the mid to late sixties from personal observation recollection there was an expert witness hired by a good friend a counter for the plaintiff that testified and produced documentary choose not to do so or if they don't then any other party if they don't do it and quickly any other party can petition the court and then there be an evidentiary hearing and they can come in and they do not do whatever they want to put on weight of evidence over everybody else in the land to the extent necessary to repair the keep this going so that they begin this wasn't an academic exercise here the point was to get consideration that another thing that i
department and other human rights reports and favor of two discrete news reports that mention only examples of the government's limited release of political prisoners the full record including the comprehensive country reports and other recent news reports to the level of persecution so that's a problem i mean that's a that's a little bit of a well bit of a cancer issue as far as like you told us it wasn't a problem there is nothing in the way but then there was that and and you knew about that because we that's a different procedural posture than than where matter much state actors there was a facebook post that was threatening that was by an unknown person who the petitioner assumed one of the government operatives there were the people in paramilitary and the police who came to his house and i this is one of those cases it says the government's not involved or the government's not there or as i understood it the ice decision on on asylum cetera is that it just doesn't rise to the level of effort to houston and i understood your opposing counsel to say well when you have when you have a a harm like he had we're going to beat out this one time and then and what we got in the letter from opposing counsel last week i can certainly you know look into it and reach out to us yes and provided information but i don't know what the basis for th that point i suppose you know seek a remained to the extent that would be necessary i mean given that the application has been denied well it's not final because there is a motion to reconsider pending i'm not sure that there is any real basis in the way back to the immigration judge year of pressure from the international community there has been limited release of prisoners not speak to or address the petition or specific fear being killed or seriously harmed upon return the only news articles or information we ha to completely ignore the trend of their take the government of lying to their national community
electronic data systems corporation explained because the case would profit solely for an order compelling arbitration and when that was just posed it disposed of the case entirely so it does not matter that decision and greentree raintree said that an order in favor of arbitration is final if it really is the end of the case but what you're saying is well it's final even if it's not the end of the case even if there are going to be more proceedings such as confirming an award that does seem different from what greentree said no your honor actually our position is entirely consistent with
said other was that this court has said in many many cases and i cited the oded case it is the function of the commission to resolve conflict the medical opinion and that's what they did in this case they found doctors good morning bretta work on behalf of millard refrigerated i think the real key issue any appeal is the issue of the causation with respect to the cervical surgery and i'd like to do really spend my time on that i guy just this is a tough case because there is evidence  the record by i think two or three medical reports for the petitioner indicated to the to the various physicians that he had not had a prior problems with his back or with his neck but i think this case the bigger question here is i that doctrine applies to cases that are not just losing a finger in a piece of machinery or something that's very obvious to everyone involved bodies to laypeople and bob that there's a causal connection and that when we have a case as we do here where there's complots history we've got it obviously a degenerative condition overlaid on the neck and the lower back but to specifically here with the man he's got it he's got to stenosis he's got degenerative conditions in his neck these things just don't start  show up on x rays a month later or in mines and then that's what we have here we're asking this court to do is look at this case and say what evidence is there in this record beyond the petitioners own self serving time comments to his doctors but that border i certainly think that there's a variety of cases where that doctrine is so very valid but in a case like this where you've got a gentleman with a preexisting condition he ought to have to be required to come in and present medical opinion testimony that says this is related  caused by or it was aggravated by and they didn't do that here now i say what kind of a burden is that i think if you had that type of standard you're going to weed out some questionable claims but if it's a valid claim they're going to have it and that's what we're asking this court to take a look at i think this case if this isn't the case on the facts maybe the court can start thinking about this because i know there's cases in the pipeline come in on this and this is a type of issue they think is very significant worker's comp for employers across the state what are we going to do with the chain of events when we have a sophisticated injury like this that lay people can simply look at and say that well obviously because of the accident thank you had now lost any time in the two years prior to the accident i think the chain of events rule is a good one and i don't believe that you should as coun never brought up the issue of the preexisting condition as a factor resisting condition is a factor only when someone says what he has now he's not related contributed to by the accident but is just the natural progression of the preexisting condition and all of the facts in this case point in the other direction yes he had those radiographic findings i believe he is unaware that he had them he was
create testing facilities which made me i doubt sure what the statutory purpose was except the plain language at this point unless you've got some legislative history to standing is that when i got the plants from the central street house that those were not dried there's something in the record that says that they own them up they had to do all right so at the time that plans where we know that identify the nature of the plant you're saying you have to have a leaf yeah ok then you can then now you're telling me that even though it's a green plant that's growing in you up mood it if there was a leaving me test have other labs that mix stuff all up and say that we can tell about the authenticity of it it seems like you're getting two different levels of ju
eighteen or one or timmy stevens versus warden take away a correctional institution arguments not to exceed fifteen minutes per side mr allen for the appellant participating by telephone your honor i i think the place to start with this argument did you did you ever or did your client put forward any evidence establishing that that matthews the juror was was the cousin i mean is there anything in the record other than sort of but what is that evidence is it just that the the lawyer was told by some unidentified witness that they might be related that's kind of what my basic take away from the record was is there anything other than that i don't believe so if that's true did did you actually present the claim to the state court in a way that would not make that did not know even before the trial had no awareness that there might be any familial relationship between stevens and i guess this mr think fischer  you know he had sort of moved on from the murder of his sister and i'm sure that's a difficult thing to do but that it would not have any impact on his rebut them by clear and convincing evidence and i just have some doubt that there is any evidence free basis to rebut some of these factual findings that the of question elicited or gave potential jurors a chance to read out sort of voluntarily respond and i chose not to so there was really i guess i'm just wondering what evidence  you have to rebut the factual findings and that would show that mr matthews would not have been entitled to serve on the jury the jury even if he had disclosed  counsel and in that of affidavit he merely says i believe defendant stevens is related to travis lee fisher who was the murderer of abbe matthews asked about that at the evidentiary hearing that was later held he said i don't have personal knowledge but by reporting from members of stevens his family that there might be that there was apparently some bloodline family link so there was no evidence that as a fact that it wasn't so i believe that's a non issue the real question was whether or not he was denied due process because mr matthews didn't answer the question at trial and during for de r and i think the answer is clearly no mister my counsel opposite gave away the game i think when he said when he invited you to root review the transcripts and make your own determination but have course you know you can't do that this is a federal case and apart from that the st level of deference is to the trial court even if you were reviewing this as a as a direct appeal from from a federal court those was an impartial juror and that the four core cost challenge would have been denied and that is due to levels of deference because this is a deep case and i feel that the court here has no law merely having a relative who was a victim of violent crime would disqualify you from jury service unless you have any other questions
else and get down to that point all right the math analogy and apply is one that wasn't championed by neither of the parties here they just pulled it out of the ear right wrong not exactly no i mean there are yes but once he makes an effort to correct by money damages back which the government has inflicted upon him by way of either a wrong or an awful taking or at least a pre condemnation taking once he asserts that right you say  the earlier taking an inverse condemnation why are those two inconsistent it might be that the earlier taking did him a great favor because the price of gold either went up or down in the meantime and they are two separate claims based on two separate dates of taking on which the facts could be totally different so far as damages is concerned do you not agree basic economic literature to try and form itself in a very very complicated i judge suppose the judge has a degree from seattle university in economics i mean you don't you don't have to empty your head i mean what you cannot do is to make i find in a fact based
to it defense exhibit three point three percent of claims that you have to have milk of eight point five percent milk solids and at least an additional two percent or simple mathematics tells us that if you sad it can scoff right to satisfy the milk doesn't anticipate it does that lack of love not all the limitations are satisfied we didn't need to jury duty arithmetic this done hardy i have a sneaking suspicion when we hear from the other side he's going to maneuver these numbers around it's i truly believe it is a simple as looking at the total milk solids in this formulation of two fourteen which is eight point nine percent how can that ever satisfy a milk having meat point five plus at least an additional two to twelve would lead to affirm it's of the same judgment invalid as being so we're not going to consider that a proper problem raised the same point in your argument here but arrange your time without expecting that you'll have a
the ark of physical combat meanwhile back on earth you saw dr pauly in action again making his sister plants to rule the world now let's get right into today's story as we go to the headwaters will return to captain video in one minute you know video rangers if you ask almost anybody who was betsy ross quick as a wink they'll tell you why he made the first american flag but how many of us know anything at many times we take these hard won for privileges our american heritage of freedom of thought and action for granted they are so much a part of us that we feel they never could be taken away but in the world today there are those who would destroy our american would tear down our ideals trample under what the like the came into being under the skilful fingers of betsy ross so let's be alert and realize as americans that freedom is everybody's job video rangers they going to use and one of my other control units excellent excellent we'll get back to captain video in one minute rangers ever tackle a job you really look forward to doing old boy you say rubbing your hands together that's for me that's right up my alley well there's one big job that's right up everybody's alley rangers that's the job of fighting discrimination seeing to us that the next fellow gets a fair chance regardless of his race or religion we've all got a talent that we know how to use if it comes under the heading of friendship and we like people and are genuinely interested in them there's no room for an american prejudice so all we have to do is to keep on making new friends easy as pie there's another reason why fighting discrimination ought to be up everybody's alley