MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
point in time the primary custody was granted by agreement of course to my client i have two minor children who are at the time of this trial who are thirteen and eight mr o'neil by agreement provide the medical dental and vision insurance for the minor children and the bodies were going to be equally divided to be uncovered medical bills the judgment was silent as to the wishes of the child care extra curricular and school related expenses but the penalties from the time of the divorce had historically divided those expenses relatively equal like in january of two thousand and thirteen after mr i had a job with the illinois addition to that the clue was the change of circumstances because in two thousand nineties income was roughly thirty five thousand through the pay period ending october fifteenth two thousand and thirteen which was the paper in just prior to us going to tr i already had a gross income from the department of corrections of forty four thousand eight hundred twenty seven hours with a period flat to be paid in two thousand and thirteen so he was with thousand down of his base salary already at with regard to the shift change they did present evidence i did has shifted changed and you get eighty cents more an hour i think it was on the shift that he had then on but i believe i even calculated that even considering correctly mr o'neil is testimony himself that has any income that was reflecting on his pay that going beyond his base salary was over time salary i believe the knowledge that throughout cobra two thousand and thirteen now time so he had only calculated his income on that financial affidavit as a like a pro two thousand and thirteen and finally and i question that he had no explanation for why he had not updated his financial affidavit except for to say to me that in order to figure if you could he have completed one today did he basically would have done the same sort of calculation in coming up with his gross income if he had died in april there was no is since the police that waited for mr o'neil had lived with his parents and use that as a reason why his child support should be released in the statutory amount there was no evidence presented by him that he had t the two thousand and thirteen with vacation which he was more than happy to tell me just over three thousand dollars because he had taken the children to florida and the other thing that i think needs to be said about a month in vacations and of course i question that and she said we don't take vacations and that's we can go somewhere where we can stay with family or friends of the we don't have that expense because i don't have that extra money to spend on  a little surprised by the statement found mr cage and that my bank should have to come in and file a motion to modify child support every time that she believes that he was again getting overtime or
the all of us i think understand the importance
we say prior existing right to grant future seven licenses and i hard pressed to discern a principle distinction between the two as wrong as the  business they're not just creating new entities but we're part of the businesses sole and i believe the spinoff rights are defined in terms of a particular profit we didn't answer is that whatever spin offs could occur that doesn't include these about the right to work in the extension of the sub license right to joint development part partners with that present a problem that is also in the context of a specific product so it's a joint development for example it has always been a bright line rule that only an exclusive licensee as constitutional standing to sue even when joined with the patent owner that was the case in the independent wireless the principle has been estab a licensee is that exclusive licensee only if it has the patent to use prawns and all others shall be excluded from practicing the invention within the licensees territory or fee which subject to some nights in suits or future wise and system what's the difference bill that raises several points but let me let me answer the second first if it defendant's license doesn't exclude but without giving the promise that he won't license anybody else in that case the so licensee porting to many presidents as no private area interest and he has no constitutional license because i promise i will not create any more light write me or me any more licenses that is the proprietary interest is created without that promise without that promise  said this this has been said many times it was said right versus kelly you know about decision it was said again in textile development there's got to be the promise without that promise you're not the exclusive license it promise effective response to so to the point once again judge when it's if you have to have the promise that all others will be excluded from practicing it licensees territory or feel meeting license is not to tell me the right to put such emphasis on the present versus future products you see a distinction there that i'm not sure i comprehend the missile hit this goes to the fundamental constitutional standing to sue has always been very limited to those that bet the proprietor the proprietary interest in the patent the proprietary interest cannot be divided up in a lot of different ways right and in this case why they feel it doesn't exist at unitary proprietary right because it is not exclusive in its field because it doesn't have the promise that no further licenses will be granted to th of this is to make sure we don't have different people suffering on the same patent and all saying well they are the one entitled to do so as a matter of fact we only have one here the issue is constitutional spin not prudential's and it's to constitutional standing if you don't have the promise that you're exclusive in the future and you do not
stay with your first question there was an issue whether in that the amended complaint had been proffered and sets that the court could make a determination about whether they're worried about the materiality at the allegations and whether they would in fact cap's and i think that this very case highlights precisely right perhaps we should make right it is you should make brought this issue because it seems clear based on the circumstantial evidence and perhaps that's what the trial court was referring to
off from an employer she worked for just a little more than three months when they were claiming for weaving dollars and games against her arguments and other expressions provided by citizens are vital to effective law enforcement the power of the operation of government in the making of public policy decisions in the continuation of representative democracy so the people who are they just every little theory this idea of the controller is a bookkeeper i mean allegations to control the purse financial statements of the lender lies i made the allegations that this person met with the
made under the cover street area but no i saw him as an joker morris the other day and they were considering moving into all that mystery to include the jokes about apartments all the way down to peter which is certainly more than the two block  us that we're talking about how to express consideration for something special like that we include some wording in there must rouse or council members of except for national status as opposed to warble status i just thought it would be very important to us to extend that whatever that the human rights commission was actually looking for to come to the council with with the revocation i mean who knows maybe they're only to ask for two parts but i
in at the hearing it's possible that there could have been sufficient evidence to not that violate the band's right to due process but that wasn't the case she had no was unable to provide for particular case that section of the edition was simply laugh line and it's unfortunate because he hospital was fully aware that just the fans sister and brother that he kept in close contact  the general mental home attorney population to be able to have a clear and her patient what is necessary to meet that requirement and what it is does not meet the requirements it down him to be a danger to himself or others so it's not sufficient to surprise people who are looking at a later date to know what in fact the courts findings or so person is obviously going to be in mental hospitals again in the future just as he has six times from that but the specific issues arising out of this case are not going to return the same for  constitutional corrode curtailments of liberty i mean they can't you come in and argue that these people are obviously mentally ill and they can't be let go because l harm the community or themselves isn't that why we have meaningful hearing it respectfully r certainly appropriate for this response now i understand this court's frustration with you know with the kind of records you get mental health cases that they're nice to meet because they can review them in a hurry but they  was obtained from the encyclopedia britannica and it's a degenerative disease of the spine so that's where that came from it's interesting the council is setting up a new rule notice of hearing and that would not have gotten his brother or his sister present and this is an involuntary commitment hearing  i don't think that he should be ruled out of getting favorable disposition as he's had six
we'll go from there yeah maybe i'll nominate the open a floor for nominations for vice president but the floor is open for vice president mr imus and moved an is there any other nomination variations which is the would normally do it the third monday of every month except for january which would be the twenty first the brewery eighteenth june the twenty third in july and tuesday the second of december so that would be and we did with the motion would someone like to make that motion and  monday june twenty third tuesday december second and no meeting in july unless it's necessary to call if the only other order of business is that we will have a short executive session for some personal items in the back room following it german at this meeting that we have a motion for a folks watching how that information was not there and i'm wondering a will it be in the future and the understanding of their personal issues that cannot be published how they can get that information for a better transparency you so the seven sixty one applies for both teachers for a total of twenty eight hours or is that seven sixty one for each teacher like a so were leaping her over the the bar into a full time position there up to an actual official ploy ok do we have a time frame for the contract review for a number fo what is the timeframe during which we will determine whether or not we need the assistant coach for girls basketball based on whatever the parameter is in here we're saying based on x number of girls or whatever criteria i'm just wondering going forward for my own purposes board member that's what operates correct we're making the approval and he
so you know he did put an exclamation it may not be the best sex relation but when you look at the titian is a whole with the type of badness that he is required to obtain it's just not then the goal here is to ascertain justice not an all or asking for is for this to move to another stage for an attorney to follow up on these allegations and if they turn out to be garbage they'll be promptly dispos and here he was specifically told by his attorney and i believe with the court that no you're not entitled to the police records so it's perfectly reasonable for a pro se defendant to be thinking well my please give me information on life insurance policy again i don't think that's a reasonable expectation particularly where this is easily verified just by looking at the police of course the see if she didn't make that and i realize that in recent years there has been some move to maybe give defense with more leeway than they have the past have had in the past and i did suggest pretty common thing to do but if she didn't say anything beyond i came in the door and i saw a dead the state from the from the record in this case it's clear the state was where the defendant may point argued really from the defense point of view who cares if it's true if it's phyllis or not that might seem like most the most reasonable subject but if you could find any other reasonable subject that would be just as good it's not over grand jury minutes they went over the documents they view video someone even if you accept the premise that he was told he couldn't have it and so he believed he could never  i don't accept he would have been able i would think to have specific information to more reasonably more specifically explain  near those sources of information were that there was you know and more officer said in his police report not necessarily giving names as again and again and say show your work potentially innocent man is imprisoned here just because of some technical decision things from the petition and again if you
going to be the biggest jail break this part of the country has ever seen s
actually relied on something else that he was told that here there's nothing like stephen's work tool to show that he heard of relied on a statement that doesn't looted could not have become aware that warning through discussions with patients if they had wanted dr trusted would not have become aware that warning to meetings with drug reps drug sales representatives if they had warned not to trust him would not have become inherently dangerous products but they have a great benefit when i talk about lawnmowers are some person we're talking about something that has benefited the lives of millions of americans one in five americans suffer from mental illness and now many the national alliance for the mentally ill injury to the plaintiff in this case which was her husband's suicide the plaintiff has the burden of bringing forward issues evidence hospitality show material dispute but at the end of the day we have an undisputed record and clear california supreme court this independent grounds i'm with you confirm if you want to or if you're not satisfied in the first round and we've raised that below and here to judge the doctor was not a mushroom he was not in the dark about the debate the considered decision what needs science shows to the rest will fall off and any conceivable warn that that could have been offered in addition to that warning that our minimum standards so that if you go beyond the minimum standard that's all you're doing is going beyond a minimum standard you're not going to be on prescribed safe and efficacious use of drugs to treat a serious medical problem the agency does not want the drug to be prescribed by physicians based upon a warning that may not have any scientific there's a broad question argument which says that anything that's different from or in addition to what is on the label that that we have approved is preempted to the extent that they're making that argument that argument has no place in different from or in addition to so in some far as the claim here is that whatever the label says is the end of the inquiry we think that's too broad a claim but that they may have a more narrow actual conflict preemption claim out they must either send them out first and then get the f d a permission afterwards and the same is true with labeling there's no showing here at all no claim that they even asked and until they asked we don't have a situation like kilo brick where allegations which for these purposes not to see a broader warning when reasonable growth company would have sought a broader warning and nothing in the doctrine of preemption anything about the federal government telling that they can't do that we are of course in a situation where if we had tried to argue that they had to put a particular warning label on or for example if we asked them to put a box warning label f d a has a little regulation part of the team regulation to say which is
desirable to establish the  argument up to this point has basically been this person is a going to out of the blue we don't like that they're appointed now but they're appointed they're supposed to take over total the total case i didn't understand what they mean because he guy well that's what i thought he'd gotten paid but he's saying then had you come in her in a different way to defend th
how differences is accorded to the ha's determination it's recorded by recognising the determination and evidence that shows that the test had never been done which indicates that either he's mistaken in that testimony or that somebody else is lying and that was a factor that was taken into account by the board it was not  warden could not create all the other evidence and the whole court well we certainly had substantial evidence to take a look at what the and i realize that but it seems to me the record is a little sparse and i would have expected more more evidence on what should have been apparent if there were other people around it is there any reason thirty five miles or not if there were other people around would've been a relatively easy matter to we get witness statements too we are acquiring what happened one way or the other
i'm confused that nobody knows whether or not these parties were represented at the time shouldn't that be in the record i mean you have for you to have to have a withdrawal if they were in they were in fact or were least we know if you state that a party has got represented by an attorney shows sign his leaving motion or other document evidence presented about so again i go back to your would have been satisfied for all we know by the terms of the word stipulated going on to be the general festival with if it's a bit convoluted i will concede that the hearing below was broken up into the tower phase of it the first part of the hearing and then the content base of it was in the second part of it here in the contempt phase of the hearing there was no testimony except maybe of a general nature about a fine for one bill i think even in the trial we're facing here there was nothing but general know if there was five dollars so when or ar fifteen are maybe he paid or five dollars that was owing and she then gets up and says it's satisfied that th then it goes on to say that he that she got the
themselves from iran
clarify exactly how we could be a little tougher on
remember you ain't seen me as long as there are men who break the law there's got to be officers to run them down i'll se associated with honest people and you put it there you'll be sure you've been a thief ever change i did that in a moment of anger i didn't mean to do it but i caught just steely oh you'll forget about it too late now to hol i know just a thing will cheer you up let me have that then when i get through i'm going to tell you something that'll make you the oh oh oh oh oh alice what do you mean i mean if you become sheriff tom i'll never marry you i don't understand if this morning you were happy and and we were planning i changed my mind since that i couldn't live that kind of a life somebody else can take the job if i just love his she'll not hold you back from doing your duty to the town if she's making a weakling out of you i don't want to have anything more to do with it so you needn't invite me to your wedding ou think he's yelling too well i don't know oh
just because kids play sports doesn't mean they need sports drinks sports drinks are loaded with sugar that kids don't need when they get out and play water in a healthy snack is all it takes to bounce back water has no added sugar no out of colors no added have you or a loved one had a head injury head injuries and concussions often cause vision disorders which can interfere with your recovery do you have double vision words seem to move on the page or do you struggle with motion sickness these are all signs that you may have a correctable vision problem but you need to see an optometrist who provides an in office program of vision therapy for more information
bizarre interview all the jurors are subpoenaed within two months of the crime why don't we when we took his deposition he already knew this big bad issue and you know why don't you like in the defendant didn't proceed here because he never got an opportunity to confront or answer anything about nineteen night or sexual assault the state tried to corroborate this they put the mother on tape and tried to set up mr fisher with asking questions about what his daughter her daughter him and they struck out on the map with not
thousand as i understand it there would be no remedy available to him even if he went to the next step that they're claiming he should go to that will only be a six  them well it's a problem isn't that we don't have a record of that hearing that is correct we're stuck with it was presented in october two thousand the last well there was no verbatim transcript however the supreme court rules new provide factually driven issues there are certain things your client had to prove at that hearing to assert his religious beliefs we grew there absolutely and the rule is if there's no record we have to criticism that the trial judge the hearing i mean what are we supposed to do about that i mean you know throughout your brief you cite to your memorandum in the circuit court for all these facts about his religious beliefs his vision etc etc but there's no record of recording right yes so when you talk about burden on the city seems that the burden is really more there what is there compelling state and there are some animals that were clearly pose a danger to the citizens of any city here for example of poisonous snake client had the chickens like i it sounded to me like when the least in this search they went through like two doors or but not sure where the doors were ho information would be needed that not exactly what is the specific religious belief there is no evidence regarding the number of sacred objects needed or whether they now must be chipped and that the writer just was in the story about a notification from the city that he was in violation of the code on debris on the property that is it that is a different is subject to the rational  alternative which could achieve the same goals with our affecting the rights of the plaintiff that weren't prohibiting hiring animals there was no was restricted alternative that having motion to continue before you know right and the the motion to continue was not clear to me that there was the six month versus long term  there's a procedure in the supreme court rules to prepare a bystander's record and have it certified by the hearing officer or to have an agreed statement of facts that was not i mean nobody is stuck with having no record there's
case number eighteen five six four seven c m s x transportation versus city a three kentucky argument not to exceed fifteen minutes per side misandrist you may perceive
occurred before this law by productive and this was a triggering event big he acted very out of order now considering that this is out of the out of character inconsistent with his his life and the fact that he