MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
our third year of doing corporate sponsor planting day and it was generated out of an idea to get the corporate sponsors more involved with hands on activities for the two entire festival and it was great because then we could educate everyone i'm how the to look for planted and how to get more people involved in the spring festivities together makes the work very easy i learned this job about ten minutes ago one person is the kicker which is what we have going on right here you just push the metal thing into the ground and then another person is  steve who are coming instruct all of our volunteers but also their employees will go around and do all the tulip fields they do the two of lanes and anything our volunteers can't get done in those four days of volunteers and they are actually award winning saturday we have our fourth annual community planting day and when you're on the waterfront park and so we save that beautiful public display for all of the citizens i want to come out and help plant and usually we have around one hundred volunteers come on in the day there's around two hundred volunteers that come out and economic impact to have time is around ten million dollars for just one week and the city of holland and grateful to our corporate sponsors that have put all of that together to help put our city on the mountain and make this a hometown celebration that we invite the entire world too
but my animals like
nice things but it can sense it deserves the more it's going towards consensus so does paul paul paul to do it everybody citizen kane is a modern american story about a man called came charles foster came i don't know how to tell you about him that susan that xander he couldn't be elected dog catcher i'm going to skin mr charles foster came to life i'm going to marry him next week i am away i have been stepping out with charlie can i of course i love him i gave ladies and gentlemen i don't know what you will think about mr k i can't imagine the i play the part but oh well kane is a hero and a scoundrel i know a column in a swell guy a great love of a great
favor in the conclusion in your favor at the end of the day where is there a triable issue of fact about what difference any of it  paid by allstate the report is tied in with what occurred after the reform and that is the homeowners ultimately retaining mr davis to be the general contractor to perform the repairs set forth in a report now the report itself based upon accepting our presentation the report itself was woefully inadequate  angeles learned because of the damage repairs that the sheer strength that it hither to been assumed to exist for stucco frank stucco structures was inaccurate and that  a memorandum was issued to engineers eisner's individuals saying in essence that if you come across the hole that has actually percentage of distress in walls i think it's ten percent then you must assume that the entire shear values for that wall that structure however comes together from an engineering perspective has been compromised and you have to rearrange near that structure when you're doing the repairs there's nothing evidencing that that was ever consider and understandably so because mr davis and his cohorts wouldn't be privy to any of this they weren't license was there was an engineer and i've been through a number of these cases there this is one of the rare cases where an engineer did stamp this report we don't know what his level involvement was but what we do know is that the report itself makes no accommodation for this significant issue and the couple that with the observations of our expert that the house is presently its entirety and so i don't see anything specific or supporting that conclusion randall's nine hundred ninety nine or a forward indicates
the gate by yes you can penny looked around he sees that everyone is very big and he wants to be very busy too i have no time to play no with you go away and find something to do and so it's saturday and everyone has something to do everyone but penny but what's what is is just too busy to play with me i wish i could be busy too oh what's the mrs brown tabby i wonder if i should cha perhaps they wouldn't have been so much trouble now go run over and make friends with him
who performed the survey and his records only went back to nine hundred forty nine based on that he said that it wasn't owned or at least he didn't know how to own it or he didn't know about it and judge have found that all right thank you we have no further questions thank you way into that matter we don't have any questions for you you wish to nevertheless say yes i would like to excerpts of the record that my client submitted in which he finds that the plaintiffs was not in any way discriminated against by his inability to access restaurant separating the restaurant from the sidewalk the photo that's attached as sixty seven page sixty seven of the excerpts of the record will demonstrate that it's well  happens when you do argue i appreciate that however i felt that it was an important issue i have nothing further
more than once and when i finally got them sober in one thousand nine hundred four it was my insurance coverage along with the support from my employer and my family and my community all those resources made it awful for me to get help here i am today i am a taxpayer i'm a homeowner in st paul i am a consumer of many products made in seoul right here in the twin cities in minnesota i am intimately involved as a father raising three busy teenagers please pray for me unemployed and i am a voter all because i am in recovery and tonight in this room i am not alone raise your hand these are invite to raise your hand if you or somebody that you care about is in recovery from mental illness or diction or both raise your hands very impressive nobody's in denial in this room health systems fairview the parity implementation coalition in washington d c h one is also hosting the sponsor tonight and i want to give a special thanks to my colleagues dean peterson the director of hazleton center for public decisions in washington d c and it is her tireless efforts over twenty years in the legislative trenches of government relations yes that's lobbying to get her work on behalf of addicts and alcoholics people with mental illnesses and their but even more so when this issue is the context what brings us here tonight we must put into the context of the supreme court's historic decision on health care and what may or may not happen next year in the aftermath of the november election
stuck to the business at hand and you did a great job and i think everybody should be commended and i want to welcome my new town manager and the very happy to turn the
pain to all of the injury is that the punching in this this he took the position that he didn't injure the child is children as explain deference what about justice work is less of mr o'neill about the impact of having brain autopsy photos shown in an aggravated battery case court heard was among multiple times also an interview that was played the defendant says that the child hit his head on the refrigerator and then he fell down and actually hit his head and he fell over for dear or my having his hand so just because you're opening didn't address that doesn't mean instruction the jury should only consider those autopsy photos for the purpose of the murder charges for those of the aggravated battery you know you're entering a very special instruction however obviously with a limiting instruction will many of the factors that go into deciding whether or not to join a trial join two different offenses for the same trial is whether the offenses occurred on or around the same date in the
there's you know like i said somewhere between four and nine years later depending on which government witness you believe and i believe there's subsequent basis for the jury instruction conspiracy and the conspiracy was based on his prior involvement from what he was and before he left for california the trial court determined that you know there wasn't a basis for instruction so essentially th arrest these people have been working with and only entered into that and as a result entered in this about a conspiracy but that's in this statement of the way it's misleading to the jury and it was one of the last the weakness of the i'm just trying to figure out according to the because she made the statement that he was good in this region for california to get away and there's nothing in the way good and don't believe that there was relationship to take conspiracy and the years he runs why it strikes me that it's clearly he was communicating with his
my review of severance case law it seems to be there just read general scenarios when people challenge severance one when there is a conspiracy and conspiracies are generally even higher presumption of having being tried together and saying i didn't know what was going on i didn't know there was any kind of criminality this really doesn't fall into those three kind of general scenarios that you have that separates instead this is two individuals where they have bared separate role before by the government and it's not just pointing the finger at each other it's mr nelson putting on and her own case dating that yes he did it and i was duped so mr weapon had to defend against  provided was insufficient to overcome and undo the prejudice that mr why stop there was that limiting instruction that said yeah but it's against you strip and it should be considers solely against each and it but i don't really because the crux of mr nonsense defense was he did it he did it and i was duped and so for them to accept her argument is a medic and acknowledging that mr have staying with star and here it's especially problematic to give that jacked ass because looking at the surveillance videos from the robbery it's obvious that one of the tellers  the heart of what happened there was questions they didn't specify who the court didn't specify the witness that was involved in the improper and out actions and just as if they had any interaction with the dismissed or there wasn't  intimidation means doing something that would make an ordinary person iran as they are that would cause a reasonable person under these circumstances to be fearful of bodily harm particularly given the high plain error standard and even use discretion given the government would disagree that these defense are meant usually intake and that that the defense really boiled down to the idea that there was a rd party misspent maybe another individual who had knowledge of  to acquit them both they would have had to believe that the government didn't prove that anyone involved with this red explore was involved with that robbery and that was the car and picked up mr weapon and i just and not so they couldn't equip both of them under the facts and the theories that were presented both by the government and us now and strength that the evidence the evidence was weaker against miss nelson and i think it's this isn't just a hypothetical argument i'm making an appeal that i think it was weaker the jury obviously accepted that because she was acquitted outright so now we have something that the court can really say no we know that this occurred that limiting instruction like i said just wasn't sufficient to overcome any kind of prejudice in this case and as far as practical how it pretrial as far as what mr johnson's games say he was really having to do that on the fly he can't go out and say oh what she's planning on this evidence now i need to talk to this person who could maybe dispute it or anything like that
his records contact he had a list from other presented it was was not a lawyer not necessarily totally familiar with yak and not gerald terribly familiar with his own person documents by january twenty fifth now that's not fifteen days from or c and they knew he was in florida they knew there was unusual circumstances here special circumstances like just a problem with mail and everything else that would make it difficult for him to personnel notification on february twentieth two thousand and two that we were giving him the chance to provide the documentation provide adequate proof and the only documentation have one i've been practicing as a judge for five years since i've had mine and have no trouble with it i don't need medical attention i didn't need medical attention two weeks after i had the operation i was up walking in the morning after yesterday it's not a serious medical of the actual medical sort of patient that was provided by the health care provider that was received by the school district on the twenty fifth of february that particular medical the waiver issue that is being that was brought in the appeal is that my understanding because the issues that were brought on appeal were fairly narrow and they addressed other aspects of the claim rather than required by statute and by the collective bargaining agreement is some sort of second opportunity for mr reddy to come forward with you from the deposition and he wrote a very interesting letter to the superintendent where he referred to him in a condescending manner as amigo and going to work amigo mr darcy is a hispanic blatant misspellings that he misspelled blatant in his in other words mr mr reading was not attempting in any way to really work with the school district or providing information to the school district and work or he could obtain a leave of absence there are numerous other leave of the leaves of absence that are available to teachers pursuant to the contract of the policy in the school district one of them which had been previously discussed by the record contained information and that's in the deposition that he discussed what is called like a catastrophic leave the takes the the you can have the you can eat up to a year he considered that but he had made any attempt to submit the people or for that the only paperwork he submitted was for the f m l e leave which was properly denied based on his failure to use reasonable and diligent efforts to get the medical certification for
do you know i mean it would be one thing to say i've heard the arguments and based on the law i'm only sentencing him on two camps and not the other three general we need guidance from the bellecourt on this issue on the other hand what he says  judges are responsible for needs and decisions they're responsible for end he reached a decision and said to is what i'm going to say so in effect saying that's what i think the law requires me to do so he decided that issue  the issue of since you know now it also seems to me like what you're asking us to do in the motion to remain and it is you want us to review the sentence he imposed and say he was wrong in only if we
inferences in support of the verdict that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt on the three counts of fraud we think that the clearest path for the jury to follow was under the aiding and abetting  he submitted their information over the interstate wires and thereby triggered bonus payments also by wire he didn't deserve the bonus payments because not only did he not act as their recruiting assistance he didn't know them at all the recruiter for these two recruits he was the recruiter for every single one of the twenty one bonus payments that mr melendez received through from docu pac and that includes the thirteen bonus payments that the jury found to be fr would say this case the testimony for the most part was appropriately based on his own firsthand knowledge of the investigation we used the word fraud he was not describing the defendants as part of any kind of fraudulent scheme he used the word fraud in describing how the investigation got from the army agency to prune destination fish generally not about these specific defendants and he used the phrase indicated friday caters or indicators of fraud just to describe not to defend his conduct but the facts that they would uncover in the investigation that would lead them to follow up to your lead or not as the case may be so we were persecuted to take a look at the testimony he did this is not a case like some of the cases the defense sites where you have a credibility of these witnesses either generally or with respect to those particular facts that's because these are witnesses who have their sound with their own credibility issues they're not implicated in criminal conduct and attempting to curry favor with the government through their testimony and they're testifying about fairly simple and straightforward matters of historical fact from their own perspective and you know this person named carlos slim debts we don't think the circumstances the jury likely would have been swayed so because even under the functional test that the defendant would have the court apply it's clear that the hostilities had not and did it even by the time the charges were first brought against them so even applying that prosperity test  might be being abused and at that point they started the investigation but it was a few years into the program and happy answering questions otherwise th
is not necessarily the same as the property in marriage that is kept in a storage unit that the police open ok i don't really know think you circumstances that she had whether it's not there see how theirself out we're asking to look behind that we're just trying to figure out what is she communicating to him and that could be easily resolved by asking are you saying you have the authority if she says yes all the facts you've given
findings to support the commission's determination that this ability had increased even seventy five percent yes your interview for the second procedure is biz vision was at true for twenty over composite the fact of the matter is here that this is not a matter as a matter of law for the did no case this is a manifest weight of the evidence case and the courts have talked about taking all of the is the only issue might appeal the commission found twenty five percent and nineteen age council is arguing for fifty percent which would make a total or the from button but vs his contention it's only saying that if he was only fifty percent of the original hearing and now he can't see anything other than two fingers  losing steam i'll tell you why that's not an issue in this case it's because we're back in the underlying proceedings at the original arbitration we're working at now is from the time of the arbitration twenty twenty five he says i can see it all in a commission who gives in seventy five percent of anonymous please tell me how we computed back number they get into a mathematical compute computation believe he couldn't see them and evidently they didn't believe for some reason he couldn't see now because the offer born in seventy five percent of the one this appeal is whether the seventy acting for as a matter of law and there's no evidence for that thank you thank you
the pressure he said and that if that's on page one thirty eight he said well would you like to move to germany and then follow that up by saying no there's no french corps in germany you are in europe or portland you came from portland and the united states was no way there's no pressure the job is safe and secure why would mean you're on a lie about that when everybody else knew about it if it wasn't a material fact and mike i would like this is that's correct yet the statement was made hypothetically that i'm going to hire you for this position in portland for two or three years and that might be admissible in perth but that it first doesn't get you to a jury on this question because what they have to show is that  any conceivable possibility i think there's a possibility that my law firm might merge with a baby your love new york law firm and they might close the portland office if they're got a purchaser to do that well there could be constant pressure from a whole bunch of people who have no influence several different divisions not just all the evidence you have that there was constant pressure we don't even know for whom it might have been from might have in terms of people working in the mail room or what about politics saying there's a lot of pressure to have yourself in germany but in february  people a lot of people in germany being interested in having this thing go through a lot a lot of people favor the relocation that one thirty nine to one forty one was a lot of pleasure to have your intent at the time that they were addressing this issue to pierre there's there's a theory has literally not a scintilla of evidence that anybody is adidas any idea that this was going to happen in a corporation there is constant pressure to do things from various sectors all the time that's all but but the fact that there's constant pressure doesn't mean that somehow the new yano or anyone else from adidas was sitting there saying all the sudden we think this constant pressure is going to turn into a decision to to to change job description there's a there there's no evidence that we knew anything was no other than anybody knew anything there is that if you have a large corporation or you say that's a problem that i have it doesn't get them to where they need to be and it can't be a period negligent misrepresentation here because there's no special relationship and correct that's right or wrong or and and certainly these are large corporations but as we know from the meat case that's ventures one of the risks you take when you run your business as a corporation you have the need case the left hand didn't know what the to new york where you have another office would you have to tell the person that i think you do when they ask because that's important in some way somebody is leaving one's job to go to another job and they're going and it's important to the not be important she was the managing partner it was important use managing partners where it's more efficient to have that it word but if it's important to them you can stay there's nothing there we're not giving any thought to that whatsoever when in fact you are that
the prosecution as if how it level here you've got your client calling mr paulson from the vehicle repeated lee hitting him and then going in that was one of the arguments raised i'm interested in what the government's take is on that what what should we be looking at one why can't we based upon our inherent power circuit judges make a determination now when if we view that what is the standard what do we hold on to i or that that would be how i would and i may not be very helpful and from your perspective if we did that then we could decide right now whether this ca
the scene of this president of clinical who at the time has misspoke and it should not be discounted that mr king it is himself a member of the performance improvement oversight committee so he is a member which myself for this court to consider where i'm at and i do think in a lot of ways it is very factual you have to look at the documents you have to use see who they were you spoke with a parent for the original privilege log says they were prepared for individuals that they were prepared  no thank you thank you usually except in some unusual circumstances and we see some of those cases that's why insured talks to their church companies where we're giving this information because you're going to get a lawyer here you go up against a good lawyer right absolutely and i'm here