MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
compact what congress has done is approved an agreement between oregon and washington in which both washington and oregon bring their control as states to a joint effort and congress had regulate these these railroads because of their of their local zoning ordinances that clearly would have been preempted i assume that you will you will concede that if you're not you got we got really deep problems and we're best for that but i hope  anything here that allows them to do this can you explain to me how the columbia gorge act gives them greater powers than they would have had individually how is that how is the sum greater than the sum of the parts the representing friends of the columbia gorge i just i don't i want to save time for rebuttals from the very brief court ask questions about this i was going to address the issue of the that the act actually regulates railroads because in s f has disputed that the act does that at all and as we explained in our brief the structure and the words of the statute make clear  did that in part in the in the places a judge bybee just identified but preceding those subsections or other some sections that were much more sweeping and made clear that all land uses in in  regulate the railroads but it did in the columbia gorge you know i'm not sure that it's that it's accurate to say that congress allows them to regulate the reverend's writ large it's in a very specific area not just geographic area but in a context of protecting a gorgeous value and yes there are other statutes i mean any number of other statutes in a trust sherman act the environmental statutes clean water act so school acts are all those are all s own plan well st of all this plan also goes through a federal review process nd in the there's other legislation where there's no federal prove all involved there's  a hazardous waste fee act that was the subject of a ruling by this court where you determined that if that statute had been properly utilized by the state of california that it had the authority to impose a fee on railroads so i and there's no federal approval involved in those in those fees
examination that whether he was walking his kids to school or on walking his dog to areas feel free to do this he was still going to develop that pressure so regardless of what the argument is by the that's true but what about somebody who apparently has to go up and down stairs all day long eight hours a day is the average person do that and in that case
pressure on somebodies back when he couldn't breathe the interesting thing is well but here here i go i understand that she says she couldn't breathe but were they aware she couldn't prove she said it i think a reasonable inference and that should go to the jury the inference is if the girl says i can't breathe while she's got one force on top of her why would he be able to hear that did you but i'm trying to get the quote ology straight she says at some point in this i can't breathe and the for back she's only on the floor for forty seconds so i'm trying to figure out how long they took to get off her back after she said i can't breathe could it seems to me it couldn't have been much more than  seconds right now i think the record is that she was down on the floor for more than forty seconds but the pressure lasted for forty seconds that's my recollection with looking at the record the testimony was of the witness was she was on the floor for no longer than forty seconds before she was handcuffed and brought to her feet and so ok we have a relatively short interval where she's brought to the ground some injury at all from being taken down to the floor whether you characterize it as throw or slam or he's more provocative characterizations that cannot transform minimal force into something greater than that we can't have sort did it was by putting pressure on their heads of taking her to the ground the question that counsel raises the troubles raised whether or not they picked her up in the air and slammed her to the ground with her head with her arm around her neck qualified immunity or even reaching it but it was so we did we don't reach it we just say there's no case law doesn't clearly establish that the conduct that they were engaging in was a constitutional well if that or we did it would we have to vacate the judgment under state law claims judge judge gonzales rogers my well decide not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them that's a separate issue raised in the course of counsel's presentation to move to beyond the takedown to the period on the floor the critical issue i see in the record is that the plaintiff herself makes quite clear that i thought that there was no dispute between the two of you looking at those statements about what happened when she was on the floor which is that the pressure was released shortly after she was handcuffed and she was brought to her feet probably thereafter d that m m agreed to voluntarily walk out of the house and that will it didn't let her do that as an option so there's another way they could have avoided taking her down or throwing her down the whole thing about not reporting a neck injury the same day
instagram on my i phone which is pretty good quality and making some really sad money as saying would you look at that this is a wooden bowl from one of our vendors and
out that this was a basis for the doctors explaining their opinion that's the problem the same information could have been before the jury it's just that it should have been prefaced there clarified that regard to who should words that the jury heard something to that here this jury didn't hear this evidence with the appropriate explanation about how it's done this early evidence that it happened but it's evidence explaining why the basis to explain the psychiatrist
good the artistry in the commission just holding just miss advantage the fact that when we look at what the purpose of the compact is you know they always talk about we want to return person to words to the little money we type of decisions come from an op belief that if they're denied permanent totally based on circumstances like this they're going to get fired shortly thereafter nick have no recourse whatsoever if you do it took over in may of twenty fourteen it was roughly two months between that day and they did this job offer came simply leave definitely out a change in tactics by the council and how they're trying to
i don't like because given the facts of the crime he committed which he did to in the police cars there was no legal argument he could have pressed had he been informed of the correct element th obvious here why did that plane arrived or prejudice your client in the sense that had he been what is the argument that had he been aware of the extra element he would not have   is that why is that not your problem on plain view that the record is so why don't we say that we should just construe the record favorable to the prosecution rather than against the knowing involuntary as opposed to whether whether the factual basis standard was satisfied and what we're really focusing on is whether he knew whether the defendant knew at the time that he pled guilty that the government was in the driveway just outside of the house that the defendant is likely going to have some difficulty getting over are several recent opinion that has similar factual circumstances but if the car is somewhere else and facts actually turned out to be so part of what we're trying to do is find out what is in the record about where the where the car was and that's why we want and we want to know what he did know well  driveway is the argument that he was prejudice well let me ask you a question and i'm not asking you to disclose any client confidence so you know you can just tell me that you don't want to answer the question but i'm what if we on this issue if we were either to reverse an you know in order that the indictment be dismissed the statute of limitations has not run as i understand it and if he's if he's really indicted and wonder whether it's in his interest to withdraw his reading of the indictment is misguided a reading of the environment shows that it charge more than that he merely stole a car that belonged to the victim in this case rather it shows that as the district judge pointed at the change feeder and that he was charged with taking he had or that was at the home and in possession or control of the victim because it was taken from him no so would it be true that i'd taken something from the possession of the owners of the car if i stole their car when it was in a garage down the street true that i have taken it from the possession of someone if they own the car and i took it when it was in a garage down the street that shouldn't ownership i think sometimes they go hand in hand or sometimes they do ye another huge problem for you because that suggests he was not informed that they can't go hand in hand here and that the only way that he could be guilty is the car was taken from the presence or person which doesn't mean just charged in that will very often be quite different than what a complaint might state so in terms of putting someone on notice about what's going to be proved under the indictment i'm not sure how relevant the complaint would be do you an opportunity to seek to withdraw the plea once he had those full facts but the facts were not in his favor that certain would you send that's certainly a possibility it would have had time to withdraw his plea prior to but he wouldn't
regardless if it was mr lopez that had arrived at the wal mart or if it was mr norris any transaction had not yet been completed furthermore there was no there was no money that was found and and there was no the details of the of the transaction had not banned completely completely finalized yet at that at that point but wouldn't that change the nature  state will step in the answer is yes and so he can't place someone else in his shoes under the aiding and abetting statute specifically start to be so by spending mr  himself there's no distinction and so unless there are any other questions concerning that issue i'd like to move on to this section eight fifty one issue judge easterbrook you brought up i believe section nine twent of title eight which was amended or that was put in place after the dickerson against new banner institute decision my understanding is that statute doesn't inform title twenty one of what constitutes a conviction but arrest and even a state law did apply section five of article forty two point one two addresses two different ways that conviction can or cannot be used first it may not be deemed a conviction  received community supervision with deferred adjudication of guilt shall be admissible before the court or jury to be considered on an issue of penalty so even a state law did control which we suggested is not we would say that himself in that case may very well pleaded guilty to get the benefit of a defense the nine entry of judgment and then the expungement of that act and even saw both the supreme court in dickerson against your ban conviction for purposes of federal law and so i think whatever subjective motives the defendant may have for that solemn event we do have to take him or her his words that they are in fact guilty when they plead guilty under oath before convictions and ask him if he has any objection to the i do agree that he did not follow the letter of the law under age fifty one of conducting a personal colloquy with the defendant  unfortunately i don't know if judge bruce is unique in this particular circumstance but this court is also clear that the harmless error standard applies to a failure to conduct a colloquy if the government raised that issue with him at the under the statute and the burden are under fifty one and the burden has shifted to the government to prove the convictions did you have certified copies of the convictions or would you have been able to meet that burden i don't know if you know i don't have the conviction your honor applies only to proving the historical fact that the conviction whether that conviction for deferred adjudication constitutes a conviction under age forty one for purposes section eight forty one
understand definitional a little bit here is the cost of electricity to the end user is about twenty seven cents  in so the end user your client paid twenty seven cents per kilowatt hour and got the number of kilowatt hours that that would relate to the twenty seven cents per hour so i and i'm what i misunderstood what i don't understand answered the question about whether you are being deprived of electricity and the answer to that is no you are asserting that you should have paid less for  that takes you right back to judge to raise standing question it seems to me if if a utility in a position of prep a has discretion to set rates then you do not have a apparently at some point under a puerto rican law the municipalities received fourteen her sand subsidy if you will or in lieu of pain and of property taxes and this is of concern to you is you believe that that fourteen percent which went to the m was used by the municipalities to assist private people and you believe that it's a violation of due process to charge  obviously your your voice is going to is going to be increased but the truth of the matter and as i read what plate these are saying is that for soem unknown reason they believe that the authority is giving away they try to establish the heavy burden of saying that this is no nobody they didn't first has to have studies spend on for example in the legislative record with respect to these amendments are there any studies to indicate the proportionality of c i l t two lost tax revenue based on the rates that are ordinarily applied to commercial properties in the various municipalit asked my question again so i can get an answer to it to you know whether there are studies on the proportionality of the cia l t as it relates to lost revenues on property i do not know ok that's all i was asking  can i ask you a question it's my understanding that there is not a separate rate setting commission in puerto rico proper has the discretion to set the rates is that accurate or is there a separate commission
only product that was destroyed in the perforated into products that were sold by various retailers were made by the defendant well it's a problem in your case and dr glass is disqualified as an expert so you this condition because we know that at least in certain circumstances somewhat rare this disease is caused independently contaminated ultrafast that that is correct and i know that's where the district court where you know the scores directly went off thought there was other evidence that was undisputed that this disease existed out me or in the world before this product came in and on the market there is there is in a number of the studies which were some other unknown condition they cannot explain those confound in factors dr gleiser opinion in two thousand and three is that it his opinion that the only way that you can get e m f is from having taken that it is not accepted in these kinds of the community that there are other causes of b m s i think that there is i think that there are papers that were written by say dr spitzer who was paid for by show a day ago and has to credit in the paper that it is from an unconditional grant from show and then go who found e m s cases it behooves them during the five thousand or so pending lawsuits that they resolve by the defendants is that the strongest try the overwhelming tie to this illness in the consumption of this product dr gleiser opinion this is the only karl and that is so there's a disagreement there are aberrant cases which we cannot either anecdotally you know a gentleman and scholar two people in canada thirty people over here where we were traced back to them el cold and so in order that the term and whether or not he ate the product dr gleick was taking the position that the only thing that could have caused this was eating that product now the studies show and not just of the swagger disease that something triggers something triggered this particular instance but something else can trigger it as well and the issue here is what triggered richard's meyer's disease some four or five years after he stopped it has to vacate and the method that he used has to have caused him to make an analytical leap too great of a gap and here was the issue here dr gleick had to determine that the sole cause of this man's is the judge as donnie says making this one statement which is in my opinion it's the only way you can get it there are other people that disagree with him that's fine that's the cross examination that's the material issue is that this case cues of discretion by
question of law and would be reviewed you know and they addressed the driver i don't think we're in this agreement but would you agree that we review the ultimate decision to grant or de entitling myself recovery the time my client in that regard roger so in other words if we look at what standard was doing we find that they're faced with a claimant who has has the fro them for years under a different plan they find out about it trying to recover that money and we finally say well you cannot set it against the second plan they're in court they settle with  that they in that prior plan were defrauded of thousands of dollars by this guy and doesn't have almost compelled them to go to court to grant recover the money they did go to court to try to recover the money they knew when they  they were a third party they were a fiduciary and what did they know at that time at that time they knew under the code under eleven all four that they were to discharge their obligation do in their own interest what they did is they intercepted that money in their own interest to hold the money for themselves at a time when they had no authority to do so and that indeed they entered into an agreement which said if we are unsuccessful because these monies are exempt oregon declares that we will give you those monies and that answers any question about benefit other participants rather what was important in this case is the fact that when they brought this action they were imposing a greater burden on him than anybody else he could drive and they knew that that was part of what they disability that was covered by the plan at that time moreover your honor under wessel if you can well where the fact that they had four years to commence that action record will show up to a year and a half later i'm still asking that question august tenth two thousand letter standards failed appear at least those benefits the nyquist no longer can be challenge standard also feels that knowledge whether or not acceptance limited payment acquiescence that's a letter to them no response from what i've done and the court will find this in the record beginning on page seven of six throughout i had provided them all information i drove to their office want to have other counsel appointed to represent him and then you deal separately on your attorney's fees were that authority comes from i don't know that was one of the problems that developed as to exactly  putting me had the honor of the profession to read to represent somebody as justice fernanda said who might be unflattering and taking out on spending thirteen thousand dollars on my own pocket because the packers wouldn't give anybody action was rejected by this court should require standard to pay three hundred thousand dollars to someone who already defrauded him and a receipt plan of over two hundred thousand dollars and with interest it was approaching
my library and there's a painting behind the painting what are you going to do with me nothing until i know your lens is where you say it is the combination right twenty four and here's the combination they talk about some danger a matter of life or death and i think i know what he meant was a man with a gun as you drive really where he's been well taken care of let's go get that lan
position is that they have to have to address the factors in his case and that's why we highlighted this actually at page fifty five both of the excerpts of record is actual information and this is not of information in which to register within five days to failure to register within five days so they have to show that he could remember exactly what he was doing every day of a four and a that's that's my understanding personally listed knowingly from defendant and that's reflected on the minute order to respond to counsel's argument that sometimes he was competent sometimes he was incompetent so how can you make a knowing timely over those various points where he was found petitioner claims that when the case was refiled on august eleventh finished answering my question to you two years to competency and how much of the rest of the then we have several times where there's been personal time waivers taken by  petitioner was approximately seven months there was also six mars of motions five attorneys each time an attorney came in and he needed time to prepare and while there was that time could be a trickle much of that much of that to we have to decide he on the issue of prejudice response business that none has been shown by petitioner in fact the presence is more likely to the people this is a child molester case and getting back to  petition as argument that there's very scant information in the information itself charmless case that took place on a child under fourteen in all likelihood she's going to be more reluctant or less willing or unable to proceedings more state court records would be futile no i do not i believe that if this court of the just record needs to receive all the transcripts i was ever my best to get them and if i can we can proceed on the current record to me in my two or three conversations before that there was anything that was holding that up there's also with respect to your honor's concerns