MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
morning breeze was the smell of heat sink i don't have to hear  then i reckon you'll be glad to see your mole i sure will fifteen years is a long time you know my folks died when i would do yearly you haven't talked much about it but what i gathered i don't much that i shoved off on my own always figured mother was never very happy with it hendrick so i went back to get her i found out they had moved i spent years trying to locate  boat and just a month ago i found out that henry could died and that she was alone so i'm on my way to get her and take her home with me and i reckon we'd better get started now that you don't hear you yeah well maybe that's not stopping so you'll be careful about calling we could be around here some of the you haven't seen any strangers around here have you come to think of it i didn't see a couple of politics thinking of that canyon up yonder acted as if they were in a po that i wanted them wiped out i don't know i just didn't i know you admitted they you know i told you what would happen if you cross me again you're not going to move the shirt for you if you what are you doing here and i've come to feed my mother i haven't seen her in fifteen years it'll be a big surprise maybe you know or but she you don't mean that here months ago that man is near to the lady dollar so much trying to put over a crooked deal  don't care you know put me in jail for the rest of my life that lizard just went to learn i can prove it the gun played like give the word they haven't got a ghost of a chance of proving any my turn a young man john clarke well that is i mean just my real name is ever parking in clark county you mean to tell you that you claim to be there and i care i don't claim to be anything your honor i am here have you to support your claim my friend here i'll swear that i'm we can't let him get away with this john what are we going to do suppose we run across to the well those oil company you go agnew and tell them we will be there shortly you say the cash is ready yeah well it shouldn't take long
weak weakly supported case if supportable you need to look at the state of the evidence in the context of the issue of and effectiveness of councils well because i think when you look out my allegations of  and were not social friends or acquaintances well you know as i really talked in my brief disclosure the judge telling me i describe this incremental because it seems to keep coming throughout the course of the proceedings overwhelming appearance of impropriety because this relationship was only disclosed incrementally and not disclosed fully when it could have been right after the opening statement just like he disclosed his assuming that there was some you know real evidence to support that that evidence is being manufactured to frame this fellow did not be a reason to go into it but
you know the supreme court said no that doesn't work that way when you have just to part with the jury to find  that the jury was correct finding the verdict awarded in his favor i'd like to point out that i do believe the andersen decision is a well reasoned decision i realize it is not presidential to this court but i think  i think that that's an important distinction there and then on the left case the court says in that decision that the basic question before the board is whether based on all the evidence a verdict for all three defendants now is it ever seen and then they
because of what the pamphlet said they're interfering with his real estate business it's not enough because the peaceful way is picking it does not remove the first amendment rights of the individual so the situation here is actually less drastic because she's not going around downtown result the junction cannot stand inside first it's an opinion based spec there's no there's no findings in favor of the plane if you're correct even if we were to look at the injunction look at the statement is constitutionally protected opinion she marks it means even if we  for slander invasion of privacy we don't have any of that here and that is it essentially why it should be struck down through a new interference perspective business tort which is what we have here so they are very similar that's what we're contending is if they're very similar work for the first amendment analysis and whether it should be to be found outside protection to begin with do you have any authority at all and this stance for the proposition that a permanent injunction can be green with the underlying cause of action is ultimately unsuccessful the underlying action wasn't unsuccessful the judge found that there court says specific damages are going to be impossible or very difficult to ascertain and therefore injunctive relief was the only relief that was suitable in the summaries read from the court finds that there was an interference with prospective business  we're not going to be able to tell what the d m does will be in that case of the only relief that is proper is to stop these folks from picking so so that's not exactly the same underlying claim but the the the jump to believe it is the issue we don't want more shops in our neighborhood and so the court said it doesn't publish it it puts it for free for debate and we're going to protect that in the organization for better austin neighborhood versus keep there was a realtor that you could obtain permanent a permanent injunction where you have not succeeded on the merits of your claim damages as part of your claim you haven't succeeded on damages what's the authority for the issuance of a permanent cause irreparable injury to the church which did not give an adequate read the law because a measure of damages would not be easily ascertained and that the continuing injury would occur of the sign was not removed having the testimonium the wall to establish that in fact does affect potential purchasers desire to purchase to property or to buy the property and that in three x st marks he established that it has a right to market the property can sell without interference from its neighbors that's well yet that's not what you wall is the testimony of mrs wall shows that she didn't fax airway purchasers so i think that's all we have head i don't do that with all of the really research easy issue and informing court of appropriate authority from this court and your obligation is to look for the authority not to simply find the
get those cases do not apply in this particular case most fundamentally what we have here is a case where no religion would do it off and that's because the defendants through the offer prove that we can see option to purchase is exercised you are no longer living in landlord tenant situation your of it nor of the relationship and at that point you don't have to pay rent it is up to the parties to go ahead with exercise the option the seller should not be able to work the deal by just sitting on his hands refusing to sign it at that point they become vendor ready and at that point the vet governs their relationship no longer  to give the defendant the opportunity to exercise the option and he did not do so in the record is very very clear on that point so with that you should leave the option was never exercised in fact what led to the situations swiss is limited to situations that involve residential real estate and in a case with waiting on the idea that there's a gross disparity between when warm in the tenants in that circumstance that allow steps to execute ownership of that property i think it is clear in the record that mr parker would have been pleased to accept a sale it never happened and that is why time trial because investment basis for the rent amount and again mr welch was paying all with forty seven dollars a month after month after month but when he he stopped making those payments and that introduces for the first time see for judgment plus there is a chance to replace him there was an opportunity to resolve some of the monetary issues an issue for this trial it was an issue position thank you
oh well because
got to stand up and face the music you let me have my own way says i'm heading for growth canyons high growth canyons nice quiet place you see that all things are doing and things happen you remember the big house up on the side of the  or i don't know
and he even so he raised it to dish fourteen on one petition because he couldn't he did his his argument was that he could do so because of the way conviction can be challenging any time and it was a subject to the two year statute of limitations in the two dash they referred back to the trial court's finding that there was evidence on the side of the x made ever occurring after the fact and date of the act and found that the convictions would have been voidable not to now for way and feel he alleged that his attorney was ineffective for failing to make that argument at all and for allowing him to be sentenced to mandatory consecutive sentences when in fact he wasn't even subject sentences that there's no nothing in the record where we can presume that that's what would have happened in this case so you're talking about the difference between was it mandatory consecutive sentences being imposed upon mr mess call versus a sentencing hearing where the ect at the time and second she mr vesco more specifically elaborated on this claim in his motion to reconsider up sitter and he claimed that direct appeal counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue the predatory criminal sexual assault was found to be unconstitutional during most of the time that the crime had occurred and feel to receive sure that there was no testimony of a specific date or time when the crime was to have occurred so he did away every morning on it and again i think the thing with the first and second claims is there on the record so if you i mean he triggers looking into the record and the record clearly supports this claim it is the you know and i think it would be inconsistent with hodges in the more recent case of brown to just but the court of the defendant also said you know what my second argument is that the evidence was didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt on the at the z x occurred before the effective date and to put her in that case  before i get to the specific arguments raised in the brief i want to do a very quick review of why we have this house post conviction process to set off it would it understand you connected by the legislature which
that's where this case began and where this is really a matter of fundamental fairness and we presented three issues are very i believe each issue alone strong enough to uphold the conviction but where it is is the main confusion and misunderstanding that frankly underlies the pells intentions in this case is the whole believes that all these other things that
an implied in fact contract is legally an actual contract if that is true there is a specific statutory exception  that contract specifically plaintiff alleged that the authorized representatives from each of entities had a series of meetings based on those meetings three that plaintiff would build in financing regional waters that to do so i mean i guess you would have the expenditure of all the money to build a plant to design a plant and then actually have a period of time up to forty years where you deliver the water and let's say that you're thirty five for the purposes of the payments yes well how long so it's going to be here some months or years before the facility is going to be completed yes and that that why condition good if there's no contract why do they why do they need to do anything i can't they just say you know that time you thought we had three years ago we decided we didn't like it so we don't want you to be relying upon that we further nd that seemed to be where everything ended up going to be dropped worked also found that the city could not the city of virginia could not lastly and i believe defendant has also conceded that the trout court's determination that the cast were all contracted village contract was no out for water first contract between castro our district which is a governmental body under authorized under seventy i also yes third think that the seven hundred  they couldn't even have forces they couldn't deliver on water even if this were valid contract and even if the assignment were valid for past well water district to virginia in the first place so that's where you  which you are you could argue all the reasons you presented below clue to anything on the record we could for the judgement based upon an argument you presented that the trial court would sit down and make negotiations just to rates and other things in the future at some point in time those are simply actions made by individual  those documents if they're basing their claim on those documents to be attached to the complaint they did not do that or i don't know but they did i felt for loss patients so we have that this missile back to the
respect to the to the disability compensation claim and doesn't that doesn't that necessitate vacating the decision because otherwise the government's right to appeal is say i mean it would seem to me to be a logical reasonable propre of two an act a statutory scheme where are under the circumstances of this case the surviving spouse would step into was in issue is is in that it is in it seems to me that even even substituting the status and permitting an appeal would present the court of appeals with a with with the exercise of providing an advisory opinion that has relevance in the proceeding other than the separate proceeding that she would have to file under fifty one twenty one you have any information in this case as to whether the government is going to try to recontest this issue and really intense that we litigate this twelve year claims or whether the government is is the government giving you any indications one way or the other as to whether they will in the in effect abide by the decision in connection with her survivor's benefits claim this is what we have we've said a number of times the service connection of the of the deceased that's not so the statute does require it and that's what's done in all of these cases this is a slightly different case but not unusual in that there is but you're saying the statute situations do it in your view the statute itself doesn't preclude the exercise of discretion i think that close the exercise discretion i think it certainly limits if not removes any real exercise of discretion in the situation well that's why i'm asking these questions i'm trying to get a better handle on what the government's position is are you saying there is discretion or the discretion is  sense that it does have some of some concerns about that but you know what was the court acting properly or was it not i wasn't properly constituted it was not as far as a property constituted then reading what i issue out before issue decisions and not and not so certain the court for the defense indicated that there was some sort of error in you know following the you know the specific rules of the court so again i don't see
next i have the wonderful peter horn peter went to vassar college after that he's a professional athlete he was a professional cyclist i went to n y u law school was in private practice has been with me and we should be looking at both hussein and current and young use use a combination of the two in order to establish a framework to pets the framework then what are the  in her premises they would be m p had quote no choice but to take to the streets since the government has clamped down on peaceful protests so is it that another piece of evidence that b b i e could have relied upon the c l o b m p was as an entity  give specific consideration to the claim with no snow explanation and so generally i think is asking tell us what were the promise because the p i a s some narrowly dismissed that hat claim because it there was a lack of an explanation as to whether the b n p is a terrorist organization yes and it be that under it with that one panel finds a terrorist organization based upon certain facts and another and it's all over the lot as to whether it's a terrorist organization i mean is that what case by case basis means or does it mean that if you have have x organization come before you know where the issue is asked to this morning is ation then on a case by case basis when it's alleged to be sure three sure you have to decide it it based on certain facts and if and later situation additional facts come to light that would say that at that moment in time indeed it was or wasn't it change its position but it just seems extremely arbitrary that the group has to have some kind of existence in enough itself whether organize or not that is so really that mean that we have to have the limiting principle here in part would have to be that the entity is engaging in the activity district or whatever could be deemed a terrorist organization and i think what we're struggled with is it can be that that would apply because what you are asking us to do i think based on two forty two of the other arguments you've made is in that hypothetical we'd have to say ok that's a terrorist organization and anyone from that area the practice how would a court be liberal to determine worthy adversary if they're not available easily because of confidentiality i understand what you're saying how would one be able to determine if by virtue of the decision making there's been as being not a terrorist organization seven times it is we have said occasions in the past you gave us where the government didn't challenge the determination by the i j a that it was a terrorist organization which gives me a whole host of other questions as to how could the government have different positions  relatively common facts ye 'm fairly confident that that knowledge is going to be ascribed to anyone applying for withholding the move so if that so to speak is static that's a good bit of everybody's going to say that there's decades  violence and that everyone hardly there should describe knowledge then th why can't we get where we need to get to it seems that it's not variable with regard to every particular instance because the government's response is going to be the same and i
is exactly the same as far as what evidence the jury knew and what about the fact that the defendant had if we see arguably incredible maybe some incredible statements to the police officer when pulled over when he couldn't he couldn't answer questions like what's the name of the person who like you the car or when are you supposed to return it is not evidence of the state it's a corroborates the presumption because let me stop you and we can certainly talk about that if you like but putting that the admissibility of it aside for the moment and just talking about the evidence that was admitted it yes he was told at the police station he was asked when he was supposed to return the car and he didn't have an answer he didn't see things in response to that question right right and when he was asked he made some statements even some here when the evidence is truly miserable to keep it a rational trial or fact like this a jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant knew this vehicle was still on now that in the criminal trespass lesser included argument unless you agree that the defendant has to know he is entering a vehicle without authority to seek is it is it
didn't he wear protective breathing had a protective breathing apparatus when he went into fires and there were particular rules about when it came off and one how long it stay down and when it could come off with their other protections a connection you it has to be shown that the condition resulted from the person services as  over clean and is this insist growth resolutely we're dealing with preexisting conditions that are chronic were then to have some kind of promise superimposed upon it and the condition goes south after that what we have in this case is not that cause by their line or by their occupation they're certainly getting made worse if they continue to work or it's it's an occupational based upon the occupation i forty one ten of the pension code we can see that the legislature is creating extra protections for firefighters regarding the party home mary status and let me explain why i think there's an easy reason why and that is because sometimes it takes a while for the science to catch up with the law so we've seen it in many instances we've seen that from simple in the bad cases how many years was it the battle point is just watch the last the last i seen in my own practice versed on what the three independent medical evaluation physicians settle this matter and i understand out where the board's decision resulted from i think the fundamentally is happening from the plaintiff's perspective that is they are looking for you that involved exposure suit animal animal handling remember she had chickens she chewed on a farm and when she would have those type of reactions to react to the airway type situations it was transients she minds to feel ill for type situation that we just assume that the firefighters one condition is caused by the job but clearly the statute requires that the result from being a firefighter and i think there's a couple who support that notion they are exposed to tires like they used to be back in the old days every community wants a different experience every firefighter has a different experience and that's why the sport made sure that refute the history of his fire responses and his exposure to the hazards tech conditions that  say that it was one tenth of one percent of causes absolutely incorrect and indifferent to page ninety three of his testimony where off here's the question not question that's a good point it would be my opinion that he would be in the same place at this point clinically that is correct now could have aggravated lung disease by one tenth of one percent could have given him a few more days even we as there is no way i could exclude that when we have it would have been what he really said was they didn't show anything other than a minor exhilaration in their seal p d and he was talking in the present tense so he said the old studies have shown a causation but other than that they have cold who was saying that he didn't think there was a call a better relationship between the disability and the injury and i think we also can see some difference between schoolies case which the which the re