MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
because congress and the courts have recognized that some are traditional words or are so flawed that they do no more judicial imprimatur and they're so flawed that they offend our emotions of fairness says that they can't be enforced  ordered i do recall that there was also a reference to it or it came out on the record at your attrition hearing so it was presented to him and he knowingly disregarded that and instead relied on two know will one of them was it because it's expressed the state is not to be obligation to facilitate the sale of shares that has been carved out of the contractual provision on which the arbitrator riyadh and that provision is as good as the arbitrator said that provision is the need for the assurances clause which appears at page fifty because in hindsight i d c would have handled the arbitration differently i don't think that that's the basis for the forty one do with a valid award the  rose he was at that point in time he was making an independent solution at a point in time when i t c prevented him from selling the stock he was not able to make that as as to whether he should kill herself and that's where the specific contractual provision that we say governs and there's disagreement on that bed in our position that contract that specific term governors it was ignored in favor of two general provisions that all seem to want to one specific term the arbitrator's authority
fact that the settlement of the coverage later extinguished that liability in of itself and finally by the satisfaction of judgment that's what you rely on that only yes  liability and because there is an outstanding judgement the missouri garnishment statute then says you third party quite meant that as a judgment can file a suit to see where that judgment is covered by the property was a product of a trial before a judge who was a i assume made aware of the subtle evidence was presented to a judge and judge determined a liability it was not a consent judgment based on the agreement the litigation was based on the coverage litigation was not based on whatever agreement may have been reached before the kansas judgment recovers litigation is based on the kansas judgment which state and its existence throughout the was all against the homeowners association the homeowners association acknowledged that we were seeking relief at that time against greater midwest's there was no wish to the side it match as to of how much to drop the ball should have been credited against the homeowner association show to make sure there was an argument there but until the core found that there were eight thousand or occurrences there was no basis to determine how much to duck the ball should have been credited but all of that goes towards whether the homeowners association judgment could be could looked at an agreement and decided what it meant but district court nor the fact that there was a judgment in kansas still pending against greater midwest whatever that agreement said there was a judgment and then i gnored the fact that that judgment wasn't released until the cover to litigation was settled and our coverage of litigation settlements said it was settling that judgment what means more that judgment bait they you know they pay what the insured becomes legally obligated to pay and if the agreement was the if the agreement was what was the obligation it's  before paid it was only after n c c had exhausted its efforts to reduce the judgement before the mystery of course they did intervene to a settlement agreement with the homeowners association their policy and in that case and necessarily have to be determined because they're only right once to collect
all the facts forming this claim occurred after the may first claim and the retaliation in this case is very closely tied to the protected skin cheer in that the defendants in these is one that is important right discovery is so important trip in heils deposition will be very important in illuminating the issues raised by her claim as especially the so the basis now is what they were making disparaging remarks about me no no i think it i think the conduct goes far beyond that they they have told reference color she never worked for the state police  again this kind of course was not party to these conversations between her prospective employers and the defendants discovered an important to further reveal what happened this is the interesting legal framework  test states that particularly very important conduct is required and they have made or states that the threat of coercion or intimidation is part of that and i do notice that i think courts are somewhat flexible in applying circuit case far as from which this court borrowed in the graph when clearly states that there's a private information exception that that would except speech based retaliation from that test and that occurred since two thousand and six that's what she's relying upon does not matter so i think it does matter and if the court strictly holds her to that claim and all the things that had to do with a two thousand and six case and we think that's part if you just believe that the finally the lawsuit and the live retaliation well that is a different animal  the previous claims on both the reasons why her complaint should be was properly dismissed and its entirety and the first is under mcla and occurred just prior to the second most so i mean that is the allegation but we don't think that what they said when they were allegedly call the district court in that case in saying that the patient was complaining about more matters of public concern using the public employment context and and just briefly the court asked about on all these allegations and and there seems to be his inclination to go back and revisit on the earlier case on my side mclaughlin on we think that the arm there's no causation and i understand the discussion as to will me just say me tally is enough for a motion to dismiss but in this case since it's it's praed that there was all this bad feeling before the lawsuit occurred we don't see how you can now say oh the lawsuit caused them to not before and you don't need to do discovery to figure that out  sidebar but again thank you for your pro bono efforts it's very much appreciate
where the defendant drew a diagram where he places the dish and in fact that's consistent with the photographs are limited by the government and when you look at that you see that it is maybe ten feet but hundred yards not much more you can see indicates that the truth of the violation had any impact over a car and it could lead us to conclude that the subsequent interactions were is appearing on the privilege and simple license and i'm trying to figure out what about that violation had any impact other than just the presence of the person himself so their dishonesty and i use privilege you would still be able to make the argument you're now making about how they put pressure on him through the ro back say well there's nobody in this house we're going to go in the back she was back here why can't they do that they didn't know which house you live in your honor and the government do not make that argument below and i don't believe has made it here  has poses the hypothetical to you but it did analyze the question of consent yes and in the consent finding of fact after hearing testimony and finding in part your client not credible found that there was no coercion he was not under any pressure whatsoever that removed the illegality of the presence on the who are each and the district court's findings of consent so why doesn't your case and err even with entirely clear that it's any person want to come up to the door to just have an exchange with the person to say hello to you to look at to make a solicitation is told it unequivocally by that date i or somehow separate the gate enough just we strew which is what the testimony seems to be who are you had to climb through the fence i don't think it's very different to say climb through a climb over but you could also have taken people out not to keep  presenting a person with evidence of a crime puts pressure on them to consent ok i understand defense counsel's contention to be ok the presence of the officers clearly is necessary to the it's constructed the lead agent in the case testified that he could not have fit through beantown and when they pulled the gates apart neither agent noticed that it could be pulled apart until after they went through
just evidence that was it going straight for the look like heroin that sold and that would be evidence to show that he did engage in any prior transactions before officer goodwin came to the scene arrest further there is no testimony from officer get one bags and ten packages that are hidden in his sleeve this is that some of some significance in determining into that is have some significance into terming intent but i would argue that it is not overcome the inference of the amount of then we also have the issue of the look like substances where there's two separate items if there is an inference that mr white intended to deliver look like heroin in the in the light green plastic bags he previously to look at that however once you move down the simply out there and decided to sell drugs they argued that he was it dishonest professional problem and they argued that you spreading poison it specifically identified him saying that he pushes poison and under those circumstances job goes out there in the literature of he's a bad problem and that's exactly what happened in this case out specifically regarding the issue of whether or not he goes the modus operandi quite looking at the evidence in a light most favorable to the state a rational jury could find the all the elements of this i'm beyond a reasonable doubt here the officer observed defendant engaged in the transaction he saw him on going he punches officer brown in the chest resisting arrest further evidence of his consciousness of guilt and resists arrest of the point where he injures the officer the people maintain that this evidence when looked at but in addition to the being admissible as a continuing narrative it was also admissible to show the defendant's intent clearly the defendant the officer observes that the defendant out there in gauging in a transaction has the cocaine so for these reasons the other crimes evidence were admissible to show the defense intent to sell a cocaine now as far as defendant's claim that  have less than it would have limited the precious so there's there's no question there is no duty on the court to it issue it contemporaneous to a spontaneous limiting instruction the jury was given the limiting shirt and shorts at the end of the evidence instructing them how they could consider the other crimes evidence and that they could do so for intent when was when was the other crime an instruction given at the end of the evidence at the end of the day after arguments yes i believe that especially when there's potential for confusion here as there was with the with the after it with the state's misstatement of the evidence during opening statement that the trial court did not correct furthermore regarding the state's t
that that her patient likely she would reject she she didn't she didn't disagree that that was his inclusion she said being the legal test is possible not likely and therefore is his is a
app which was also brought up first it's clear that the legislature wanted to treat issue of notice for injuries in a different manner the notice for diseases the notice provisions into action different the pr of the disease act is clearly more liberal than that in the work topic the question underlying all the arguments on the issue is whether it's reasonable to believe that the legislature which clearly decided that diseases requiring more  arbitration without producing any evidence of a notice beyond forty five days now without raising his forty five day argument or asking for dismissal the two purposes of the no shaquan should be considered to ensure swift medical attention occupational disease act says that those has to be provided as soon as practicable for disabled that's what it says disablement is also defined by the occupational disease act and does not include that it's a temporary or permanent impairment the action of the body and the lady worked therefore the notice statute as it applies and the occupational disease act does not address that what we have under the occupational disease act is section seven which is basically a language set forth and then all three statues mysteries are made are made to two points that i wanted to address i mean is this basically stash my interpretation that's all it is and you guys can read the statute as well as i can read it to you sure you don't want to hear it with that said no this was an issue in front of the arbitrator there is no question about that it's listed on request for hearing form see except in the record so it's fair that the issue i take with regard to works you know and this is outside of the record when she files a claim with the video well it's not forwarded to the court the district director sends knows find out to the employer that will buy time so the fact that she's saying she filed thirty eight thousand when mr burns was still alive and i don't know how that would provide us no service staff to me that's you know i'm almost died during the exam we didn't know we died and that's what this comes down to and there is a longer period of close but i can see the fairness of forty five notes on the accident because the guy's not going to come to work the sun conferences but they're just you know this rescue not going to be there next week well forty five days is kind of fair for that i don't see the same thing when a widow twenty years after the man's life or mine he dies she's in grief for a week or two it least and is doing nothing and then she's got to figure out this is have anything to do with
and particularly in that respect it looks to me is the only objection that was made to the i j was to the one statement either a forensic before the i j a there was an objection made to that part of the experts forensic experts report where he speculated that it was extremely unlikely individual would receive consecutive notices a month apart and the objection was to that line as being without foundation and i j struck it but that leaves the record i made an objection to that opinion based on lack of foundation few years i've seen some places in which there is a pending request for adjustment of status that the government has been willing to participate in mediation to try to find a solution that is appropriate to all where you're examination documents with the friends of syria was doing and i think it's a reasonable conclusion there was no reason in question i don't believe it was a question during the proceedings that in fact these two documents were part of the same piece of paper at one point  petitioner did not ever testify refinement of way that she had not been pushed out or harmed there was no mission to mention it which is a little bit different the crux of my concern about your argument on that point it seems to me that the question had not been asked specifically at the time when petition
yes this is it my hometown the place we as members of this community call home and from time to time leave it for elsewhere but this is home sweet home to  on as its main street well this is ours we built it with the civic pride and remain proud of its dignity and friendly and tolerable characters we feel safe and i'm very proud of our municipal government for through this forest our town is kept in order and we are protected from unlawful and disrupting influences it's a mighty good feeling to know that they're always on the job to make our town good place in which to live you see we really are the folks folks in other nations would like to change places with these civic minded familiar faces we all know in my hometown think our town has something to shout about  lets call on some of our business firms and see what they're doing to help make our lives more pleasant let's see how they work to give us the best the markets have to offer their purposes to please you to fulfill your desires and needs to keep you well dressed to keep your home as well furnished so that you may maintain your place in society they're always there to greet you with a friendly smile and give you the best possible number of families that make possible their livelihood they help make your life easier your home life happier and your recreation more enjoyable by serving you better as a subject mind a set isn't you all want to yourself thank your family and to this community to favor your home town merchant money spent in town works for you as well as the community villanelle by home and derives the satisfaction that comes from doing things the right way you know whe our service clubs might well be called the backbone of our town for it's through them that our business and social activities are welded together they are noble and unselfish efforts are aimed at making ours a better tone in which to live through these clubs many a good deed has been bestowed upon our fellow man one said cleanliness is next to god this opportunity to thank all of your hometown folk for your patronage in the past and to assure you of excellent entertainment for the future
evidence when you look at the subject of complaints of the petitioner the testimony extreme position the surgical findings of his training physician as well as the objective m r i what we have is a significant amount of evidence that proves there was an accident that contributed about that secondly let's take a look at mr grass trial testimony when he was asked on direct examination about his symptoms he said well they were off and on and they were really nothing major and he also said that when this happened on april the nineteenth of two thousand soldiers were asking we underachieved i mean any physician for that for your lower back pain and his response is no it's a little bit hard to understand that response instead seeing a doctor w place of low back pain ridiculous symptoms two weeks prior to the accident and it was only on cross examination when i asked him about you know his symptoms before the x that his trainer before the accident that he finally relented and said yes i was having these problems i was before the date of v x the it may very well have i mean i think dr hymes comment that it's impossible to know when it happened leaves the leaves the matter open to interpretation express that this increase in the discrimination  there are there are numerous times where he goes into the doctor dr bruce and comments about how severe his lower back pain is and even that january two thousand and seven of the generated in conjunction with the  there would you be able to say that the opposite clearly absolutely i think because of all the evidence that the discussion of what's on the record that side in the brief and what i've touched on here very briefly this morning i think the credibility issue is pretty and you know when when you have that many disconnect between what's reality in terms of what the medical record shows and what he's telling you are afraid of what he's telling his own doctor what he's telling the section twelve examiner i don't think you can ignore that in terms of your the evidence that the commission absolutely should have not could have should have found cost connection the situation opposing counsel want to stand up here and say my record my record i record what i mean look at the records from the emergency room visit the day this accident before the accident then when the accident happened with more for the life of me that was the last day he had received treatment your honor so far as i know that he was working up to the point of this accident and then looking at the medical records he spends the next three
theater shop that only open ten days i happen to go in the of the other day and i was really impressed with what i saw the various foods and so forth and asked at your feet like to join us in the bell belmont business report and  my wife jennifer she was in peace corps volunteer and when she worked at the media for two years we did a lot of projects together so then we got together in two thousand and five we got married  open my shop in belmont and i to myself we do live in watertown and it's belmont line so it worked perfect almost last year i started to look at the places so every night i was going around went to shop that has a lot of olive oil and vinegar so i said why not to have the shop that has all the stuff together so i try to get as local as i can and get local food and now in my shop i have almost over  hundred different kind of cheese and i picked all of the cheese from massachusetts farm maine from maine new hampshire and some other places in the united states from france and i do pickles there and i don't mean to fill them out ok well you know i want to wish you the best of luck you know it's a it's a terrific story i know that it's it's an evolving business in the sense that you know you're just starting and businesses do evolve they do grow based on the demands from from from customers and so forth so i guess one of the recommendations i would make to our viewers is to stop by frequently and see what's new there because things are going to be changing all the time and that's what i think and think because we do like i got a feedback from customers and a broad flavor small yogurt that's also came in from massachusetts pharma you know and that's what i try to do more as local as we can so it's you know be a reason to stop there as opposed to you know the big grocery stores and so forth because like i say there is a ton of specialty products there it's all different it's wonderful i want to wish you the best of luck and one other thing you did to do a little plug for the town here you you did start from scratch and you had to put in a you know a lot of work into that building and you were commenting on how well it was how well you received by the by they have the board of health and by the building department so forth and  process but if my suggestion will be on the business owners not not getting frustrated but taking their suggestion it will help them out in the long really appreciate a ton of very good so the name of the business you've got a chance to buy it's a wonderful stop to make and until next time i'm angela frenzy and this is the belmont business report thank you thank you