MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
might have a six year old from the who so what do you do do you ask the question about commitment voluntary and voluntary before you read the report o is that the judge's apparently in this case is read the report understands what's in it and knows what he's dealing with of a six year old basically as opposed to a fifteen year old so i don't know what is it is that when you put the report well they could have said gee do you want me house do you want to be here or not you know i mean to put it very simply you know i  court and that's true he has due process rights did he get due process under the code in this case and are was the stipulation  decided in johnson that as a matter of strategy and tactics under the minimal code cancel so at this to this point we have no due process violation and we have no claim that cancer was infected so where's the due process violation johnson says that that matter of strategy and marshlands you don't have to have the respondent consent on the record to now in this case don't you know cancel comes before the court and he says that he has reviewed the reports the respondent is not competent but then again under johnson this kind of it my mission is not necessary and again the tried to electrocute himself he stabbed another person in two thousand and nine he's physically aggressive so it in there is he's causing local stack injuries
united states has again united states versus john reaffirmed that position clearly the court held that the fourth amendment word effects applies to hundred eighty thousand when you know in that case which we think is it is exactly on point in this case in this case the police officers we see information that the defendant paid in the middle of the night in the station while you're while you wait two hours for a dog and then another two or three hours while you investigate the story told you know as to where he was going or why i was going there and so forth ask a question don't have the answers of the  say he had no right to make a record he couldn't make the most instant read it was inappropriate she said in a not her ok and we have a right to make a record i think if nothing else we have a right to make a record so that this court can see what the evidence  found the backpack the backpack contains a lot of money rolled up in small bundles and rubber band together in different denominations a lot of money the officer had asked the defendant claimant a number of the questions while he was process in the morning take it that's when he has obtained that the claimant was driving to denver to visit his grandmother in a nursing home did not know the name of the nursing home and didn't know the address of the nursing home but that's what he was doing so the wording you don't have a plea to completely develop record on it for that reason because all that he was seeking was emotions friends with regard to travis and the propriety of asking questions that listed the voluntary i think what was more concerning to the officer was the fact that he didn't know the name of the nursing home or where it was located in denver and will venture me shows that it is there you do know there is something wrong with this money and that is you know and then he
has made his burden in that regard
presented in his petition court as to how they're supposed to handle these types of cases without conceding that it's friends cock riposte merchant counsel the inadequate representation w address the point that the trial judge undertook the sixteen page analysis of the underlying most conviction if you looked at the merits and determined that even   and frankly it's my belief that a real man in these cases is an appropriate price for our system to pay for these  so we can speculate that the to consider the mission as it exists now you could call that speculation that would be inappropriate were i mean cannot consider the position as it is now arguable so for example and with respect to the trial court and the trial judge the claim about judicial bias which was it's a well it was filed based on the notion that the judge had ruled against mr franklin which we all know is just not a question it's not a basis for relief when i had first mission counsel explore
well it's already been shown to be to have failed to bring this out so why not
affirmative defense in response to the complaint in response to the amended complaint they did not fail in motions to dismiss for those based on lack of standing indeed even discounts as counsel has conceded that they
and the court can see that at the end told her twenty six team meeting there were two thousand four hundred and seventy nine cases on the property tax billboard stock that is more decisions that people have had to issue that m rules allow you to be jet is that isn't right yes and the rules allow you to give an extension of time i presume even in hindsight for good cause show you was the good cause
that we are it is in the sense it is not right before the words of the petitions filed on time if you remove those words in the parent that are called i would not argue i would not argue this case the conditions at the end was the trial timely but that was an implicit gradual jurisdiction there wasn't any other provision in me in the u s code that or that about these medicare hearings are authorized  but i don't see that when they put it there in the sense they put it there before me jurisdiction to do right to determine the relief of bellville to the to the individual under this section available under this section and then not have a parental say and the sixty three thirty that we should do something entirely different if you're trying to stop a government one of the conditions in the private person is the person claiming the benefit of the stop of must be ignorant of the true facts miserable is a pro state taxpayer she didn't have all the lawyer you don't have to decide the equitable stop question here to remain because one of the things that i will tell you i would if you did me then say i don't think this is equitable stop enough yet i would show that testify i call the miss coleman the i r s person did the taxpayer have the opportunity to make that record before the tax court know what subject matter jurisdiction was dependent on the conduct of the parties it was  dependent upon the timing of what happened when and could you not have said your honour's before you decide to question there's additional information it bears on it and we can't would be difficult to tell there might simply have been a computer glitch if that were the case but generated incorrect information on all four letters the only case i'm aware of that morning think you're out what what where where the li bar we also believe that the case could complete in order to determine whether equitable stoppel applies here or should the matter be amended for that determination convention which hmong said we shouldn't pay a lot of attention to such as just the draft and convention time periods are sixty four for each that's for interesting bait and that's a ninety ninety six statute collection they talk about sort of the important step i guess certainly in the tax loss because the consequences sort of these individual rides considerations of whether someone
which ultimately led to determination of the one of the suspension without pay for periods of time so he basically what i hear you saying is that he's got these counseling chiefs stuck in a style and there was an between speak out he hasn't been deterred and frankly i'm not sure i see anything that's going to keep anybody else is concerned about safety for speaking out either it's not like he was he was fired suspended without pay really not very much has been done with him so all really that in our cas safety advisor in the city began opening investigations into him calling his coworkers into meetings letting them know what they were doing that there was going to if anybody else was participating in seven for any form of wrongdoing this is a guy who comes to work two hours early last to leave first to set up you know this is the first opportunity to jump on something and he jumped on it like lightning because he had explained to them technically done something wrong and for different planning for like five years by yes safety committees of regular barrage of years of complaints about safety what is it that happens here that it causes because we like that as opposed to something regulation that the dissenters attached doesn't say anything about getting a supervisor's approval first and that was not the pattern in practice it's attached all of the purchase orders that were approved after the fact before and after his constitution so even after the
trademark trademark the owner of the trademark except the the the rub here is that the trademarks were were the defendants believed that s p i had ownership rights in the trademark with respect to three holding and said you know these designs are are are insufficient for x y z reasons and given given three holding an opportunity to remedy them in some way that may have been sufficient arguably it's a question of fact of course but the fact is that that never happened so those two things together and looking at the requirements of the provision six a required that and sixty together you know in about that your client the case was that i had not been using it here in the union day and you'd be trademarks and footwear and therefore did not have ownership rights in these trademarks as well where an optional thing the th decide not to but maybe i'm missing why you would need additional discovery in any case is it not correct it is undisputed you fail to make the guaranteed minimum royalty payment the advertising payment or for that matter any other payment to s p i after january  license agreement after the term edition of the license agreement that that is i'm stupid as well but and is it also undisputed that you did so without providing a it was provided later than was was required of the u k all right so that sounds like the kind of situation where a court can resolve summary  if the summary judgment motion had been made after that discovery was complete i believe that the result would have would have turned out differently because we couldn't sit one million deposition testimony as arms nd issue regarding the approval guarantee royal do under the wise for two thousand and seventeen in the amount of a one hundred and sixty thousand dollars and damages for the licensees undisputed it's useful to kind of walk down the path a bit and you know i think it's pretty evident why this argument doesn't hold water the scheduling order which is it our rd one says that word makes no sense had mentioned that it was more like a frog me and claim were defense which which had not been asserted this is the issue of there being overlap between different types of defenses a back little ball in in washington state another issue which had been raised was a double recovery i note that there although although it's factually correct that the of the contract claim and you were asked is that undisputed that your client continued to sell and he said yes yes make sales and you say yes but so just quickly what else is there anything else you want to know about that in your greed but you seem to want to qualify
photograph that is in evidence in this matter right now on the face of it you're honest i'm saying this it is a unique action and unique experience it is compensation there is really true devil causal connection to the question the first one is is there a causal connection between the employment and that's what i' is that that's fine he can he can impart that but what is being argued his is the causal connection between the condition of bill being and the and in written statement he just said he was reaching were a piece in this box and felt something in his love shoulders near zero not any pain at  thirty to sixty minutes later he clocked out of work finished working for the day with holders of friday evening so tolerant later that night his shoulder was in a little pain is a weekend warrior somebody's region or parts out of the parks because they're there the risk of getting injuries something specifically connected to what they're required to do to perform their job which is why you need more just walking up and down stairs isn't enough it box with a narrow opening what about the argument that reaching it increased his exposure to a greater risk in the general public because that's that within their own party you can say you're reaching into a box or somebody could have to dangle sexual issue in the manifest weight of the evidence standard doesn't apply as i mentioned a couple moments ago the most legal ball description of this accident is found in the petitioners on  go ahead i'm sorry get the burden of proof too i think the fact there was no by his own words no pain at the time no pain experienced it all for several hours least the literal you name is very significant i think the arbitrator took that into account
judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of seventy one some one thousand dollars the court is right that the standard of review is whether or not the judgment in or by the court was against the manifest weight of the evidence which against the manifest weight of the evidence but i heard was an argument that the court did improper weight to certain pieces of evidence in favor of the other pieces of evidence other portions of testimony  sometimes it might do that may or may not be accurate but which was very clear on was that she believed he was cycling in a dangerous manner and she also testified that she believed the plane was going to cause an accident by the way he was
parents often or we can say well you're kind of rotten but you're good enough that i'd like to keep doing this with you and so i'd like you to be franchised when you have those choices at at the at the beginning when you are no as applying to anything other than to the franchise location in the store a gallery or it strikes me that the language is really awfully clear on  that the owners of a corporation have to release true and i think the purpose of that is so that you don't continue in business with someone who thinks they have life plays then we should ignore the fact that it says the release has to do with the that say anything about about a reception of the documents so you have live documents that have been signed and the problem council can never get the are is that the quid pro quo when he signed up he says that he had an automatic right to to then one would still theoretically be viable from the day of the release forward to the  that this is if you look at the declaration mr serenity there was a competition issue going on at the time with vitamin world which is a deep discount or in this business and the all of the products every single one of the is never come forward and said well we were able to someone else offer this product to us in a better price for your price is twice as high to us today and in a fact it wouldn't make any difference if they could because either no
well as causal connection regarding both the right shoulder in the back has a nine hundred eighty hearing is not a hearing on all issues once the arbitrator decision is reviewed by the commission and unless an appeal is taken to the circuit court case goes back to the over trader for further litigation on the remaining issues such as additional t t additional medical expenses and p p d this is evidenced by the language in the arbitration decision itself which was mandated by the thomas case commission modified and otherwise adopted in the first the arbitrator's decision my location by the commission was that the commission quote finds at this point in time fisher has failed to prove that her condition the home asserts that the commission erred in giving the green light to the arbitrator to consider any additional evidence on the issue of cause of action based on the law of the case doctoring the commission set the law the case and commission's decision was under reversed and as such the commission was precluded from barley in its own war the case the commission had no statutory authority to make a finding on a disputed issue and then  arbitrators it to consider additional evidence with respect to that same issue or better heart of the commission that had nothing regardless but that second paragraph of the commission decision is a step which is the law of the case that they can condition of the right shoulder was not causally connected to the accident
retirement and not eligible to be a full time officer during that that's when her right to receive that benefit kicks said i said then police car eight or sixteen hours a day and he's drawing a salary as opposed to disability benefit why because he's disabled was that put your mind a better position to get some of this money as opposed to when he retire
the rose and place an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant and i think that then it is significant in this particular case the the right in this area requires two things for th the defendant did everything possible to make sure that my client was not an employee until such time as they got sued they entered into a written agreement everything we see on the record in this case  jury and let them decide he assures thank you contract by me i submit you there is no difference a contract is a contract a contract for hire every contract in my opinion requires mutual consent mutual intent to enter into that
ability to withstand the protection insensitive places to a buffer zone around sensitive places based on a historical analysis yes or no i watched the same arguments offense truly did acquire it within the thousand feet or a gnat on the school grounds itself so and if they were the case then the decision separating out the part from the thousand people wouldn't necessarily be presidential to this  prior conviction that the conduct was prohibited by statute was identical for the class war in the quest to form in so that the supreme court and both said it isn't a separate offense the fact is but the question of the defendant's right commission only becomes relevant after he's prohibited is exactly the same situation as we have in the end with cases in the both cases where the early offense under twenty four different point six was the a three eighty nearly case immediately accessible that was the only one that was struck everything else the affirm the defendant's conditions and as to the other arguments if there's any questions michael counsel is available
whether an employee had a reasonable belief that her disclosures were protected is whether he disinterested observer with knowledge of the essential facts known to and readily ascertainable by the employer he could reasonably conclude opinion in this judge came to him and pinion and his opinion basically was that he did not accept mr mounts testimony he did not he he didn't believe that he that counts and as i mentioned in my reply in the brief there is no section on the west see for me that says are you a perceived whistleblower and therefore what the happy about the e mail and they were upset and they called into question a sac hans integrity and that's because that this e mail was used at the deposition in the case and it say two cases one is the navy taste where the whole se took the case and the whole i see does say the words perceived listen to her but you can infer from that that just because somebody didn't say that that doesn't say that the case is one where if we really think about it what happens here is the supervisor asking the guy pressing the guy you really didn't know you didn't read email you should message to him exactly to go to bed in time to always see to investigate those factual decide well legal label to put on exactly exactly and whether in his attachment were in lays out all the facts conclusion and why do you think you were retaliated against nobody here would say he didn't exhaust with the o s c they whatever he puts down is really just gravy but sas the fact pattern  within the scope of the act when actually they have talent is not the person who made the disclosure it was somebody else and then for example in the case chrysler says nasa that's he had heard this moron stated he wished to clear the air or everyone on to state how the mail was given to him as he could speak if you should speak to the special agent in charge to give them his version of events shamim stated he appreciated them now speaking to him regarding this matter and he would clear things up with from carter special agent in charge now th case two word case could take into an additional charge about a doctor who took excessive overseas trips and the court the federal circuit said the failure to raise that issue with the oh i see in other words the do that must be exhausted are the facts the actual you never claimed that one of your disclosure was the doctor taking overseas trips not a legal theory can i take that with what my adversary was the carrier where this guy is not just the fed ex guy is because if he was why in the world would the supervisor ask him did you read the email it's only
recording not amplification keeper for some for everybody out there for those of us over here who have issues will practice cases for twenty seven years two different sets of factors two different specialties two different times it's not the identical cause of action there are separate they can be found in the same place but you know plaintiff it was a nice six two thousand and nine and her claim is that they used their technique and because of the technique that they use injured during the surgery one of the things they did and rush is a dependent objection to the depositions going the depositions the nicer this one statements took a long time these this is naturist someone silence during the depositions this is someone