MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
used to call in when you already this doesn't our new dorp decision make it very clear that we're going to look at what the veterans department has set forth this applicable appellate procedures they've sets out an alternative as to where the employee ego loose in the employees it goes under the grievance procedures to fight to regulations or to the grievance procedures determined to collect the bargain that don't that's how do you how do you jump from this is where you go to get an answer to and if you don't like the answer here is where else you've got it's the second part i'm having i can't and in this statute well i guess what i'm this case which in my view is borders on the in comprehensible i'm not getting figure out what facts he found much less anything else there's no corrective for that is that right we all  days for failing for not knowing how to fill out a trip ticket can you give this any legal basis for that just faced with a decision which is a look at them or we're i should think the government would be equally outraged over the fact that talk not entirely clear from the record but it would appear that there was a misuse of  government vehicle by somebody and yet the government that everybody seemed just walk away with what a slap on the wrist is another way of looking at it i mean either that either he binary mistreated or the government is mistreated but neither of you has has any way to correct that that's what you're telling us because that's what the system is yes that's correct correct and lose it and we should just be quiet and go away f
over and over and she said in that machine that that that was why he didn't do she said in april of two thousand and eight you were supposed to submit your time records and i don't even titian and you didn't do it don't we still mr lang go file after the circuit court had dismissed his complaint regarding breach of contract he makes and spends a lot of time in his brief arguing that somehow this decision for three firms now you know things in the back door and says well i've never submitted my records nobody or very looked at my records yet whether they're good or bad or otherwise you give me part of what you got and i'll take it that
was necessary because we don't know injuries inside and you can't have confidence in the jury verdict until the jury has been properly informed the next bigger question here is when the structure must be given in order to preserve th is because the defendant was found in austin just standing over the woman so maybe we have some intent of hockey with what he did and he was saying that regardless of the gloves he was in the wrong e g through the house well in this case we have the exact opposite so we don't have gloves but we have the fact that he enters actually during the day which realistically i there that very well would be sufficient to give the argument i still think he's successful at trial even with the instruction but that would be sufficient to get here if all you have is saying he didn't move things on the dresser that were valuable that were taken that could have easily been taken and your response in minor pain presume that the th necessarily take something is and so on and in this instance i didn't hear barking dogs in the sense that as if the facts in other cases pointed out they were wearing clothes no high heels the person or persons were ha carrying a refrigerator i don't know who is operative but they obviously didn't argue lack of content so there were there r argument strikes me as being addressed at at least to the extent that you are suggest even in the future this will always have to be done and my question to you is if the evidence is lacking either because there is no a firm evidence for whatever affirmative evidence there is is of a negative nature why shouldn't there be an instruction for a luxury possible hearse and no direct evidence but we do what we do have direct evidence from the father who sat and left it's in the corner so does that mean that year off if it is further circumstantial evidence that he had it at the time better maybe he is the state points out that you've got to give these instructions more frequently but that's also what the constitution
or they had custody of her because of the mother's ongoing drug problems it wasn't until you know just a few months before the in her that they had begun to  visitation between eight and her mother it appeared to them that she was doing better she was holding down a job than him but in fact she has a mother testified in trial that she used cocaine two three times eight testified that she was in the bedroom it's a one bedroom apartment usually slept on the couch but she was in the bedroom at this time watching television after her mother left she if she told anyone about the currents that it would kill her she talked about she testified that she washed up and that the water was running and that she was crying and screaming and was very distr she said she was dividing up because she felt really nasty and disgusting now under these circumstances you know she she didn't tell her grandfather or her grandmother when she got back because she was she just right she's jury had reasons to credit her testimony even though she did not tell her mother immediately and they have reasons to creditor testimony even though she did not tell anyone until she was water running and she heard the child screaming bloody murder she heard the little girl crying and screaming she couldn't hear what was being said because of the running water and the splashing she could hear the occasional or so she called her mother kimberly said who was the manager of the apartment complex and kimberly side showed up the firm to find out what was going on she previously told the defendant be good and stay there this matter under advisement
let's call emancipation emancipation the new nation let in the old go the revolution from where then let the heart flow into the infinite infinite beauty letting go breaking free of this mental slavery emancipation the revolution is where then revolution is way then the flowers of good are here for good the hard as a flower the heart is all flowers the heart of good is here for good the universe is good so once again they're trying to get us now they everyone always asked well who's day well know who they are so it's not even go there they're trying to get us to doubt what we know for real we know for sure is that we are all one family and we are all beautiful and we are all created  image of perfection and the whole divide and conquer game is coming to an end i feel we're all coming together this was called beautiful love beautiful love the kind that is kind the kind from above beautiful love and everything and everyone the light that shines beautiful love peace yeah that reminds me of the best thing in the sixty's was when people started to speak up finally and yes silence is a killer silence is a killer and we need to start speaking about the things that we see that's wrong and nonce not all about money when we leave this place we're not taking the money with we take our actions with and silence is an action and we know things ain't right we have to speak up it's all a rainbow follow your heart it's all light follow your art you are the light it's all a rainbow follow your heart you are desecration to the land desecration to the people desecration to the ancestors desecration to all my relatives sacred dream sacred circle we are all one people sacred dream sacred circle every seed every insect every life at the center reflecting all one miracle sacred people sacred journey we cannot live without the heart we cannot live without each other without our sacred dream sacred people we are all one miracle piso mother earth i was just born how can this be i was just born what do you mean the heart is torn what do you mean this is the end of the further we go the more we know the further we walk the more we see the other the further we go the more we have of each other the further we go like a river forever it's all we know i've got nothing but nothing one step ahead sorel in a round madness the battle for our lives one step ahead with missiles overhead and land mines below the dance of our lives one step sacred dance i want to dance the sacred dance where life is real where you and i can feel i want to dance the sacred dance beneath our feet our mother this one's for real i want to dance the sacred dance beautiful don't take me away from my people is all i have don't take me away from the cent is all i am and getting on no modern trip and getting on no modern trip don't take me away from my people space and time and below the earth space and time wings of the heart finding out who we really are space and time the sky the earth the stars so here we are so here we go our heart will save our soul the
almost any divorce what's extraordinary about this case is that i'm standing here before you want to kill because they were trapped they were the way they were presented in the trial court in the trial the evidence that was presented in the fine is that w was not specifically what they were there was one question and answer in the entire trial where mr o'connor testify that it was his recollection that generally from time to time change allocations  income it's it's used for someone's benefit it becomes income and as long as those trust have dollars in them and he has discretion to use them by it was true to the savings account judge verse trust found that he had unfettered discretion and access to this he didn't have to report to anybody he did not have to do surely duty to this next generation she did not find that this was already determined divorce and now she wants to use it she being the wife in that in the graph wants to use it for income if the dog gets his property the court knew about it give it to him and consider support based upon the reserves that was a suggested allocation of every account statement that the judge looked at the testimony was was after the divorce was filed this rule conner placed one hundred percent of the assets give the short term reserves and that was the ordered to take money out the judge is using this now as an income source desa or were just that's why i ask you did he take the money out before he was ordered to take money out  a long time she could have developed this evidence and she just didn't answers during this trip to them it was time which is that nobody was paying this mortgage not from january twenty fourth here from me so part of the reason why it was retroactive period is because the mortgage had stopped the mortgage payments had st
trial court or for some reason look to a nineteen ninety nine first district case in turkey the illinois human rights stand and require a brain to establish some additional element granted summary judgment a few years ago and it listed the elements of the case way back when the court had the right balance back then when they granted summary judgment to the defendant but for some reason down for ten days in greenway three thousand acts of soybeans and they were given a choice by the state either refill bags you know to the proper way or we label them and they chose to rebuild the bag and a couple of weeks after finishing reading way they fired one of the plaintiffs and then within the next few weeks after that they fired the other two part of the back and forth and in the interim president went around trying to figure out who did it if there was one it was certainly was never planned it was never  was race discrimination the same analysis hold true here whether it's clinton's whether it's the shifting birds and may whatever construct the world uses or must get in the trial where it didn't get to the final and then you come in and talk on purpose or them to say what discipline of to do we put in there i didn't mean you're asking them to prove to shift the burden that's almost impossible it seems like the employer could come in every day and say the but it said that it was sending the case  to explicit binding that each of these three claims were terminated because they were involved in the company knew them to be involved in this and i think with or is doing is what legitimate reason which means they cannot prevail in this case if they can't have not proven that the legitimate reason wasn't true then judgement is appropriate for the company test i think it's important you know the plaintiffs have come in are that the decision reached was against the manifest weight of the certainly there is evidence that would support that it was a legitimate threat that the procedure used to like  retaliatory reason does not defeat a retaliatory discharge plan which is what the court did here if an employer chooses to come forward with a valid not pretextual basis for discharging its employees i'd like to think i came up with that myself but i didn't i copied down from the seventh circuit because they rejected that a number of years ago and so they say that if you if the plan to prove those three elements that are not then the burden of proof said that the defendant that the plaintiffs have to prove that whatever the defendant sat was the reason for their just charged as a pretext for discharge and if you think about it it makes it even more confusing because th doesn't even make sense under the law for i mean it would be impossible to prove that they're just characters a pretext or there just aren't the court just got it wrong and i think we can all agree that the work of ron in the case needs to be
we will go to
by first midwest
asked to you know from what we can tell from this record the record makes a substantial showing our position is that it makes sense to showing that he was only told that a statement had been made and now planned an hour because it was nothing he was going to say on the stand because he apparently made said he'd come off this cambridge area departed from the testimony that he had agreed to give and they were concerned about whether or not he was going to say what they expected and you know reading between the lines o be discovered who was quickly after this people in johnson two days later in fact it doesn't matter anyway this was before the supreme court the supreme court said at the time we don't know wh trial because you may be headed to needing detective snipers that clearly could have been raised on direct appeal they did in fact raise other issues over the factors so that
then she received conservative medical treatment for left shoulder resulting from the car accidents also the situation is that doctors clamor for our  minus so why isn't there sufficient evidence in the record to support the mission and that's really the critical overarching question well i think it comes down to his share being a symptomatic site company physician for pain in both of her shoulders both of her shoulders she stated that she had this pain from repetitive overhead were the past couple weeks because there was an uptick thousand and three and october two thousand and three so they say there's no treatment going on there whatsoever and then she was read injured from repetitive overhead work as to their opinions  i scans and the opinion of claimed its own treating physician who couldn't determine what the cause of the injury be was be overruled by the claimants feeling that her left shoulder condition was related to her work duties in october of two thousand and three the simple fact is we respectfully submit an opposite conclusion is not clearly apparent in this case and the manifest weight of the evidence of which we've heard a great deal about today clearly supports the commission's decision well as the circuit court's confirmation of the commission's decision the evidence supports the commission's finding that act most claimant suffered a temporary aggravation of a preexisting condition her complaints there were no changes that occurred in her symptoms because of her work duties as dr howard pointed out her symptoms were practically identical following the motor vehicle accident and again following the alleged manifestation date in this case in fact the only evidence supportive of causation in this case is petitioners own beliefs and testimony as i said earlier three doctors a pint but petitioner had  only had the opportunity to have all the medical records unlike dr buyer and who also knew about the motor vehicle accident and the claimants on allegations of an aggravation in two thousand and three is a question addition after petitioner blast the employment respondent we don't know what she did for eighteen months that might have aggravated her condition in any way shape or form of course we want you to get off in the realm of the live now and the commission refused to do that and i would encourage the court here today to do that as well based on all the evidence in the record it is respondents respectful submission that an opposite conclusion is not clearly apparent in this case and the manifest w
arguments one his that this matter now the second grievance which the union city to arbitrate is part of the doctor and rescue the car and the second argument is that we have  tuition all oaks and that was his grievance the union or mr boehner was the author of this grievance seeking the whole shebang there he alleged degree the city did not go through a course by horse analysis with dinner over these classes what happens is the police's no we're not going to pay for this program and all  reimbursement ok but do you have a look at the reasons behind that denial i think it's a mistake because our only recites in case law but i think  that would seem to indicate that the views of discretion standard replies rather than that denote here which is what we argued in our brief that with regards to issue and there are a few issues in the only reach the first one if he had decided the first case on the if you're talking about a stairstep scheme i don't think the course decision meant that in two thousand and two she's still going eighty two ways i think it means she's always one step behind and there is nothing that can ever be done about that because
last case on today's calendar is disabled rights action committee versus las vegas even you i'm sorry your honor when you look at what's what's identified in the contract itself is that who does what in the seating arrangements that kind of thing they pay for us to move the seating arrangements we do toms magna's in fact do that under the contract there's also a causes it the facility to longer comply with a da i think we have to assume that based on the very complaint in front of us of course we're your dog in this fight because because what it be our facilities were always had to be accessible the question is which standards apply and we've we've adopted the standards and that's programs that's ability for any programs that are put on in that facility whether they be in the n p r the national finals rodeo or any other distinctions in that case from the case here first there was no issue there as to indispensable party about the disruption of a contract so that deal with the factual situation that we have here in which the purpose of th
well here the last case to be argued this morning g four s international least you settled with three different companies is a contract written with armed group jersey it doesn't mention the other entity is taken from armor group jersey not from any other entity it took direction armor  one minute i was directly to the depositions of that are in the record and statements now you know no matter who's burn it is there's a lot of evidence that these three companies operate separately it says newton sealy one that's the st decision that went to them three times it advised that a chief jersey bore the burden of proving the existence of a rd party to support its affirmative defense a review board decision that armor group failed to carry its burden of proof on this affirmative defense of the employee the there was six years there better part of a decade for armor group to prove think just citing a messenger nine hundred and twelve supreme court case expressed the practice or courts generally to refuse to reopen what's been decided they had six years to try to prove the case and then they took you know briefs that he just referred to go ahead and look at it the only evidence that they are preferring is that one mr newton see leaving a couple of his coworkers thought that arnold was one company despite the fact that they signed contracts specifically saying they were armored group jersey employees despite the fact they were paid by despite the fact that mr du dealy can sell excerpts of the records specifically volume two a one hundred and ninety three through a full sixty one of these are the court records and depositions of the individuals not to mention  reality is is that you know they were they were separate companies there are theories of course you know the united states where you know a contractor in to some contractor would be under you know on workers compensation protecting the the just you know the the subs in the general from you know from civil liability and that definitely would apply here you know depending on the jurisdiction you were in but you know for the purposes of th
cconnell might not have thought that the fact that she had previously seen the gun for was relevant or maybe she forgot because it happened previously either way this is just a mere collateral fact to the crime charged and does not necessarily bear on her credibility in this case finally there was no doubt that there is blood between johnson and recently because a person has reason to dislike another does not mean that they are going to fabricate allegations of home situation where we have started chambers and that's not what the american legal system is based on and the cornerstone of the american legal system is the bank the defendants have the right to a competent representation replacing to proceed with no representation take all of these different factors into consideration particularly here it is theory that has no basis in american jurisprudence and determine whether or not the defendant truly wishes to self representation