MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
more likely than not and what with the force isn't the standard that we're looking for substantial evidence in the record to sustain what the i j a found gave didn't find the person credible one of those reasons was that the they never mention a car burning until a hearing that there was an application was filed that that was one of the reasons and of course the last and she has that just because you don't put it in those two things doesn't necessarily if that was all we had mean that we could find a credibility problem but that was the first one and then the next one was a passport they say they were going to be killed they say they were in very big trouble with the government and yet they got a passport in a month and that didn't seem very credible and then i know of course we can't find only on that but that doesn't make somebody credible because there are times when you can do that in fact the case l and he goes organizing the rally he says he's the organizer of the rally and yet thirty were arrested and he wasn't arrested and they just told him to quit doing it and then who told him to stop whether it was the arm of the government or whether it wasn't that he had several different explanations and who got the wages he had different explanations and now if i'm looking at substantial evidence seems to me those go to the heart of the problem and that's substantial evidence and even if i disagree well which i might disagree how do i overcome this well you know  whether convex plane in a way you want to explain it the question is given the standard or review which is substantial evidence in the record how do we get to that one i mean my worry is not that you don't have a good explanation because i think you're a pretty good lawyer and you can come up with one and i look at it and i may not agree leave but i can't do it on that basis  argue with the respondent so you're you're really saying then that the due process argument you were trying to raise had to do with the way the judge conducted the hearing more so in that particular point yes and you understand that because you really didn't weigh that in her rage then in your brief your opening brief that that's waived problems with with the lawyers that come here and represent the armenian community you know that they have good lawyers and they have lawyers that are not good lawyers and that's individual and that's not uncommon when you go to one of these people there who act in the role of whether it's on north korea or whatever they don't they just they just it's  that in the armenian land which lawyer can be interpreted in three different or by three different words so i wish i had had access to the tapes from the hearing because conditions and in those countries and they and they get here and they have a problem and they end up in the clutches of people who don't represent them competently and take their money work and work paid would get their wages or any organization started taking thirty percent off the top and he didn't like it so he got involved in a protest against the government and they are things like that
subsequently establish the elements necessary to prove beyond a reasonable balance vetted a visual violated that statue the issue and the excellence of the work states that at the time he was making this trip to her room gradually her but he was traveling at seventeen to twenty one miles per hour detective kruger testified beggaring to his analysis the defendant was not speeding at the time of the accident but he was not traveling too fast for conditions that day but he was not driving recklessly or anything of that nature the state to no evidence which would indicate that mr pirie was driving carelessly at that time your case both pieces of evidence show that the defendant was in the row not on the shoulder she was and she was somewhere between the two words between a third to as much as three feet actually doing at the moment just prior to being hit by mr kerry we know that could be it was it was a tragedy appropriate for the just to use them to take into consideration when rendering judgment on the section now it's in the saying it will get it may have been appropriate for these letters to come in but not when determining the guilt or poor tearing letters from family members who were devastated by about what happened to their sister but what happened to their for their family
know and you also keep talking about these emails i thought i'd assume those were sort of personal people talking back and forth to each other maybe they were not saying nice things with this is not say that she's not a communicator do some other things while she's on really and i'm not sure what their policy was on that but nevertheless it may have been that they didn't want her trying to run when she's not  all in this case judge analysis procedures involve the creation of a joint statement on disputed facts among the facts included in that joint statement of undisputed facts or an explanation of the reasoning for  before at least the first week of june and possibly up to three months thereafter and there was some concern on the part of leadership at city college is that it was possible she may not return at all so there was both a need for contingency or so there are a few different periods of f mily even these are all laid out in the joint statement of fact initially she was on leave during the summer of twenty twelve for a period of time and then between the summer of twenty twelve and the summer  twelve month period being used when she took her leave and two thousand and twelve there was a change that was done in accordance with the f m l a regulation so that it was by the time she took her leave in the summer of two thousand and thirteen the leave was measured on a twelve month rolling so it's you know again council has focused almost his entire argument on the question colleges motives and that's not the issue it was not the primary issue that was presenting to the district  supported and will catch up with you and make sure you have the information you need when you get back at that's exactly what happened mr hartley came back she received a briefing and actually was brought back up to speed so there was no ferry and  understood even called back enough to message again thanking her for the explanation and she return to work the next day so even if there could be some it's an inference that you know perhaps at one point city colleges might have first motive on city colleges part the fact is it never came to her when she was reinstated immediately when her doctor cleared her to return the only change in the terms and conditions of her employment dept when it was that she got rates so there's no way that a jury could infer from that set fact that plaintiff was subject to an actress employment action as opposed to perhaps some frustrations or negative feelings on the part of the what exactly she was doing or not doing its own study right and but she was being accommodated and not to the point where there was actually court will take a ten minute
but he also wasn't asked the specific question whether he knew the family members if you asked the questions but the district court was there i took the testimony and was in a position much better than we are on a cold transcript to assess her credibility how how could we when there is a reasonable basis for the district court to have concluded that she answered the way she did because you didn't have those relatives in mind she wasn't close to them they didn't and she just didn't recall because they were too distant how could we second guess the district credibility determination that she was not deliberately lyin but but is there a case law supporting this concept that it's not only that the jurors relationship to the person who is murdered but other relatives relationship i think that's going beyond what any of the cases are far said and we'll have you back on rebuttal ok thank you very much our holding so far in any event to situations where someone was related to the victim or participant in a crime do you agree with a point that has been raised by the strict jury that  given the in the community involved the size of it and the familiarity of people with each other's families here that that is something that needs to be taken into account  evaluating the extreme situation that is whether you state the standard the same way but take account of that fact or were you expand that the standard itself that in circumstances like this it's appropriate to to take account of that the uniqueness of the community involved get your are you arguing from that that her statements were deliberately deceitful or are you arguing that because of those relationships that that i'm should have led to itself a finding of of bias
doesn't matter where it takes place as long as it's the reasonable person standard that the resume person it met his position would consider himself or herself to be in custody and the questioning is likely to elicit incriminating statements  spectrum you can use the end of the spectrum with the superintendents deans the students principals those are the people with the authority that by statute i require to report criminal offenses then you've got teachers that are probably on the borderline i have to admit that you know
solution of water and a few drops of the that deposition testimony that was presented in the record it was based on his review of the photographs taken by my client on the day of the incident all of those things and his education and experience well look this is a point train station inspected daily and he was aware that there was a hazard posed by plowed snow melting and refreezing in this court concluded given this awareness and that was to get that was all vehemence is a constructive notice regard to constructive notice a setting such as this it goes beyond having a burden to show how long that stuff was and that is been the case why it is only an obvious that someone is there every gate should have seen it and want to see it that's sufficient into go to the jury because the jury would be left what could have happened during those forty five days anybody could have the morning anybody could see build something just because it's by the windows right there does not it is not needed necessary condition that it keyed from a addition to never informing the lower who are this court exactly what standard is to be applied in this situation which i think is something that he should have done before both towards his constructive argument or absolutely no evidence that we we put it there first of all or that we knew about it the all the testimony from our maintenance guy who went out every day and then went over the property with clean things up he did not and the other thing the photo that he showed you it looks like there are enormous shame spots on the sidewalk in front of those windows that go almost the length not a long windows but away from the windows now i asked for mr bayne who is an expert in concrete testified that those shining areas are actually a different fish in the concrete there's a broom fi testimony on the record was dead because of the placement of the substance he had no other of basis for concluding that there was anything else other than what archer did that was the source of the the conspicuous that the defendant should have discovered the condition through the exercise of reasonable care all night and i think that played in order to prevail in this case one of the rescue pinion does not have to show any evidence of a
them with regard to a ruling that created admittedly clumsy cross motions for summary judgment i think we have to address the idea that there's an entire wall with regard to summ
prospects or any number of times either you know take a sign in so it's someone either you know by way of accident someone has hit the sign and the stop sign down or vandals have com doesn't know about it how can they be responsible for the result in injuries of someone falling into the manhole bicyclists hitting the manhole a stop sign you know or an intersection collision
world but i wasn't clear on how she got on the porch
we all know the function of opening statement opening statement against the trial it's the opportunity for the attorney this jury heard was the stakes matter negligence matters on august sixteenth two thousand and three the jury they're not tired they're eager they're interested they're not confused you have the very best time this is not the time and what is a quick analysis of proper trial technique to interrupting the first words in opening statement i agree that the waiver argument it's there i think this court will agree with me that this was improper i mean it wasn't just a little bit improper it wasn't just one question like in the it's not my business to interfere with the trial of the case if something you're describing the store says if this is an outrageous situation a miscarriage of justice occurring and i about it or wasting some sort of oppression i understand that you know the jury at the beginning watch the hearing that this is a big business of hearing an improper opening statement quite sure of remedies wasn't terrible enough of the threat for me to ask for any relief actually your honor we're not saying that this handsome woman is necessarily what this court should should mafia appeal where we have an opening statement that is this shocking do we really want closer are where the jury is told that the judge ha of remedial measure would not  opposing counsel would bring it to your attention if i can call to this court's attention this case with the trial was contentious but it wasn't overly contentious both sides let the other side play sort of loose close to the edge and i inflammatory argument flamage story irrelevant in inaccurate argument made to the jury at opening statement is properly from my perspective this only serves to emphasize the need for this court to do what it did in the downey case and say in the clearest possible trials really aren't about how much you can get away with if you have that view you really aren't looking at the trial in the way that's all we you read the plaintiff's opening statement you would not know what this case was about you would know that it was only improper and that there is no way to justify it there's no way to justify closing argument calling the court integrity in impartiality into the opening statement by defense counsel up next to the opening statement by plaintiff's counsel put the trial ad textbook and ask every student who read stuff which by followed the rules in which opportunity for this court to talk about trial conduct and the responsibility of each of us as trial lawyers we ask that you grant the defendant what it deserves
relationship between the union and the employer subjugates individual workers to the status of you station human capital those rates are frequently overlooked when it is expensive or inconvenient or subordinated to the collective interests of all the employees in the bargaining unit wrongful discharge cases vindicate public interest in the employer acts contrary to fundamental public policy and is called to task for that breach of acceptable behavior by the victimized employee the individuals vigilance shorten frenchman's of time in his own rights generally different legal theory is that they were terminated in violation of the public policy of the state of washington that employees should not be retaliated against for opposing employer practices which paid substandard you're your lawyer you know the customarily if you bring a claim and you lose you're not allowed to bring the same claim again with a different legal theory you bring it all the same time why should not apply here well it shouldn't apply here at least as it relates to the collective bargaining agreement because the arbitrator had no authority to hear mr  related to the wages or hours of work those other issues which were reasonably related to the wife and minimum wage act overtime i require and so that's dealing solely with the issue of the of wages i can't be right and look at again because earlier in the statute makes reference to the things other than the kind of you're reading this narrowing question after all language for the for washington's department of labor and industries earlier it uses a very broad and in connection with i'm going to fax or make reference for example to the federal statute so i don't know that you can take and i'm pretty confident that you can't take this language that you're reading here later related to an act as if it modifies the whole paragraph just don't make any sense that way as i believe that you believe that it clearly indicates when you look at the  wages for hours of work modifier of the descriptor limited to wages would never come at the end of that it has to come with the beginning what comes at the beginning is releasing everything having to do with my employment now that hours it was the release agreement called for them to issue a very limited release or stipulated order of dismissal of prejudice of the underlying action related  claim that it is now preempted and they can go forward with their public policy brings us back around to the least and i would submit that the release is vast limiting it both in the introductory recital that is limited to the wage in our claims that the actual operational language including but not limited to is limited to the wage in our lawsuit and that it was specifically intended as a limited release and it should be enforced is that she's not there is ambiguity with regard to t
mr lynn met the definition of refugee substantial evidence to support the court's decision that mr lindh failed to show he was unable or unwilling to return to china specifically words he simply wanted status in the united states congress did not intend asylum neither asylum nor withholding to allow and alien to attain  failed to do there is nothing in his breakthrough the board which says i merit withholding because there is a presumption of past persecution he does argue the presumption with respect to saddam and the definition of refugee he failed to exhaust that i've met with respect to withholding so all the board did was address the claim that was presented to it and that substantial evidence as indicated
all right not so sure that you're relying on that to set aside the dream that the contract if you will you talking about a contract which i thought was an interesting are by the way but if there is
to defend this job of the most interesting aspect is the march fourth twenty fifteen order related and held my client contempt for failure to follow him for that was not directed towards him
and he faced the death penalty when he waived his rights and when jury trial he was home by the trial judge and his bench trial you could be found guilty not guilty by reason of insanity you are not mentally help or guilty waiver was simply not knowing and not intelligent and for that reason alone directly should have raised this issue because this is a marriage or is issue our position is it would have one directly and for that
five and forty five years a range of twenty years where this becomes egregious so do we take the bell curve and say that he should have been sentenced to thirty five years and anything more than thirty five was egre well it's difficult to say because i guess again the judge did not use the proper factors our argument is that the fact that the judge here used the defendant's background but he used these prior offenses in his background to get to forty was the the fifteen twenty twenty five to life provision is there because of the social you'll be addressed by the virtue of the penalty imposed and here the co that is that you know the only thing that the court considering determining whether or not it should happen on her excuse me not whether or not it should but the amount of time to be added up also things that they consider is on the injury that results  should the court can look at the offense for it and use all of those factors in aggravation as well as mitigation in determining the fifty five but then should only look at the subsequent the offense at hand in determining the  criminal history to do to make their penalty more severe the fare that this defended previously shouted her and then had a fully loaded it k forty seven in the carriage he was arrested were you worried for after he was arrested or before he was arrested i think that's really important hel a use of a firearm and then the possible inconsistency between a life sentence for the use of the firearm but only fifty five years for the murder time and as far as my research i don't think that they did speak to that and i think that's the problem we have this range twenty five to life and we don't know the child just don't know where to put the sentence i'm under that and also regarding butler
the officers did testify that the car was parked on the side of the street it was a residential street and that it wasn't impeding the flow of traffic and he did not issue any sort of parking  say i read it in and saying you didn't have sufficient grounds under the constitution to impound and search the car boat and your answer to that is we have a policy and my question is if we find that policy adequate doesn't it follow  know they found drugs on the defendant and they testified that they arrested him for that but they testified that they had no reason to believe there were drugs or anything else in the car they did not have probable cause to search the
came to court and got a divorce got so many agreement if you look at the document that was filed the judgment and the joint hearing room and it's in the hands almost exclusively  two and a half years without mr barch now judge who will have to say in the transcript you understand you're responsible for the mortgage real estate all of those things is that correct the residence she paid the mortgage on the residence and she took the mortgage interest deduction for each year of the residence and now she says it's not my property i didn't know anything about it i the written record if i were to ask the court to order the nine protons to reflect the addresses of the parties entered in the final judgment and therefore actually went camping was one of my concerns the jets were entering order if i had not responded saying well it's a d fault you were not responding therefore everything player and even though they were v and i believe that there has been no showing that she used her discretion being that she used her discretion correctly in order to correct errors that were made in th original judgment and try and get a fair result for these people who appear before her and intrusted the cord with those things that are most important to them so i  pouncing comments
that you know what would be the purpose of those statements how would be necessary to accomplish a reasonable purpose if the purpose of the form is like the student discussed issues involving children constructive manner healing specifically talks about what the purpose of this talking parents program is and also read the testimony from the coolants like to hear that this was a court mandated program as a part of the forest they were ordered to talk about their children on this program which it ju believe feeling emotional distress he talked about the purpose of it talking parents program and talked about what should be used for a missing person witnessing this or having to read through this in the context of a coup or order  because they not only looked at the purpose there was no purpose behind doing everything as was factually not true that is reasonable person looks feel emotional distress because the medium of which it was done so was to a child's birthday card and i think when you look at the
corresponds with the date on the summary it shows a painting in excess of thirteen thousand each of those two days would show that the payment was made by a credit card