MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
the issue from our perspective that this work needs to determine is for the not be trial for error in determining that a fiduciary relationship existed between the parties justifying the imposition of a constructive trust i don't believe that there's any question that there there was this was not a produce share relationship as a matter of law i believe the trial court made the determination that it would be shiri relationship existed as a matter of fact now that the plaintiff has the burden of proving that you share a relationship existed as a matter of fact a clear and convincing evidence and i look for case law defining that term and there are quite frankly there is and i all i also look definition so they would not provide us with any guidance in that it's more than progress but less than reasonable doubt in this case all that plain to prove is that the parties lived together and they share common expenses there's no disparity in income there's no disparity in education levels there's no disparity again experience constructive trust can be utilized to prevent unjust enrichment where one party takes advantage of another party in this case it was politically disclosed between the parties that they were living together that they shared expenses that houses were purchased in my client's name alone as such there was no unjust enrichment there is no fiduciary relationship existing between the parties justifying the imposition of a constructive trust even if this court was determined that there was a produce year relationship between the parties in order for constructive trust we impose unjust enrichment must occur and justin and richmond passed not occur in this case the court didn't go for that because the trial court you know there were numerous things that were presented at the trial that the my client the plaintiff took his money from employment put it again a common joint account that the defendant had control and the defendant then paid expenses from that including household expenses utilities mortgage payments for the  house on the monday help deal with the needs of the special needs daughter of the defendant and i think one of the significant factors the trial judge you know was that the plaintiff would come to money and i this be different if he really ten thousand dollars and put two thousand in the joint account but the evidence was he would take his paycheck deposit everything into a common account for
not the government determined that it was a
them some people believe the wheels and everything on live in that way in some people put them on a very clear permanent foundation where it rests on the foundation just like you would in any home you know that they can be reversed just for your plumbing and they knew that the structure was being put in their property miscreant in the others the theory expressed by your opposing counsel here too that you can't just stand by and watch somebody go and build something on your generally it's generally below the frost line so say the region there was an objection or speculation and there are fears connected to the outside answer puttings are connected together so it's clear that there are there is part of the food and then there were peers and so i guess when you're opposing counsel you're talks about you could take the blogs out that's because their peers inside the crawl space exactly and they're ok there are here they're actually
good morning council i'm just a start and send out regrets that she is unable to be here this morning but of course we'll listen to the arguments as they're being recorded today and she'll have access to  substantially worse the now didn't the trial court also find that the evidence was derived from eighty source wholly independent of the compel testimony that was an explicit finding of the why do we need to get into the very unclear and confusing discussion that cases like alias the st district case invites us into why must we go there  someone's mouth you'd want to not suggest the answer if he you know went to him and said oh i know i've got you know this other information from somebody outside so i'm not sure how significant and it was that the way he answered the question there was an independent source so why don't we need to remain and then which is he's cool situation it is and i think you pointed out the trial judges you know was rather strong comment that it's virtually unimaginable that they would ask about another instan so in the facts and circumstances this case certainly you know we're going to be asking you know students about other students and other incidents we are you know that there's more than one and certainly you know that you have the police and  witnesses were read in the compelled testimony and then the they were discovering that those witnesses were all true in their own testament based on what they were in there and help testimony in that would be in
follow up in two weeks no place in the practice can deviate from that directive ground really it's not just unique to one patient it's a little broader i think if the practice is condition and she can testify that he made a phone call her and she can testify that following the phone call these activities were engaged in by i mean is there any potential negligence there that that may or may not be appropriate because of how he responded to all wreck on the contents of we don't really know how who why would a receptionist or a nurse be able to substitute their judgment and the proper schedule based on convenience to the client oh medical interest
treatment purposes as soft gaff for work is ongoing mental health provider we believe that there cannot be a distinction within three point shooting four point one three zero between
guitars in trumpet the specialized agency of the united nations nes go has recognized mereology as an intangible cultural heritage from mexico in two thousand and eleven now when traveling to mexico and other latin american countries to make college possible for anyone with a mind to get there because if given the chance minds will do great things federal student aid proud sponsor the american mind learn more about money for college at suny dot gov  back thank you i'm naomi judd and i love my dogs but disasters like hurricanes and floods and tornadoes can leave parents and other animals injured abandoned cared about and i'd be over thinking about what happened in iraq three months ago they're almost like a stranger when you come that everything's different to your kind of discombobulated people were asking me how it was that i got the sense they've couldn't relate to what i had been through so i just stopped talking about it it made a tremendous difference among wife and i chose to get help in hindsight it probably saved my life save my marriage i personally believe that i'm also a better soldier sometimes when you come home you can see negative distressing concerning you can all be out some will be got through you're not going to be the same person afterwards that you were before you deployed and don't try to be accept who you are and now figure out how to move forward and make that pos some of the best minds in america are doing more than imagining american brain foundation seeking to find cures for life without brain disease isn't just something we can imagine something we can my grandfather served in world war two spending time with him were the best memories of my life i became a physician in v a because of my grandfather so i can help others like him i can't imagine working with better doctors or more dedicated staff fulfilling my life's mission with the help of my team and thanks to these veterans i'm proud to be a doctor in v a and proud to honor my grandfather every day search v a careers to find out more here something we bet you didn't know nearly half of all cancers can be prevented that's right half nearly fifty percent mostly by making small everyday changes in your diet and controlling your weight walking more eating less and eating foods that help you and your family to seriously reduce the risk of cancer and of course by not smoking visit the cancer prevention together we can website and get a free thirty day planner filled with tips recipes stats and more about protecting your family go to prevent
says the root of the interest that is charge is excessive yes and that would vary if the if the debt were outstanding for a longer period of time because you say that the charges stop after the do so i have another question too and the the the rate and the amount of the fee as that as the bank calls it doesn't vary on depending on the amount of the overdraft i notice and comment and when they got it they realized that there were marriage number of factual variations and that they did not feel confident and adapting at cat really before us that there is one reason one doesn't give deference to interpretation is is if it's inconsistent with flour mills by the agency and i don't use that as our situation i'm still back on trip as is a very good question about the threats to group lives that you were seeking and you the quote fees stop at some point start and end it's only like ten or eleven days they stop that's correct that that sounds to me more like a penalty than a discovery on what services actually go on that might match up with the service fee and in some gross way it's not going to actually show anything it could be that if there were no no services at all sentence it's in the context of discussing the joint guidance and and why we're not bound by the joint guidance statement whether an overdraft should be classified as an extension of credit is inher for a period of time now that is not the case in front of the house but if we had that case isn't it great great that we would reach a different outcome at the end of the day this court has to decide whether proceedings thank you very much thank you b
provided sufficient cigars and reliability and of course record shows that the interview was conducted in a controlled environment and using what it was called the radek protocol now that wasn't described in any kind of detail in the record you know and this is a hole that eventually admitted that the word touch was not in the stipulation so it was clearly trial strategy to continue to question this only to confirm that her report that she had written at the time that she interviewed an family says no it didn't say touch all right so she contradicts what she stated earlier and she says when it really says you know does not include the word touch the jury hears this now will override this non responsive answer because she is just pointed out that her earlier answer is not credible it's not in there and she being invasive and hostile witness and everybody can see this going on she didn't answer direct questions from defense counsel about whether and she had stated too or the definitive penetrat examination with cross examination for the brought out that the that the stipulation did not use the word touch ok and i swim and ask you about your idea that this is a trial strategy i understand that been granted and if it hadn't been reading it probably would have been rude or some point but i don't deny the dead generally would be the case in most cases and certainly at the moment as a read the record well certainly this is when you consider all the testimony your honor this is a very small portion of the testimony this there was tremendous testimony that directly implicated defendant in in both the charges this was a really goes by and you hear all this evidence from the victim herself about what happened to her from her mother from her and from doctors all is this was a as i said this really would be a harmless er
approximate causation i think there may have been some role here but for causation if you will but i am more interested in how there is that point on its face it seems to have some validity except when you look at what was ignored and you talk about here that  determination ourself well five thirty morning for whatever reason decided to walk down hamilton boulevard which by the way is absolutely going to do that her parents when she was a student this is a young woman who graduated with a dual degree from tension university where the person called her back she spoke english and understood english very well she travel internationally she liked to travel this she was on a program where part of the ten was to travel and evidently on this day at five thirty in the morning she's doing somewhere evidently that little bit to talk about whether whether duty was reached or not as  for a foreign student lived in these are the rates of pay she was very limited here at certain hours of the day transportation is limited probably everywhere at certain hours a day even in a city like philadelphia sometimes disappearance to use public transportation as well as other forms of transportation and indicated that you need to drive and if you were operating a motor vehicle in the united states you must watch out for  so what does one know what is reasonable for one to believe from that statement it is reasonable to believe exactly the black letter of the words that i mean you know i think i i think i know this intersection where this young lady struck i don't know that i can ever say i was there at five thirty in the morning and i doubt that i was maybe the second across a bit and i definitely didn't want to cross it but it was dark it's not that wide but of course could come relatively quickly into that but it wasn't reasonable for her to think based on what she was told that if she tried to cross that narrow entrance ramp the course would stop for doing your honor absolutely not one no reasonable jury could ever find that individual would think reasonably that she could cross an on ramp onto a major interstate highway and that cars would have cross this entrance ramp to get to the other side to continue walking on the handle bore correct right here i'm not sure family or continue on the other side or she was moving over to the bus terminal at that  that the point is that it was not in the middle of nowhere it was next to an interstate highway the place where somebody with a bus terminal across the street from her employer in this case the it's the word suitable evidence other than this accident that would go to the issue of was this safe or not to be had where there are accidents all the time do we have any data in the record that says this place you know there were accidents all the time people had to walk across the street unsafely i mean what do we have other than this particular accident as evidence that it w job you think it should be i mean we can't just say oh this happened to her therefore this is unsafe you're making up one year and you're here you're saying that they had a duty to to know that this
reasoning if you look at the web two point three of the settlement agreement it states that the review the only explicit consideration for the review would be sandra's efforts at becoming economically s something to that effect which if you look at the circumstances underpinning the settlement agreement it was entered into right sandra was finishing her master's degree and before she had commenced any wor and she would not bad virtue of failure to do those things and for quitting her job it may be for the trade continue to get raises continue to accrue pension benefits and provide for any time in the which was actually making because she wasn't teaching career she was doing some substitute teaching and she was doing some tutoring but primarily it was the nine dollars an hour that she was earning when the trial was as head  not accurate that file from unfair included the union contract or the schedule of raises for the teachers including showing by year in beijing cation with each of the teachers would make and that's where the sixty nine thousand trial believe just failed to give life to this agreement and failed to consider what had transpired prejudgment in terms of the parties division of their assets in terms of the support of word that had been given at that time we were
would appreciate it and add we have read the briefs very familiar with your case so you don't need to spend a lot of time on the facts i am mr on how much time would you like my o this they come across discounted items in the gun and that look like and i think the student identified some of them is coming from his car and  they locate mr hearings fingerprint on one of those items but what difference does it make which i mean it wasn't it either was the assembly box or the  back says you only have to hear out of a minimal evidence connecting defendant to this crime it's not part of corpus still might die that the state must stolen at the same time that's correct and his fingerprint was on one part of this equation but not on the other part not on the speakers in the box that's correct and that it may be on the wires for him to tell and i just i let it took to come your distinction between what a third party cell service provider maintains which is that information you say is accessible without a warrant and what's to write from the cell phone except itself which requires
the same number from someone who was not the defendant she maintained that testimony now and the state points out this retreat also bring it to your attention as well but regarding the transition talking about the work text messages correct in a phone conversation prior not enough to be true to the continuing course of kind between two individuals let's say this was a telephone conversation between your client and we've been through the first one we start talking about the second one with the first one doing all along to engage in a transaction and the jury reason for not believe that she was dealing with the same person she'd been dealing with a lot and that's why she
the complaint absolutely nothing changed with regard to my coverage because the original complaint was included in the amended complaint i can tell you what these words ring in health care a consequence of the fees i read sued because of the work allegedly i did or didn't do i was sued because of the consequences of the work i did the fees that i instituting those proceedings he represented her in a necklace and manner and that's that it's clear from wh it could be but normal course of representing his client competently he would have done that was like the underlying thing in kaplan and that's what mr clooney if i understand his argument is saying happened here yes that's what he says
we read exempted the defense from objections to specific parts of the testimony in other words there was some objection pushed through all the shadow objection to having the knowledge that victims victims gave testimony which even in some respects was well within the judge's decision discretion to admit and in some respects was much more question of the testimony that was probable that suggests he was objecting to the testimony as a whole and then the standing objection would be to the testimony as a whole and not to the street parts which would be a problem i understand i mean i certainly understand th the defendant is entirely responsible for the universe of possible causes of a result then but for conservation what actually happened there as well here we have a situation where it was really the explain why they were that would be our position that this scheme was specifically charged as one to defraud suicidal persons and if you if you actually look through the government's exhibit sixteen which is part of the evidence disputed question by the supreme court that the c e o of the drugs could be separate from the ingestion of the drugs five the victim and that's what we have here we have a distribution of a poison and ingestion of a poison which a person is giving a core using to someone whom they know wants to take the poison in order to commit suicide and then we have all these states that don't seem to treat this st degree murder do it he provided the means knowing that there was a whistle person who would use those means so does that mean he has the intent to kill them down how what what are we supposed to look to to figure that out i think i think you look to the elements of  to injure or kill that is an element of the no i'm saying what is the basis for saying that when i gives a substance that will kill someone to someone who i know intends to take it to kill themselves  about if you have a doctor who has a patient who is suffering from a terminal illness and the doctor provides them with a drug that they can use to commit suicide without counseling but just sort of recklessly gives them the drug knowing that it has the potential to kill them and then when the person wants it for that correct then then i think you have or you might have a question of intent but here as to you might have a question as to whether the intention of the doctor was to cause death or injury or are simply reckless with respect to that best argument here that there's kind of a domino relationship between these convictions if the conviction for witness tampering is sustainable that's a that's a conviction that requires a finding that can interfere with the witness intending to kill him penalty provisions of the statute suggest the contrary there's a verse to statute that says that they feel guilty the penalty is life imprisonment or death or death does not suggest st degree murder they usually don't have that hypotheticals in which you might take the view or could be much of causation element to be so removed that it would be appropriate to apply but here you have elements of the statute that the court can look to you have evidence
was immediately paralyzed a person can be paralyzed anywhere along the line some people get paralyzed days later some get paralyzed hours later some are mishandled when he has rolled over on the back he might have become do so and at some point y stay away from him and his wife to keep continually harassed dark and otherwise ignore these people and when it came to running that license plate by the officers on admission he was on duty because he had no official purpose for getting into that d m v computer
do they just rule on it like this decision ever happened to begin to go back to reopen testimony these things may change we don't know the answers so there's more exactly what is going to happen i don't there's a lot of uncertainty what each of us plans are for the round we don't know what may happen to see what our commission we don't know we are working with the parties with our  way so that's really sort of the big thirty thousand foot picture is there's a lot of variables up in the air in the midst of dealing with it and it may be quite some time  we geometry of a reservoir at that time look like it's got cost estimates whether or not that ends up in our budget priorities or is approved is a question for the future but we that's another big question and i think it's it's well documented pretty well know that i think the code offer for the whole thing i think it has a sustainable ulick one billion gallons a day and there's maui community media you're watching channel fifty three are kaku green government and public affairs you'll find online video and information at your fingertips cocker serving for over twenty years community media you're watching channel fifty three green government and public affairs