MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
two weeks later the same and even worse conditions present couldn't the jury infer from that that the defendant was on notice of really bad conditions conditions that the government thought was bad enough to give him a citation and then he walked away  dog that was on his mother's porch stories that he didn't know exactly what the what the dog was but didn't believe him at all and so found him so he was found guilty of specifically intending to shoot that dog and then the land had a case where suggest in here is that because he owned the land he was responsible for every bad thing that happened on that land and it was just oh no there was just that was just not enough evidence to show that he was the one who actually specifically intended the harm to these horses you think there is enough evidence to show the condition of the horses had been going these forces whether they're going for you're certainly not going to contest any of the evidence that was presented by the by the experts in horses in terms of what the maneuver showed and that they would suggest jury the jury came back with the conclusion that the intent was shown here fair enough but couldn't it have also looked at this case as just a case of complete neglect and if it if if that was what the jury found if the jury didn't think there's some intentional very key for beyond a reasonable doubt which could have gotten from being i've just hauser already mentioned the idea that yes you might think oh no i'm going to be charged with neglect but also if you were a property owner and you've heard about this horrible thing happening on your property i think i would i do with ordinary property
he was appointed a police officer in april thirteenth ninety ninety eight and she filed an application seeking prior service credit for two particular periods of time both of which are to a period of time where she was working for the corporation counsel's office and casa please forgive me for interrupting you at this point i forgot to mention that our colleague justice  the service time with the cooperation council as well as what happened in this case is very simple it is in april of two thousand and ten officer was on the application prepared before the ahead we gave her an opportunity to get another theory it was still pending not only up a call right an administrative call that's what's not clear whether or not the case was continued just generally hard to get an attorney or i don't know if it was before i to state that it statute will have bred try active application which was not done in this case so why should i  to remain so i don't see how you can say that this this but i i don't see you can say that this section is not provided for retroactivity else it definitely says that's what national affidavit where there is no police department making a major city in america where the officer who originally receives the policemen do ministerial jobs or jobs and everything else but in this particular section a civil employee working for the police department is not a police and therefore the legislature put in the provision that when you are a civil service employee working within the police department you have to do investigative work to get the benefit as i said his argument and also i fill in with the instance with the dock fight that the questions were asked and annoyed and she made interpretations she made inquiry those various steps that victims and the witnesses because the officers could not speak spanish so she initiated the questions she got the answers she relayed those questions to the officers she did more follow up the same thing with escobar this officer never went to st she was doing the clear job she was breaking down reports and passing on those reports to somebody else if that's investigative work unquote investigative work and i would suggest the legislature should have left that word investigative out and just said working as a civilian employee in the police department in as you put it by putting their w
compensation settlement was entered into said their piece up front about eighteen besant seven fifty and they were doing and that they were waving their right to pursue they would've made an offer of three hundred twenty six thousand dollars or something then there was no settlement agreement because that was that was the procedure taken concluded and i'm getting a little bit close
you live one hundred seventy five an american apollo spacecraft and the soviets are used spacecraft prepared to join in earth orbit one hundred forty miles above the atlantic near portugal during their today join docking and rest a mission climax more than three years in planning and preparation a time during which differences in language in technology and political creep were set aside and learning about the other man's culture apollo ten the mission that over the moon and qualified the lunar module was subsequent lunar landing a civilian that a veteran of the u s space program donald this was his first trip into space as the command module as this was a time of mission preparation it also brought together engineering and technical specialists from both sides mission plan control and mechanical design this latter category included the building of the first universal system development it's all them a testing space constituted a specific goal of the soviet american space agreement signed in moscow nine hundred seventy two by the chief executives of although each nation new possibilities are opening up for fruitful development of scientific cooperation between countries and the peoples in the interest of all of this and progress of all humanity i wish  successful completion of the plan program safe return to finally they sent down to dinner and russians moscow in september investigators a clearer knowledge of outer atmospheric make including the quantities of only in the upper atmosphere domination of the experiment signals the end of a jaunt days of the mission and the separation apollo continues in carrying out the remainder of the twenty seven experiments in space science and science and advocates among the less notable passengers aboard our numbers of kill sea water they are in key stages of maturity scientists want to pursue an earlier investigation which fish taken into all but on skylab at orientation difficulties and zero gravity well those that were hatched  astronomy or studying the universe they have temp to locate the sources of soft x rays they probe the temperature and abundance of the interstellar medium and test layers of long term monitoring of aerosol particles the docking model is jettisoned and into becomes part of an experiment with the do is to measure spacecraft close together in the same orbit it is possible to measure their relative movements caused by variations in
excerpt on record at page one on one through one ten and where this becomes important is because you asked a payment as you know all the briefings was held up to be the entity and in fact not us a payment and had it been with us a processing my clients would have been in the title to twenty five percent of the net proceeds that were generated from that particular agreement can sell a business core so everything that usa processing does is a grouping of services and pushing these services onto merchants and being able to sell those at a price to the merchant that are greater than the cost to u only one source for revenues connect one source is the merchant and the merchant is the one that literally pays to the total gross money into this processing industry and then those  divided up amongst the various parties down below and so to try to separate the processing out and say this is something supernatural so i'm coming from this bank that's separate from anybody and everybody else just belies the california state web site protector state but they have no money and they have not made the judgment ok thank you a motion and they met their burden on that motion of showing that there was no genuine issue for trial and there were no specific facts raised that controverted any of the facts that were brought before the closure court on that motion what to please explain what the injury was and they could not explain it well they may not be able to quantify it but it's fairly obvious what the insurance you know your honor there actually is no entry and this is why the agreement for electronic payment but it is not provide it's a macmac and are entitled to share in any process things that the separate entity generate the reference in that paragraph to the five cents per transaction that one of which was because they couldn't produce any evidence of injury at their depositions then it behooves the opposing party come forward and show what that injury and here that there's no evidence of that there is no evidence now there was no evidence in the lower us payment system i don't agree with that i agree that there are these documents yes and i agree that the district court you thought say i'm not going to look at the documents but if you want to look at the document i think it's because we don't know what the documents are because the declaration of david mcmakin provides no limitations to what they are it's just speculation and guesswork to try to determine what it is that those documents show and and  well there was some kind of weird relationship between us and payment and that's a crock i think but the district court correctly found that it's not the relationship between those two companies that the court is just focused on it's to focus on the relationship between the shareholders case there was adequate opportunity for the plaintiff to get discovery and work for the summer just before the motion if you look at the declaration of amery wagner which was the supplemental asked her for some records twenty five
this man had a disability unrelated to his work and that's why he was being discriminated against certainly that was a factor but this gentleman was being discriminated against repeatedly by being with abusive language being denied access to job bidding and overtime and a finally after quite a few months of that he went into retirement because he couldn't continue under those circumstances but i think it's not one where because he had a service disability from his military time that they would discriminate against him up against man alone that was part of the motivation because of the very beginning he was given a ten point advantage to get the job he had to get counsel at that time to to get a bit into the post office for the job he had and the problems continue factually he was in not taking that and i wish i had an opportunity to write correct that colloquy that the judge put into effect and i missed that i didn't do that and i should have done but but he never said basically to court this case had to be viewed by what was before the administrative judge and his story that counsel just shared with not a story that was shared with the administrative judge this decision to not mention anything about military discrimination based on military service now faced with an appeal that is vague and uncertain the mission a judge had to fold within the sare and so in the record we have the summary of the conference call and in that in that summary administrators clearly to wrap mr right and was never made the ministry judge it was made for the first time in the petition for review and then repeated here today on the day that first time that mr wright ors counsel have disputed the summary of the conference occurred before one thousand nine hundred seventy so this wasn't new ads were new allegations or new ish i mean this is this was something that was readily available that could have been alleged before the ministry judge and this case had to be viewed by what was  under the board's procedures unless this is a newly knew it newer material evidence that this cover and that was not readily available despite due diligence on the part of town   or right exactly it's not previously available before the close of the record over a pure disability have to be as part of the motive the motive happy to discriminate based on military service and that allegation was not made before the close of the record in this case i don't say the post office and that group of words but the preamble to what was going on and i was explained against the post office for the work related harassment one which was rejected by the posters that wasn't what this where i don't think it could be construed if you look at this and give it its liberal the structure and then i don't mean to be construed
pretty good tackling in the middle somebody out of this  they're just not there in numbers the shrine frederick get an advantage of getting the lead ok so the topanga with more power than walking back to the line and then bishop and the same dancing about of the moment and someone looking a little down on the heels at the moment so that meanwhile that oh there you go and they've done that that's wonderful  about a twenty five meter fairly straight on kick butt sliding in the ball in that time so recycling poor talk about that in a minute it's been excellent from belmont today another all that might be held up as well actually on the line held up on the line she referee going down to look and she has yet to really hold on hold up so that i think in attacking that i goes to the go to the attacking side right yes and great defense by belmont  another very very close opportunity definitely had i can see that both still held up the same again that's three times that's an incredible defense and one that hasn't
confirmation agreement on order three which is relevant to this case before iran or article three says it in particular that the individuals being the italian the codefendant cannot take any intentional actions take out except for the specific provisions of the contract and cause of action there the court said we're going to interpret with the business reasons as who why those provisions would be in there and they found to sign and i think it's insufficient to incorporate them as well on page twenty two of his opinion he stated that it was the fact that they were both signed simultaneously and on the same day and that doesn't to me persons if we can figure out what that means in connection with the foregoing in the foregoing includes the original document itself would you say that it was it was executed in else it is agreed to by the parties that they will be no recourse against one of the parties for failure to abide by one of the obligations to pay back the loan that's what happened here the non recourse provision that is set forth in this transaction is one that is commonly found in his it found by the courts to be not inconsistent but actually one that is agreed to by the parties in the sense that they're saying that we're making this loan we're providing cliental for the anything else it we agree to that just like in no circumstance that if you have a promissory note that you signed to paid you didn't pay but your loan agreement has a non recourse provision that says he will not be held  recourse provisions in woman documents which is what we have here you have an inherent conflict in that under a promissory note you're agreeing to pay and then you don't pay in the loan agreement with this non gross negligence it's a matter of public policy if we preclude him for such a waiver here they acted with the specific intent to take a loan for the added purpose of not only getting the money
security interest is no longer the fact that the buyer can take free and clear and in this case the security interest was no longer affected when the secretary of state remove the heat that's the true issue in this case and that is con say something they can say they did and that is not what is going on which is designed to protect and the reason we also know that is because the vehicle code says that if there is no original meanwhile any new to do get certificate
off the minute they say that's pressure and that's why i would argue that that that actually what i mean in the sense that the letter was actually supports overturning the average credibility ruling because when questioned with the fact just because you may have a reason to file you don't have to file until you have a really good case you don't have to take the risk that someone will say well that's not good enough but when you the appropriate date to consider the circumstances in his case to change precisely because he was put on notice of any interest that the government may have had the  so that well founded fear time his parents were clear and that is correct he has he has certain problems related to filing related to counsel related to personality issues that apparently february two thousand well first of all that doesn't make any sense because he wouldn't have even known one of the stuff happened before that and then is and obviously it wasn't then it was february two thousand and one right and it's actually  fact that the case was very clearly immigration judges need to support their advice credibility rulings with with explicit cogent reasons laying out each problem with a fine and how that as a whole warrants throwing out the entirety of testimony
i think i think the question there is is the condition that dr ross on the on the seventeenth indicative of the strange brain or is it indicative of a herniated disc and waddling over what the commission needed to decide which one
sokolich as well as here is there seems to be quite a difference in the nature of the action under took in those cases versus the action under to he well maybe the better way to put this is if we were to agree with the trial court that there was no duty based upon wh thank you council mr burk they're not going to be able to walk without falling down and possibly remove selves and then they're told to leave anyway there's just no cause of action the survivors for the argument isn't the judge agreed with his the voluntary undertaking theory is essentially the same thing as told of duty and there's no need to grant the request to amend the
him sufficiently we're not claiming that the disclosure act is the exclusive remedy for a plaintiff we are claiming that be represented on that floor and then they're bound by the one year statute of limitations as if they were this is under that statute is that your position i mean i think that's what i just heard you discover allegedly discovered mushroom like mold that there was a parent or parents before they discovered it or when the painter first came into  alliance on the the report should be stricken from the complaint and it was in the second or third complaints that they fought off however we argued the complaint still go to opinion of the expert which still rather it's inconceivable that the marshes were not aware of the defects which is another way of saying should know and that is floodgates for a fishing expedition by plaintiffs to file suit student discussion right or discover there was any prayer or leaking or anything like that when there's
the effect that i'm working with the secretary to get you terminated or i've worked with the secretary terminated and this is my revenge are you doing it to me wouldn't that be enough to get past th
happened then after two hours of course final and can never be appealed that's the position the government is taking and that is clearly not not sure and when we look at the more condemning there may be a good reason why they lose on that claim but at the price of my question  terminated so if you position it at the end of the day that once a supervised release term and the restitution order is rescinded no longer collectable under any form you know our position is simply that federal courts are quite limited to fiction and that the government when it goes into federal court have to do it properly the procedure that was followed in this case but for the court to call ninety eight c r three two one three a close criminal case all the government had to court would be then the government would be following the law and procedure and it is a fundamental elemental principle of federal courts that the courts of limited jurisdiction and the government should be like any other litigant should be required to follow proper well exactly like i can't go into state court and try to reopen a probationary period which i've tried to do many times they say we don't have jurisdiction we can't really really visit the issue of probation for example if i have a client who ha compliance with its order of restitution then under section thirty six fourteen for this also empowered to re sentence upon default i would note that under section thirty six sixty three eight this was  district court with in addition to the specific items that it most such as revocation of supervised release in the sentencing also authorizes the district court to take any other action necessary to act which was an attempt by congress to consolidate all the remedies into one mandatory section for the maximum protection of the victims the inclusion of a restitution order is was  in this case and it also mandated the united states with the obligation to help collect that for the benefit of the victims the defendant has not been pain or there would not have been information an issue we are acting for the the jurisdictional issue in the brief because the court inherently believes it has a restriction we did not see it as an issue with respect to the district court system involved in forced many of its original judgment and because under the victim witness protection act the the individual victims used to have to bring separate actions against the defendant under their respective state laws in order to record their judgments in their respective states so
situations and civil situations in other words as you said you know if somebody stops paying on that and then the policy holder wants to make a claim saying he will return it even though he's not paying for it so  making the payments and he goes to state farm and says he hasn't paid for it he will give it back he i say he stole it then they get the exclusion to protect themselves but this this was a theft from the start