MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
operators decision and all the arbitrator the only comment the arbitrator made and the decision with regard to the growing west he said all that although petitioner complained of continued numbness in the right growing area prone area an issue addressed as asked him and as a whole i mean it is sort of society i mean the arbitrator admits and says in his decision that's just our complained of continued numbness in the growing area but didn't you know we believe that think i'm under the assumption that the ushers assuming the growing areas part of the way because even it's give us any award this man as a whole were saying you know he's not entitled to anything you know for the growing injury that that date that on that they've dr hagen noted that you've been doing very well and the original angels go on you complained of some mild swelling but it was very pleased with this outcome progress on examination mean that was there was some time from the time he last saw dr hagen and the time of trial so i mean you know according to petitioner and i believe he him to be credible there was nothing about his credibility he testified at the time of trial he was having some pain yes some swelling so i think we have to think that in conjunction with those records i mean i think that's something that we need to we need to look at at the time of trial to testify to to these symptoms or these problems so and i can say i think if we look at it to differentiate between the leg and the growing we know we use the tear this one but you are exactly exactly and i think we need clarification on that if that's what i think that's what the commission did and i think that their long because i think resolve the panic completely resolved i think he sets it out in his in his decision that there's no permanent seat it completely resolves he's got full range of motion in the head he demonstrated good strength and he has minimal swelling and if regard to what you were addressing i think back to what i think i think we need clarification as to what the commission is saying are they saying yes we're addressing the man as a whole and we're not awarding anything or we're just
limits of it would be it would be extraordinary for congress we've got such a law that stated we can speculate a possible way in which this might interfere with the telecommunications company is gone and what makes it particularly unconvincing is if you look at the legislative history
says ok i need to be a sexually violent person now i'm going to be five my discretion will move right into the dispositional hearing what opportunity does he have to gather any evidence to bring any
is the only proof that this crime occurred or that event was all comes from prior inconsistent statements that jane made to the police that were introduced a subs the position that the state my exclusive on a prior inconsistent statement in order to establish guilt and her there were actually three prior inconsistent statements that  the testimony that right now i disagree with one of the things that defense counsel said here he said that there was only one statement in this case i would disagree with that because the nine one one call that jami  she said told the nine one one operator the defendant pulled a knife and pointed at her then shortly thereafter deputy fire and she told at the time that the defendant pulled a knife on her and threatened to  with and i also think i think you have to look at what is what is further really says and i think my marker is really saying is that the only evidence is a prior consistent statement and
circumstances you i think this work in reverse in the she sees decision to deny back pay and to the individual this group instead of herself
credit must be taken four thousand seven hundred ninety three dollars and forty cents therefore the contrary pay one hundred four thousand and seventy three for the minus four thousand seven hundred three forty credit hundred thousand dollars owed to claim and his this he ask you to respond to the offer in the email you don't respond to his offer you send out some other letters at some point no we had already done so one on june twenty fourth i did that's why he was pretty he was pursuing the medical bills we needed to know what medical bills were and that's what ultimately caused this case to be too good to go this is where we reached the impasse was because i took the case over my client asked me to take the  him and he sent them back to me says he completely amended him and he added thirty six thousand dollars in medical bills that we had never even seen and then do with the condition of a syndrome the petitioner in this case it should have injured his but he said the secretary and the court said no that's that was not good enough you know you have an obligation to be there you weren't there he was dismissed from one prosecution so i think that  you know this is a harsh really i know that i understand it and i think this court certainly understands that the commission did too this was not this was not something that they are a traitor or the commission or for that matter a charge anderson i think  dealt with what i think they understand but it's some point in time the rules have to be in force and sometimes when those rules are enforced the result is harsh and this is a harsh result in this case but i think until the contracts approves matter of fact and even to the case anybody can change their mind oh sure they will for the cases before it's approved for whatever reason so that's a red herring and a commission council's and they have their decision accordingly i do not believe the commission abuses this question in this case george jefferson certainly felt that the record supported the commission's decision and i asked this dispute that but i also think you should remember somebody from his office called me and said the base screwed up and they had failed to secure the lead from the doctor so that they couldn't even go ahead anyway assuming that what she told me  was correct and you know so i mean if i a if this justifies dismissing the case and you know the documentation is that i did accept you know it's all  mr crosas to never have the bills they had the bills before the trial they had i wonder why second two thousand and eight i wrote additional letters on september twenty sixth two thousand and eight on october twenty second two thousand and
to show that bribery was part of the scheme my understanding is that that is not enough because it has the charge has to be accompanied by a limitation would we've also raised the argument that the court committed error when it instructed that there was no that there was andrews trial counsel and the judge and the witness michael law from the virgin islands department of justice because the government had for some time argued that there was a contra if you look at the contract itself it says this contract is affective when it is signed by the governor later on the contract was terminated by that if the contract was terminated why would the government need a contractor why would the government need to terminate a contract that didn't and we racist because it by arguing that there was or instructing the jury that there was no contract it is our position that the court set up mr andrews
there i think no matter how you define accident there are going to be incidents i think that fall within the just and but that everybody understands it's not an act and i think that's lives they want to hear they didn't so i think for lack of better term they're stuck with a very broad  i think they probably would but going back to how often if we have two possible definitions here you look at the policies of all and the only thing th the other cases from oregon and it's very important to distinguish the type of policy you're dealing with it is true that the policy just not defined the term accident is also true that the organ courts have said there is no universal definition of case the court went back to that very point and said and in fact the provisions from talking about the fact that there is no universal definition and then we have to consider it in the context it was a somewhat unique situation because you had an insured seeking to recover beneficiary seeking to recover for the death of the insured under another her mother's provision where the insured had gotten into a vehicle with someone who intentionally wrecked a vehicle insured did not intend to die in the accident but he rode along anyway in the accident when much for the intended and he died the question for the court was is this an intentional act and how do we determine that this was the poor was dealing in this situation with a first party context which would make you think you're in the same kind of situation definition of an accident is something that you don't intend or expect is that third party line belief policies excluding liability where the where the result the thing for which the insur is something that was intended or expected from the standpoint of the insured that requiring the policy forces the court to look at what the insurer intended or expected and the organ courts have to find out to mean you look at whether the insure intended the outcome intended the result the court in fox in talking about the issue and how you define accidents  it well that's correct we'll never know what's the point to die until i mean if they if they live they didn't die i mean it's very straightforward but the problem is he chose to put himself in a position where the only thing that caused his death is the very
position if you want a ticket and it clearly says mickey mouse told me to get off the property and you know that you know that the courts you still allow the charge to proceed as long as it's word in lieu of an answer it seems to me that what happened here is your first assistant stipulated to the facts and the statute goes on to say that the hearing in the now right  i'm here representing robert manning the defendant in this case good morning we are running i'm like to ask your indulgence to give me the opportunity to address some of the arguments were made in the reply brief that i'm there at a chance to respond to that the defendant was standing and that were burning lease that parking lot to robert spring who used it as a parking lot were visitors who had business with him which was precisely why room in it was there to serve papers on by asking someone to leave you know romantic didn't exercise on while race control over that parking lot fifteen to does apply this hence there just if the court has any questions i'd be happy
circumstances they end up being outstanding citizens so it's not necessarily true that because you are raised in horrific circumstances you are don't deserve to be a criminal that's that's also  told the jury and directed them that you cannot consider family sympathy you can only consider sympathy for the defendant so that the district attorney was driving home what the what the trial court and ruled outside the presence of the jury that if you can't find a handset if you would just lean closer into the mike i think we can hear you it's when you lean away that we cannot hear you at all ok i'm sorry i cannot find a headset i don't have a even interviewed him by my count at least four to five people who grew up in the same household as petitioner and they all said the same thing not to see if this is not a situation where perhaps maybe one step sister said well you know actually petition suffered x y and z they almost have the same thing so there simply was no red flag or no reason for a competent attorney to dig further now under the circumstances even with the new evidence when compared to the end of the heinous nature of the crimes and the other aggravated evidence presented by the prosecution simply not reasonably probable that a jury would have spared petitioner's life even with this new evidence court found deficiency here petitioner acknowledges that he nobody knows what petitioner told counsel at the time of trial but again you've been that even show that all reasonable juror would disagree with the state courts conclusion and the question i simply cannot show that under a double different standard stricklin prejudice and on top of the fact that the state court the a little late i mean he can't go back and make an argument during the trial just because the case law later got better so the point raised by judge collins seems to be at the time of trial it appeared that evict him in pac
residents we're not looking to to make money here but we are going to make sure that the maintenance of the boat and everything we don't want to get back to a situation where we were year ago and do nothing so we always want to keep  cross walking entrance to the four hundred feet or so so that there's really good safe distance that would be my only concern i would want the same distance to be restricted so if they hurried up to the driveways right up to t
we're going over to the sheep camp for a little powwow of our number one it's going to go pretty hard with you man if any of those herders are dead good you are all right but your i'm going to put the order away i don't want anybody to know that here i'll go ahead you got me to take care of everything guard at the box canyon ranch like you and your friends out smarted yourselves this time i think i'll tie you up like your think over your tan you're a better shot than i am go to make things even your fanfic faces further away from me than i do you  you know your heart beat and don't come back rough and one thing but i ain't hankering to be hung for no murder unless you can stop but those men in jail are going to be killed in the blamed going to be put on
analysis out of coolant and the insulated block together substantially fill the coolant cavity it seems to me under your interpretation of the claim the cool of itself would have to substantially fill the coolan cavity since the block the cover isn't getting into the cab in this case your honor the cool pack there stands above the top of the carry so in fact it takes the insulated block which extends down from the but it is limited that they together substantially fill the cool and yes your honor they must to gather substantially fill the gap that's true and it's our position that the interaction of a block which those extend into doesn't the block in the printing device do not insert into the coolant cavity correct that's correct so under what i think we said before the only way you couldn't friend a dr they don't even on your theory is what inserted into the coolant cavity extends up because that's the only way they can satisfy that limitation that i reckon if you design your carrier well how do we know that somebody can be entrenching depending on the size of the coolant path it depends on the size of  that's the definition but greengage well the definition of the court originally gave the district court below your honor was that to engage means come into contact with or iran and we're not looking at the internet portion here  conceal the cavity it can secure the product in the cavity both of those don't matter other claims were talking about but the third thing that it can do is it can help fill out the air spaces within the coolant can you know what they re same structure with regard to spilling over cooling tablets they shows promise extensions that go down into the cabinets i'm saying is that the figures and the specification uniformly specifications shows brought our other ideas this is the only embodiment that this happened teaches it seems to me that really you're not make it you are making an argument that this is really a function that the specification there have to be support in the specification for the what they're claiming should be the proper interpretation of these provisions and this back only teaches one line one in other construction of the claim it's limited to that but then reading on the section that and plain invention that have more than one function but not every plan a has to be read to include all functions the claims we're talking about don't talk about seal not the provisions were talking about that is the coolest together filling the coolant right the insulated block is part of the coverage in the side the  the top of the coolant cavity even if you say it doesn't have to extend then we still don't invade because it's intentionally shorter than would be required to come down and rest on the cool past the features which hold it on the body of the paper when all that happens you wind up with a space which is absolutely the minimised you want to be the space we are in the coolant together with the top which has come into contact with
be abusing their discretion in other words every document that could possibly be in a record whether it was before the border or not suddenly is an abuse of discretion if it's not considered by the court automatically in other words with really using and of of back door method require the court to consider absolutely every  if the board takes traditional notice and sends it back to the board in the board even sends it to a doctor how can they find symptoms twenty years before it's having any you know loses again oh how are you
bargaining i mean that's all they're really saying is that just as chairman indicated it's a very broad statement and then they follow up with the last line in the paragraph that says when you bargain this is a difference in the public sector that's truly bargain this way and specific amount of money by one or two steps by authorized government agency is not a service of some isn't that a distinction without a difference you can have a dollar amount here and a very clear often used two step process to determine the dollar amount here are very willing a difference a difference supreme court case we've been discussing stands for the proposition that if there is no appropriation then the employee does not get paid is that the simple song of what you're arguing
arrest now contraband was found either in his car or on his person as such he was never charged with any sort of drug crime rather he was only charged with reckless conduct and criminal damage to property on the latter charge he was acquitted of in connection with this accident given the fact that no contraband was recovered and it's a moment he acts and damage to the police resulting from the way in which street officer officers executed this unrest it's reasonable to assume that the testimony of the officers on may have been motivated by need to explain their conduct corner possibly to clear the driveway so that the officer look at around when he did turn that corner he was confronted with the police had been driving in the opposite direction a little bit of extra clarence in order to run the car that he's been confronted with coming directly toward them on so he swerved in order to avoid an accident as one of the officers observing the scene did testify to it seemed clear that ford swerved in order to avoid the accident with the police family thus for the actions basically perhaps based on some of the officers recklessness on his part negligence just the fact that that that was not said and does not mean that there was necessarily marquess behavior yes so we are not saying that in his behavior was not possibly negligent but that does
was going to be an employee of cal indeed she specifically states in the green and that she waived her right to a jury with respect to any legal claim i may department and this is this agreement and the plan constitute the entire very much regarding the resolution of all planes between the company and me she acknowledges n distinction between the plan and and you greta but there is no different if the land and the agreement are exactly the same in that it at the time i was presented the point of the russian resolution plan by my employer i was not provided an opportunity to consult an attorney regarding the contents of the documents or illegal ram with the cations so sh agreement that she had received to review the plan and she knew that there there was an arbitration her vision plan there are some interior differences between these two documents despite claiming they're the same in the employees the resolution agreement references a company called secretaries restaurant these standpoint do you think they contemplated that this type of claim would be within the scope of the arbitration agreement i do know i think that's the case because of what happened to the mississippi supreme court that's exactly what i was going to point out i mean they had prior cla employee dispute resolution when the bottom of the first page says that there are steps that you have to follow to resolve the speed or disputed claim and one of those is that if you have internal discussions
chosen my client with a hammer if he was a six foot eight defensive linemen if he was teacher we would not be here today but we're dealing with is a strict liability step to the dram shop i am an actor the legislature has chosen to put the burden on the sale of dangerous products and those that benefit from the sale of that product in these circumstances are clients was acting f patron a there is no law so any law is going to be made is going to be new but you look at what you don't publi you know getting back to you i was that i think you know is unfair to the land owners who would be relieved that the camshaft back is i know it today is not a duty stant should it's an absolute liability statute it's set a statute that is carved out for a specific purpose and you want to apply it can by duty rule to a statutory strict liability statute yes i do know anywhere in the law
created for a purpose to show that there was a receipt and that's why it had a later date on it well the date post purchase the day  ok but that's one thing i didn't see i don't see and i think i haven't read the record so i but i don't see where the defendant put on the case of two cans i thought it was the state no your honor this is the state never prosecution withholds evidence that's favorable to the queues violates due process if the evidence is material to guilt or to punishment regardless of the good or bad the prosecution the words you don't have to show as kind of a not responsive answer doesn't seem that it was the focus of their case well because my question before is if they clearly have a document made during the lunch right yes so in the documentary evidence that's created or especially for bottle in doesn't seem that you would even know you needed until the time you make it so how can it be a pretrial discovery violation is my question that's why i'm wondering about this too