MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
about her being african american she's going to play is upset about her promotion and how things have gone with that be a matter of public speech i think it's still what you do yes so in other words temporary because the object of the supervisor position that the third level supervisor thinks is not competent and be the subject of the promotion dispute is not african american the fact that there's a dispute between second and third level management automatically makes it a matter of public concern supreme court in the ninth circuit disagreed with you on that and said not every public employment dispute rises to the level of concern is that your position that if there are any facts underlying construct which is although there might not have been a director to kill ation there was a mention about the lawsuit there was the timing of the dealings with ms perry and determination of  perry so i had read through her declaration to  oppose that conduct by her superiors how far does that person have to go to be confrontational to carry out her obligations that is ms thomas's obligation what was going on here was this a mid level employee trying to avoid being complicit or to prevent unlawful activity and why isn't that a matter of public concern velvet glove i mean that's all issues for the jury to resolve it seems to me just because it is an employee could be very upset and angry at her manager because she thinks she's being unfairly attacked not for the reason stated in the evaluation but because ultimately because she stood up to her superior to prevent this unlawful activity
it's a decision right judge drives is irrelevant to any issue in this case but that unlike we had a case where he's familiar with the party we're talking i was just a good lawyer a bad lawyer it affected but in this case we've got a situation where we have said police officer years you know after mile behind a guy or a quarter mile behind somebody down the road he sees it up in front of him make a left turn and there and he gives he there's no cross traffic there's no same road where you've got here and let's suppose a guy is going ten mile an hour under the speed limit car behind him and the car behind him can't stand it because he's one of these go the speed limit and he's th
right to contract between themselves and decide whatever terms they want in their contract as long as the terms are not against public policy the court must now defeat the freedom to contract by allowing outsiders like mapleton to change parties in terms of  so i do think summary judgment would be appropriate in favor of safeway now and the reasons that naval news are going but just on the bare fact we have a safe way contract now is contesting that these are the terms of the safeway contract we know if there's no obligation to the insurance company to pay out to the insured or anyone who has a right to enforce the policy and then there's nothing for the new holder to collect l even if you accept their interpretation is correct saying ok from the date of this conversation at navel to his last penny into this house and then still after the accident and there's no evidence that anyone covered mabel's and says well it's impracticable impractical to require a written confirmation no it's not if you're in the business of selling cars if you want to protect your interest in the car you can wait a day or a couple of days to get confirmation that your partner of working on your own insurance policy which is probably which they probably did me ask the question let's assume for the sake of argument that  is documentation from the dealership that shows up at the scene time that he purchased this vehicle that he had coverage from safeway under that policy the direct policy number that is going to be switched to the key is s
heroin during her pregnancy recorder to tory or her great legal custody and guardianship of the partner children family services to which the mother consent after stipulating to the facts in the their legislator one to put an exception to the strict jurisdictional statement that at the time of the file the child was not in the physical custody of a mine they certainly could have done that and that is not  because under the juvenile court the provisions also offer parents to intervene give oscar grant standing and they can see continue to an additional placement in th or case so i'm not sure that there are mutually exclusive i think the cork and moved forward to go permanency goal but still respect the rights of the in this case the   but at the time of filing the question is was the child in the physical custody of the mother and we some that she wasn't we also think judge knows the issues of what physical custody has been defined throughout the cases in the terms of three factors one is who's responsible for the care and welfare of the child on a daily basis at the time of the more spring as a walk to work to determine that she did not get a physical to that child and my clients who care for the child virtually all over life should be grandstanding to move forward and  and mother becomes ill grandmother takes care of both the child and the mother until after the funeral dad comes over and asked for the child to be returned to his time of final the child is not in the physical custody of a parent it doesn't say that the tissues are visible custody of the child it says that the parent that that mother can expect the child to come back to her as a legal custodian parent because it all the pins are on what happens for the next in this case three years  convicted of a much stiffer offense take a plea agreement and move down the road and maybe cut your time make the best deal you can get that's recommended and these  cases are clear this in both cases the parent is precluded from providing care and welfare for the child and from participating in the child every day life in incarceration that a potential career as a physician's assistant because of her duties to that grandchild so again i don't think that this is a case where we make this ruling give this lady standing give these people standing to share we're not asking for terminations rights or anything like that we're asking to share in the parental responsibilities under the family wall back as it is as it set forth  should have a lot of contact with the grandparents that's not what i'm saying i just don't believe that placement buying a quote constitutes voluntary and indifferent indefinite relinquishment of parental rights we're not talking
testify in terms of the legal standard and do not conclude that either the legal standard was mad that's the job of the jury after hearing the decision maker yet it is that this provision is part of the legal standard and not a procedural hearing requirement the parents take issue with that and would be the director's jerk determination that based upon the evidence presented he could have made the determination he did that the legal standard was mad there was enough evidence here to satisfy the standard and the director's determination is not clearly erroneous st i'd like to point out the labeling cause the injury standard department didn't require a definite highs estatic or a certain size and that makes sense the doctors didn't witness the occurrence of the injury they're treating physicians who treated the child who was brought to the hospital with multiple fractures of legs and different bones at different stages of healing that is the likely consider it as ok including the three doctors who testified about the mechanism of high season of the injury and about being tacked me rolling out the other causes and the parents admit to doing admitting to doing something that could have evidence that the parents had any reason to believe that this was their child their child while he didn't cry all the time when they did it he moves only one leg at a time showed how the healing fracture settle i don't think that it has to be that the parents recognize that are missing problems at that point to that erosion see room with multiple fractures in both legs if the as the civically testified that the cancer being method was the likely cause of the child's broken bells for this courtroom from the director the decision maker conducted it that there was a three day administrative hearing the decision maker consider
negligent in her not failing to lock their doors leading to the cool legit this woman but here this is a miscommunication this isn't necessarily negligence because certainly if the a
me in the face of the pretty paper because i don't know what service there is in that day twelve whatever years ago or more years ago it was maybe she was i think she was driving her own son's before the time she was involved in the accident maybe she felt responsibility maybe she is son's car in order to be a substitute and then she went out and use this as a substitute because she needed to get to and from work this is the standard way as your honor pointed out that that insurance is handled when you perpetrate a fraud upon each to rent a car where i am going to use my own insurance but i actually can't for some other reason this is the standard way to supported both by state farm versus herds  and insurance car rentals versus state farm  be covered potentially be covered address a couple of the other issues that he made on first of all that is that we are not available we cannot avail all these cases and all the other cases that rely on these cases use the term coal or not cohen sure more to the point however in the case of chicago ha ha it'll risk pooling program versus b we have a the rental car remember the congress that is specifically decided an insurance car rentals versus state farm that is the language of the rental car company that allows and insurance company to loss or injury here we have the exact same risk that a vehicle being driven this vehicle this car owned by isa and a car being driven by somebody in the renters household would get into an accident and a third party injured that is the reason to the statute that is the reason for insurance and we had the exact same risk the difference between home and cincinnati was the work of two separate contractors that said we only cover
from the protection those activities that i just read off how did over and over now put take that exclusion because one of those activities in fact the very next activity mentioned that pro that requires us to read this this this and this until we get to the period so how does the how can how can you say the entire list now is suspect well the list begins it does not in court and then  when over again are we supposed to give the strict scrutiny that this is i have to be completely candid about that there is a lot of controversy about what level of scrutiny applies in in this context i don't think that that kind of like this but for those kinds of cases that are on the supreme court said most recently in the people the chavez case are not nearly close enough for the state to meet its burden in tickets to a concert again or anything like that all of those things can be considered the exchange of something valid that kind of prohibition is a blanket prohibition just like the one that the supreme  three this goes to what you're just talking about there is a relationship between the two people who want to marry in the virginia case there is a relationship between between the two people in lawrence who were having sex in their home and certainly over felt talks about a relationship and then it is ongoing between two people of same sex if they want to make permanent as in a marriage to most at least the cases we see most of the situations like we see here are certainly not a relief ship theory one time activity or maybe once or twice depending upon the circumstances so how do we put these relationships in a definition of past that you should in the statutory authority that in fact is very similar to most traditional dictionaries and so it it clearly talk talks about reforms are st worker used to perform any act for anything of value means we would have to not only change the world compass we have to change the concept of what prostitution or what prostitution could be because there are aren't there times in which it could be dangerous such that it should be regulated of course i think that's why the courts are universally found that  which can't do that as a business you know it's a taken out of being private when you put it out there on and on and on and yes yes i mean i think it's not the same i mean obviously without the exchange of money that's not a problem however you might find that however one might know that person and how many of those things but what we don't have is the situation here but the statute does say anything of and seventy eight and the effect of over again we also make an argument in the briefs and we made this before the trial work that the only other reference to the prosecution in the warrants opinion is a reference to what's called  impact prosecution just a very broad probation in this as applied challenge in that context as to whether it's time or not i will say that in these very divisive political and social times i can't think of another issue that both he
that's correct and if there is some for some reason we determined that rulings shouldn't be in place or whatever should be sent back to the board for reconsideration or due to whatever else they have to consider well
he should be removed from the registry and the charges should then be dismissed the trial judge ordered him removed from the registry and dismissed the charges and here in doing so defendant argues that he should have been required to register and twenty four it means that he couldn't be charged with failure to register in twenty fourteen on however consistent with nick fan and if you thought that registration was void he needed to get it vacated before going to your church fails to register having not done so you could be charge are you waiting for it to be well i believe that if it is a situation i mean motions for dismiss can be granted where there is no the charges don't stand the facts and the charges in while the grand jury proceedings as far as i know aren't in the record either and this is going to since this is a state appeal i mean to do it really to a certain extent the state's attorney no that was what all that was required back before  regarding the state of the record and why there isn't different evidence in the record the only issue below was whether the two thousand and six i met mens took defendant off of the registry the parties agreed that he had to register unless the two thousand and six amendments took him off of it so if there had been a dispute over that and different evidence other than represented or a different record developed on that so that's where the record is as it is the and into one of your fourteen and lest the dispute was that in twenty fourteen he was required to register in less than two thousand six amendments took him off they didn't say there was a different reason that he wouldn't be on it now it appears that they didn't think that it was because of the later felony conviction but if there had been the dispute over whether that applied or not that there could have been development of the record as to whether the there were violations that extended it mo instructs that it's automatic that if there is the violation of the somewhere that the registration period is extended for ten years so there wouldn't have been discretion and also there's time i'm told in the pr the only argument made as to why he shouldn't be on it was that the two thousand and six minutes for kmov that he didn't make the argument that the prior felony well shouldn't have been the reason he was on it
there was a second stage refusal it did pass the first step however the state's motion to dismiss would seem granted by the trial or we believe the trial or a few of the cases to proceed to a third in just a little bit in this case he was charged with attempted murder in the case mr jeffs maintains that he always always told his counsel that he did not have the also indicates that the conversations were fairly unprofessional towards him is what the affidavit in fact says it was before the court in the issue where that's what we're looking at is whether or not it should we don't know is why did he ask for additional time in fact it was if you look at the record closely it was the defense attorney who sent to order to the strings attorney and said basically my client doesn't names and addresses phone numbers to local witnesses who he says can help you when you start putting all this together it's a situation when why in case did he really do his job i think the presumption might be belied a little bit a little bit look at the fact he didn't even file it i mean he didn't even file the entire petition for post conviction relief and i think that's a failure when you consider these
whether or and the reason this is is is daughter's attorney john winston he may have brought it up to my brother who represents the mother in the probate case but my brother happened to be in the courtroom when the motion for the you're submitting that there is no physical or mental issue this time  out that allows a physician to provide these medical records and that exception is number four in the statute and that provides in a judicial action against an individual or a personal representative asserted and it looked into that and it reviewed our briefs and i believe the court found that this fell within the exception to the privilege that is it doesn't the exception apply to be the privilege belongs to the patient on the interpretation of some of the prior cases that come out on this issue the exception to the privilege statute provides action by or against the not provide that the court cannot answer for the damages or enter for the relief against the defendant for the wrongdoing and so we're still proceeding in that regard in the case no think that it's a very good question just as we brought this because in chancery because for several reasons but one this was an action against the agent under the power of attorney we were not seeking guardianship at that time there are certain requirements in the guardianship that we would not have  ritually at the time through training such as a doctor's report because of the isolation of patrician massacred by her agent against not just my client against my clients my clients rather the grandchildren think so so when you say we have not had access to works or obligation to ranch or the trial court and the guardianship proceeding prior to service has a very it does correct that she's filing or is my client's council meet you know correct in other family members cracked in saying hey we have records of seven years ago she suffers from dementia and we have  statutory in these other types of cases typically involving that legend's the courts have come in said this is really just another legends case we don't necessarily need to know the defendants mental condition or physical condition of they were blind type action and it's not the alleged disabled person that brought the action it's it's it's technically against that's actually the guardianship statutes are intended to protect individuals power of attorney and you can bring this cause of action if there is a finding that the individual lacks the requisite capacity so we have to prove that so if in in that scenario there are some exceptions to this general i believe notion that the individual must affirmatively affirmatively place their own condition at issue because of guardianship because of the power of attorney statute one of the cases that i believe indicated there may be an exception under a i think the sexually violent person  that nature  notice the certainly not required to be given under head but to an individual when you're seeking their medical records thank where the where the hell is an issue is an issue in the present tense by the time this motion was brought no water in his shoes he doesn't say was
you have a view as to whether i understand the rightness argument it's marginally stronger from were plaintiffs if they're asking for the claim to be extinguished if they're not
findings so they make those findings do they find that there was the mental injury then don't they have to go on to rest the prospective medical in the teeth digital t v some point they have to make a decision there's no decision to we  tree i mean come on if the commission is going to have to decide how much of the medical treatment is reasonable necessary they're also going to have to decide whether
hour point subsequent to his receiving his last dose would be at a point where normally the body is going through withdrawal fast three withdrawal can be quite painful told his west those words a month before i'm going to suggestion that there is a fact five that is beyond dispute and that makes clear his entitle me to relief the two this comes back to that it's the police are tainted statement or statements that establish the felony component assault and he said i have some information that's been on my mind that's been bothering him because mr those are his confessed to me this this murder and show me the suitcase and told me that he really did do it and then several days later objection to the certificate in ited states supreme court has made that distinction clear since nineteen sixty four a judgment can discusses that in his opinion third respectfully if one reads the nineteen statement which is that at seven thirty in the evening thirty some hours two points with draws are already going on it may not be visible to those watching that's what they meant by objectively but it is already coming on and it dances around the
contradicted the undisputed evidence that the persecution was because of race or membership in the family group because the i don't found some crazy like political or historical motivation she wrongly concluded that governmental action was an element in the motivation to conduct not simply because they're white or because of the family tr
why she put her two year old toddler and several month old child on the doorstep without telling her sister about it it was just luck that her sister act to look out the door and see the kids there that they had about one to the way it was eleven o'clock guy she took them in there was no previous arrangement for her to take care of the children although she had done so about a month and a half earlier than this incident on aug thirtieth and even after she agreed to allow her sister to attend to the children went to c f s got into the picture she for some reason picked them up and she had she was homeless at the time and had no money and it was the d c m s caseworker telephoned her and wanted to know what the arrangement was for the children and that bad time she agreed to meet him on the corner of a street here in springfield told them she was homeless and that somebody  place and she's homeless and then she calls the c f s and says i have no way of taking care of these children so her sister was annoyed by that time and they had to stick them in the nursery and fill the baby was the infant was sick and despite that she's attempting to take them out of the nursery and has no plan  in store and they take the children are there and went to st john's hospital where she is receiving treatment for congestion and initially the mother had to a participate in some sort of mental health treatment as she was bipolar and did not take her medicine and stop sitting there a post which probably explains why she acts har hour or so later she changes her mind and gets angry with the c f s caseworker and says no i'm not i'm not going to do anything i'm going to take kids out of state and when he pressed her for her detail she said that she didn't have any particular sortation or an exaggeration for emphasis that's in this case i think your experience and your understanding case should have been sufficient for me to see that the briefs would speak for you though i do understand your