MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
release mr pic when they claimed trama while working for steak n shake there is a large discrepancy on how the manifestation of injury they took the way i took that timeline was that he was not on it he called me and he said i'm i can't work because my arm hurts on the following sunday and he was then off the schedule so we went back to  work he then is off the schedule and then he goes to the lawyer because he was off the schedule and that's one apparently a conversation took place about what else they might be able to do with him so i'm not sure and the reason is because a reasonable person might have to look at understand they have a condition number one and number two understand that it's related to their job and that that was a big issue in the  recovered without the surgery what is your response to that anything's possible however in this case the commission found the surgery reasonable and necessary and related
obligation to report to the court the evidence of the criminality which includes the knowledge there is no crime there without the knowledge and so that's why i think there was a violation of the duty of confidentiality in this case  including disclosure to tribunals when you are aware of your client's criminality animated to the proceedings i'm not aware of the law that says that i suppose to with one of the elements of the offense when you do now which is knowledge because the way  defendant file a motion under twenty two fifty five and i would suggest that if the court doesn't find the record sufficiently developed in this case that a lot for counsel to be appointed for pursui
state of the state supreme court systems of looked at it assumed that what was true was was that was true and they still deny the motion the petition on the ground so when we look at what happened in the state level there was no evidence violation i find it rare that the attorney says oh yeah i did i committed an ethical violation and you should let him out i mean usually they deny it so the failure to provide that statement doesn't seem to me thank you both very much
what what the confusion was a little you're looking at the second part which g whether it's the shoulder whether it's the humors or whatever he clearly has on his arm he's got a scar he has hospital records that indicate he's in the hospital for an injury to  things and also there while there are one explanation can be that he was admitted and he didn't go into surgery and tell two days later and i think you heard that petitioner make the that unfortunately the ninth circuit law is that really you know i i mean if i if i had to if i were queen of immigration that i would probably say what judge shab is talking about why do we i value my credibility any differently than we do another context but then my second law has sort of we welcome and this web of things that for example that the date that we talk about step when he returned and all of that there are cases out there that say that went when someone says something happened a year ago and it really happened two years ago we thought cases out there that say that that doesn't support a finding of adverse credibility so what is your vast what's your best argument with the ninth circuit because you're and then she would only have to basically the government will only be able argue that there's been a change of circumstances which they've never presented any evidence of and in addition the petitioner his brother testified what really needed putting on at that time
we take the rod and the duty to defend and we ask if that compliant we don't need to look outside to complain that complaint triggers to duty to defend and massachusetts has so many states has a fairly generous reading of how you get to that all we need to find here is to do something in the complaint that makes the test possibly a reason it could be greg as suggesting that some property damage occurred within the policy period that's not excluded by the continuation clause what said his decision but i can't and so i would refer you to that i agree lock stock and barrel with his interpretation of the complaint which were the amended complaint which i think you echoed are my for the judge so will can apply the correct to go that had to occur with the property damage they had to occur prior to the policy period that's crud so the leak could occur and begin before the policy period but if it causes damage within the policy period then we ask what is that damage within the policy period right and so my hypothetical when you have a single continuously that causes property property damage must be within the power superior to the way that these are typically construed as you have to go back to the occurrence you get to go back to the initial clause of the
good morning your honor mark latham forty l n lang and i apologize for the camera not working this is an appeal in an attempt to relative to whether you could bring out a preemptive challenge to get some q yes yes it is on that issue your honor that their opinions are consolidated
your any consideration given to going back to the district judge and saying here let me be a technical hominum what is your language to take account of the other child employed to make three main points about the conditions of supervised release purses the corners just pointed out to those conditions the no content condition and the residence condition both contain exceptions for the defendant's own children as we pointed out in a footnote the written shows meant mistakenly roommates that condition with respect to the and both of those conditions are over or phrased in terms of allowing for the defendant to have contact with children other thing his own children as he gets submission with respect to that issue is that it's waived entirely but i did want to make one more of what we feel important point about the nature of these conditions and that is in the padrn decision this of course has already held that the identical conditions cannot be construed as barring mere incidental condo or contact rather with children and that's it very important point because when you look across child pornography conviction we think those facts speak loudly in favor of the conditions that were imposed if you add into it the fact of the defendant's criminal history including three intervening he can get approval from the probation officer to reside in a house that you've been living with somebody else's child that is different than this standard that would apply to your own chaldean if you've been raising that child as your own it may be but the more important point we think is that the condition itself has built into it a mechanism that provides safety regardless of whether heightened scrutiny is required in that situation sense it simply first place
this order which is real bost and the exercise of prosecutorial discretion the discretion piece in the controlling commissioner's opinion which is  really know that the agency would have exercised that the controlling commissioners would have exercised prosecutorial discretion had they known the correct what you think is the correct view of the is your theory that even if those two grounds even if the order were as clearest possible that those two grounds were independent we still could review the legal r so let's just pursue those a little bit when they can never on the on the three versus four point they can never file a complaint without a seem to assume or say that if there is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion at that stage what i'll just call it stage three in other words not the  i think that would be right though that is one that is a possible and every one of the reasons given so what's the difference from your perspective but they're doing that you have the same two elements which you say are you have you have the deadlock and the one difference you have is that this is happening at phase one rather than face three but what's the difference from your perspective and sportsman action that you want filed can't be filed decisions resting on use in your favor at this point so we're just we're just back to whether this ruling ultimately just judge rouse positing it may be this case or it may be a hypothetical case but a case in which the commission is plain as day saying we exercise discretion are not fair enough but that's a that's a case specific argument that disorder is on clear on whether the two grounds are independent that's what you just said is not a legal argument that somebody who is claims within the statute of limitations and all you know how a one million dollars of foreign contributions or something it's understandable that the commission is going to be  potential merits service of the litigation in deciding whether to go forward so i'm just trying to look you know we just have the explanation the written explanation of this tell me given what you said about how i'm settled the law is on statute of limitations and given that even the dismissing commissioners said only that it appears it's no longer in operation but there's obviously no factual record about are really going alice's so normally i would have thought it would i'm not sure what i would have thought it would be it's on i don't remember have you found any case where we have held that sort of a dependent rather than dependent on what was else what else you that's not joined by the
departure certainly the voluntary departure can terminate that physical presence that essentially the holding of violence and that is the position of the ninth circuit however the circuit and the seventh circuit have have indicated wow determine when you got that voluntary at the aliens contesting the fact of the voluntary departure we must we mandate back to the immigration judge in order for the court to make a specific finding the first instance the question of whether or not a person has voluntary departure is simply a question of fact for the court to determine it is not discretionary whatsoever it is assessment based on all the evidence of whether or not the person in fact understood and requested the voluntary departure whether or not there's evidence and in the fall of the voluntary departure in this case a immigration judge because the law at that point in time indicated that all he needed was seven years of physical presence in the united states be a person of good moral character and show extreme hardship to himself and to any qualified relatives the government counsel has already conceded the file that they're in fact was no voluntary departure you reminded her simply purposes of going for their further with the cancellation removal with the finding that fact does not have a voluntary departure or you really meant it for purposes of case was given the opportunity to voluntary the court united states under the threat of being placed in removal proceedings detained by the immigration officer in the office who told me to sign off the dogs go out so i didn't talk to the immigration officers right at the border and they would help you now would you rely on to say that he agreed that there was a voluntary  in regards to the trickery he said that he once he went to another section of the ins they should you know understand that  to get stuck right on that evidence or a thing i mean i understand the government's problem in keeping track of all these people but if the government doesn't present anything that shows what it was you signed this description really doesn't tell us very entry perspective he can't tell us why his just description he apparently doesn't know what he signed so he's not testifying i signed x he's telling us when i went back to mexico and shows this paper because whoever was on that side something of that type of tactic it would have been looked at frowned upon by the immigration judge and now it would have appeared as if i was placing the burden upon the government to produce the documents rather than pursuing a formal motion which i did with we do appear to have a finding by the immigration judge that there was a voluntary departure
expert testimony given by the employer's expert in injury biomechanics is the most credible evidence regarding the issues of accident and causation and that accordingly the decision of the commission should be it was against policy and it probably couldn't have even physically been done the way that it was described and there were witnesses and i witnessed report that also is inconsistent with the testimony that the claimant gave rate for gary how many boxes and
law the trial court found the officer testified that the advice of the indigent suspect was engaged you don't have money or funds you have the right to solicit the court for an attorney that the that the you have the right to interrupt the conversation obviously again not standard miranda warnings and in the context of the conlang garcia case where there was also advice regarding the right to counsel the key point is the failure to give correct advice regarding appointed counsel and that's what requires revers judge in a court and that is what it takes probably the i don't think that is the only way that can be done the they are free to do whatever they want to in terms of making the counsel of able to so that's who demand the the right to counsel once that triggers once that this triggers the living up operates as a limitation on police power they have to stop until they do comply with it and what they have to this stuff i have to be told is if you want to invoke this right however if they choose to implement that right this questioning violation of that portion of miranda which requires some advice that a lawyer would be provided with government expense this is not that kind of case here that he did have the right a court language and if you so work as a court for an attorney and attorney will be appointed for you but i think that the the advice of right taken in total sufficient under miranda and i think would be supportive of the california  smiling then opening the door and saying come in and the reason i argued the miranda issue a little bit in conjunction with that issue is i think this
they're trying now to say well you know for all these you deny having any participation in the infringing knack of preparing the plans and now they say well we're in attack our building infringement on to the plants but they have to repeat all the affidavits fake filed in this case actually building the building like you were lying on for that well it's i can't tell you the case that's not my head so that wasn't part of our briefing on this issue but there's cases that say when they step to district court was wrong in saying that it that he was not the prevailing party and i want you to assume for the purpose of my question if that's correct even though you may not agree with it if there are time if should we do what should flow from that discretion in that manner i think the court did consider the point of you know who's the corralling party i mean we go through ten years of litigation no one up with the sixty five thousand dollar weakening of attrition judgment that's hardly regardless of the circumstances of the parties and that's why i said come to the anomalous result that can fees can be denied to a successful party and again awarded against or not favor a party against him a judgment is being interpreted so you can prevail even if you've lost in your having a judgment entered against you if that is in the best interest and spent serves the policy the purposes of the act o five but it would also contravene fly in the face of programming and it would place this court in a very awkward position of acting on terry to the language of title fifteen and the policies of the copyright the argument is that it is the commencement of the first active in french matters subsequent accident trenchant don't count in to getting the clock running as an untried meant when he looked at the past the proposition that the policy under the act is to look for the first act of infringement that triggers everything any related infringement after that on the first infringement that's when you have to get your copyright registration the policy of the act peace for the infringement alleged in his complaint defense astronautics motion for partial summary judgment on that issue is therefore ground on subsequently in his opinion to grant our motion which addressed the same issue so it's an issue it goes back to when issue thing i would note your honor says that the offer of judgment closely track the language of the rule which requires the judgment some plus accrued costs us what you're supposed to put in her judgment and at the time we provided a letter  interesting to look at the copyright act the copyright act does not treat fees in question is identical we've cited multiple sections of the copyright act or fees and costs are treated separately and some courts mean the discretion granted to them by five o five which says you
gone back to the commission for further determination prior to coming to the public or in this case there was a denial of benefits altogether at the appellate i mean at the arbitration in the commission level even so we filed the brief for the file the appeal read that case at the time was that in this case since there was no war whatsoever it had not been remanded for a determination of facts or determination law what the supreme court order the commission to do
over because so much time and in the alternative of terrorism are perhaps the t v agency would have gone a little bit further in its in its denial based on shape as you conditions but it was playing on this record in the alternative i began after the credibility after terrorism bar that it would have found that exist in the country today i doubt that that's something that would need to be borne out
the role here will close
in a way so that there is no expectation of privacy no reasonable expectation of privacy but that the particular case here was of such a nature that there is an interest twelve inches you don't see an outline of the you know a muzzle of a gun compared to where the trigger would be like in some of those cases and the cases that we're talking about here no i understand in fact you haven't in fact he it on many of these cases and he darned fool would think that there were there was a gun just as if you had a hand grenade anybody would think there was an explosives and i take  suppression hearing officer hall's eyes or testified that he recognized those cases that chased because it resembled the exact type of black plastic case that the liberty lake police department being gun containers room where he's not with some expert thinks he has to be some idiot who doesn't know anything about gun cases like me who's wandering around and sees a guy carrying looking at those photographs when the plastic bushmaster case and the gets hard cases there's a very very significant difference the bushmaster plastic case that contained that sawed off shotgun is narrow shaped like the gun like a lot of gun cases or like a holster it's true something else might be in it but it's kind of like sharing a box with twenty two caliber ammunition and you kind of announcing that's what you're cheery and that's that's easy because anybody would say gee there's probably a gun in that and so the person subjectively has given up his right and and there are a number of factors that can go into into the search one of which is the subject of knowledge of the officer and looking at the circumstances in this case you had a police officer responding to where you get your art you this case was put to this record and brought here strictly on plain view but not our it standers were the supreme court in footnote thirteen i believe it cites the harris case another supreme court case says that there are some gun cases are not entitled to fourth amendment protection gun cases as well as a kid of burglar tools are not entitled to do so so this case should not be entitled to the same protections given to a suitcase a briefcase so i understand this practically if if the police had thought there was an expectation of privacy in the face what procedures are available to them that they seize the case and then get a warrant and search or what would be the alternatives to what they did that that would be an alternative you're archer to see they have probable cause to get a warrant the united states believes they that they would have because they were finding t complaint by a citizen and of an individual who would pointed a weapon at that person and then pivoted ninety degrees away and fired off two shots with it then a federal violation well it was a violation of  subject to getting a warrant and it leaves the peers justice schiemann and some question about that then it seems to me it puts the police in kind of a tough situation where they've got a complaint that somebody has been pointing a rifle counsel for making a real pleasant trip over the mountains thank you
complete must be true and true  relying on twenty three know i would probably want to s in the
were going to call the case
was present during the entire shooting was testifying in africa to minimize his own culpability in this case further there was no physical evidence linking mr fitzpatrick to this murder this case was entirely we believe that he has  meant to defend it that's not really how english works if you mean to clean yourself you would say we were shooting but either way her testimony is the best ambiguous ronald lee and i said before i was trying to testify and get a deal here providing guns to the shooters i was a involvement in this murder which he certainly could have been by accountability so i think his testimony is specious at best and i think this what the jury's verdict reflects because the jury after hearing the state's case found that mr undermines happens in the verdict and what does that mean can we trust this verdict and based on the fact that the state's case was weak there was this very prejudicial ends injected into the case now significant and tips the balance in favor of this result probably that undermines that happens when you add in the fact the jury had a question of the and they were confused by the interplay of all these charges i think it becomes clear that we cannot have happened in the outcome theory how this would have benefited defended their eight charges here in the last couple misdemeanor mouth that if the jury had found him guilty of the mob action which is the least serious of all charges if they had found him guilty of
citizen of the community scott whose brother was murdered by the wolf men is nearing a solution of the mystery an agent of the little men is leading allen into a trap i don't believe that he is writing to the rescue  the sheriff's adopted daughter who has been imprisoned in a cave which is the headquarters of the world real father theola frog is hiding from the indians because he is the only person who knows the rules man identity meanwhile jimmy carter from the owner of a rich gold mine and alan's dug rindy have nicknamed the lightning warrior trilling a civilized indian named george who suspicious actions indicate that he may
section six because he feels known by law enforcement that he sees having a fixed residence which is an entirely different offense under section six and that has entirely different elements of the different crime  was living out of his backpack and was also living in iowa the state acknowledges all that history so i don't think we can say here which i just finding was against can be homeless i've ordinary enough and learning ordinary meaning word and still have a fixed residence even even if we take the state at word that the they pro of his past he had had prior runs with the law and his grandmother to be completely fussed on and what she told him was that if your own before i'm asleep you can come and hope you can come inside the house residents in the