MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
and i got to go to work georgia and he was yeah he started a newspaper and newspaper was very popular and he went from atlanta to be closer was i was in the i was in cincinnati my sister and i were in cincinnati and my grandmother died and them because i was all set to go to kindergarten and i was here my mother passed away so i i had gone half way of the year to kindergarten and she passed away and then i was sent back to society and i stayed in society until my grandmother died which was i think i was twelve years old because they had the methodist church had what they call a southern conference which included an a you can prior musicianship you can or you can acquire the knowledge of the music everything but that and having a feel for it are two chords and stuff like that can play the jazz tradition but the feel is not there you know and that's the problem with the music there's the fact they have quite a few kids going to school and when they come out they're great they want reform but there's something lacking and in their education which you cannot educate the feel for the about and stuff like that and there are people that have tried to get that to dition and and go with it but it's impossible that you know because you have to live the that he would be saddled with all the stuff that happened in the bush administration and and the war of san seven eleven and the fact the fact that there'd been a lot of graft going on with the banks and stuff like that and i voted for him but i felt that republicans should win and be saddled with that stuff is it was kind of selfish on my part and everything is like i said it would be because he's been he's done a great job i think he couldn't he couldn't that general motors go bankrupt or you know the stuff that happened automobile because i think we have automobile  just cannot say what's going to happen you know quote by i know one thing there will be a lot fewer musicians because of everything can be reproduced electronically
going concern if the court will cop to accept your version of this is a holding company
different from admission well if she admitted it then it wouldn't have been more previously traumatized but the benchmark for the chart grade would that this was improper terminates the trauma i don't think that mr downs is no longer in extremis i think of your argument is wonderful one of the points out that there is a continuing injury and there is a distinction between the course of conduct the injury the course of conduct it is the course of this  incorrect in making that falcon for a couple of reasons no one is needed the children nor their legal relationship with bush are an issue in this case because he wants to still have the relationship in this first amended complaint he says he was deceived into assuming the legal obligations the flow from follow and he's seeking to get back from mr fuld the money that he paid to support the children  earlier that ends the tower of two thousand and eleven so now ten months after nine years old the d n a results he confronts miss downs and miss downs response i need testimony was who came in the form of things like birthday cards signed by her signed by the children that sort of thing just general statements that he was the follow the only indication the record of any instance where
may have gotten stuck on a train there's a problem with the and prevention nature and clearly state they could have found the evidence of aggravated battery beyond a reasonable doubt
let me just do that because i think that sets sets the table for my argument this is a patient leve intrinsic value when they first started producing it at the time was purchased some later point in time that same thing could have a duel that yes we did your honor but there's a better way of destruction and we don't disagree with the current structure we were not but cards and numbers or receipts it gave them value after an is that aired here but there's any number of other attributes that he talked about you could make it collectible and as i said we all know the ruling we all thought we had aftermarket which was changed so the one thing i was stress
title you know labor rate in the complaint as adverse possession vs titling it quite tight in the complaint they were the same exact thing there is no difference in the in the burden of proof and that i think  and nineteen motion who's talking about something completely different i was taken by surprise when we got there that these claims were actually i guess meant to be something other than exactly the same thing  at the end of the seven years the twenty years on their claim started to run and they didn't bring actually in that case they ended up bringing the plane within that twenty year period so so that was appropriate in this case we've don't agree with that on the record which i said that is rupert could bring him some sort of authority for his position which was that he has title to this property already without bring in a claim to repossess property or return property that they have ignored for twenty years that's the basis of adverse possession so reliance upon it is one hundred percent it doesn't apply here a
for work because of his age training experience was unable to  about whether he was going to make the injury any worse by working and he responded to that he would not make injury worse but then on redirect examination his counsel at that time asked him a question as to whether is opinion was still the same that is that he was not able to the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence these were the compensation commission said that no doctor or a pint of the petition was medically permanently totally disabled and our contention is complex the question is whether he's going in for it so i think that's a different question than what we're looking at i think that's that's something that about least two occasions dr rascasse said that he was unable to work so that's why i believe the determination for the commission to make and after they reviewed all the evidence they concluded that there was not an opinion that this man was medically permanently and totally disabled as rand has conceded there was no other evidence put forth that he looked or were not suspicious of the side whether based on age training experience you qualify that this is enough evidence for anyone to make that determination but for them to advance their argument didn't see him every day and i think the rescuers was honest in his deposition when he agreed number one he achieved everything he set out to achieve as a surgeon did multiple surgeries and he testified that yes he did achieve what he was looking with chief moment from the objective of the surgical standpoint i think that he was honest when he said that if you look at the examination of this guy after i have worked on him  read it that way the commission has has for a long time in and regularly used the inquiry if someone can objectively turned to work without the risk of further injury that for them  if you like it or whether you would have done the same thing the question is is there enough evidence to support the conclusion of the commission and i think that there's enough in west us by itself to sport but there's other evidence as well i mean  before the museum you don't wear white up and stare right a small part of the picture they stand back to get the whole picture and that's put they did look at the whole picture and they felt that there was enough evidence to conclude that this man
the state's attorney did locate the defendant bed and the gist of being bad at work that the caller sheet said these are the cases that probably didn't remember mr jones from way back when they not have even been this assistant state's attorney that without prejudice right because it's a dismissal on the merits or with prejudice that is technically premature and so at a minimum mr carter certainly has standing to complain that the trial court's dismissal order was and doesn't know what is there i mean i think that they're just like standing there looking out the window don't you think that when first of all just from a political standpoint when they prepare to go to court if you said they have a defendants who sometimes have difficulty complaint with the technical or procedural rules that other litigants may be able to comply with as a matter of course and i think that is something to keep in mind in this case  and in that regard it's really not now fees in behalf of mr jones in this case it's the practical difficulties that inquest rated defendants face complying with heightened service requirements of what was originally a remedy designed to be used in civil cases is it mr jones is is trying to play some sort of game where he serves the petitioning correctly and then he gets caught  present in court this is not dragging them in for you know something that they're not already there for in one sentence they can make a record of the status of the petition its service and the state's intention to  any defects with respect to that service in one sentence that record can be made but something that you're just making up out of thin air then you don't know why should we impose then requirement on the state where does it come from other than her which is opposite of a call so he still goes out the we're in the supreme court's precedent does it say that we should come up with this rule and make them stand up there and risk taking a petition to have been properly served and the court said actually looking at the record we can't determine that the petition was ever properly served at all that thirty period ever began to read and because began to run because there's no evidence in the record to show that the petition was properly served in the state and the very same day the fifth district also rejected the notion section two fourteen zero one case on the grounds that it did not raise this issue sale it's being described in some quarters as a manufactured issue bad in fact very hard pressed to say that the issue is either manufactured
thousand and six point zero four became a student at the school district and that covers the same time period as joe three who filed his complaint in january two thousand and twelve is the same time period it's the same now in the shins and it's based on the c theories of liability  the three prior cases to its then directors and officers carriers which may have preserved coverage i can't say and i don't want to speculate but i don't want to should have been reporting to the insurance company that was that was insuring a district in june of two thousand and ten and the terminate harkins or to take any disciplinary action such that he was allowed access to future victims so arcelor believes in the worst day the dough for until three cases are very clearly related because it involves two planes abused at the they make this claim that it wouldn't be feasible for them to do so i mean it could be assumed it was check boxes on the application are there any prior in claims yes or no if you know the law if yes red flag we know to investigate this thing or disclose everything else that's going on that wasn't the case here there was nowhere for freebird to initiate that disclosure of information on his boiler boiler what application that was provided based on the policy language oh my brief the opinions are expectations of p s i see or if you're to gallagher whether or not they're they believe there should or should not be coverage of their opinions and expectations of behind the wheel for longer than the federal regulations a lot causes an accident and injury ten years go by no further accidents and nothing in any way of him that those two separate accidents ten years apart with no connection in between for that ten year period would be considered a single claim for the policy on top of that the trial court even includes a hypothetical and it's order harassment and rd party discrimination as covered employment practices wrongful acts rd party sexual harassment and rd party screening asian they constitute title nine violations the fact that the sexual abuse with  cases and there may be cases where it is too tenuous to determine if they're related but that in itself does not make the provision ambiguous and to your honor's earlier question yes are as you i believe that these are a single claim for purposes of negligent supervision supervision so should the truck driver idea where the truck driver is consistently going over the federally regulated number of hours he's able to drive every day if the company knows about this and subscribes to that is he getting multiple accidents as a result of it at some point the company should know that those you know there's a pattern of accidents here we have a pattern of abuse not hearkens and the national liability here is the negligent supervision by the district it's not the discrete acts of the beauties committed by basis like the country mutual policy here where ten years apart that policy ten years later would likely cover the auto accident itself but the companies liability is what we're actually looking at here and that's why these claims are related so to bear
single residential dwelling in that case the statute says the redemption period two and a half years you're on a roll so influencing the situation by twenty to eighty five twenty two eighty five requires and dozens of places on twenty two forty five and most of these cases are about strike the promise around as this court knows strict compliance is required in property tax sale process the court does not wish world suggested that there was some duty on the order of the taxpayer to make these inspections we believe the case law does not support that is not an issue before the court but the practical standpoint is  we're asking yes we're asking this court to affirm the trial court's ruling which dismisses the petitioner allen's case so we would ask that you deny him a hearing and we ask that because he is simply not eligible for purchase having done so he no longer falls within the ambit of section three ten because that is clearly for the owner of the certificate to purchase only and it is elementary steps toward destruction that when are before the time that you can get the tax deed you're out you're are out of luck because the certificates are no longer about so that's all it's really happening there and then we go over the our faces first him down and says no you don't because the certificates are r r r r r no the boy he never went to the trouble of trying to get the taxi but once we have to tax the these cases never touch the the property actually i want my my my my back it doesn't work like that the plain language of the structure doesn't allow for that  think that's and that's the risk that he takes in going through this process as counsel even said you know the issue of inspecting the property and that isn't really at issue here but i mean it's no one forces you to participate in fact sale and purchase process that's a that's a business decision that's you are willingly entering into that market from the county's perspective these statutes are very clear in how they describe language of the statute that's really that i mean that's the way it's i do i have to get here that it doesn't sound like the the the cleanest way to go about it or that the fairest way to go about it but i'm just correct yes but there is there that there is time there between when the petitioner purchases the taxes if it's and before he applies for the for the power of the certificate of purchase only that's really the crux of it here it says the order of the certificate of purchase all money can make that application he does not own the certificate because he had to turn in the certificate in order to get his taxi so therefore section three ten does not apply i'll go back to just touch the jobs of cases really
minutes for each side and there are there are two parties here i believe please that divide those fifteen minutes between you two i'm to have the problem introduce yourself know statute of limitations issues and here's my initial question why if if the judge you first was discovered assets cited petition your citation and then you think that was converted to a recovery  petition white white why not just go forward with recovery why why why why were new cause of action filed if the state the beneficiary russ work would benefit separately an individual soul that's his and that part of the judge's ruling that as to your client benefiting individually i'm not sure that he can take advantage of the citations that were filed and sort of relate it back not only relate it back to the here original filings but to say not only were those this relates back to then that we're that your client is entitled to benefit in that regard to you by asserting new and independent claims if your honor there was a claims are based on information and belief as opposed to facts and are we dealing i don't mean need at least an elevation of fact as opposed to an allegation of information police well i submit that  airflight we submit that she's just wrong ok cause of the allegations in the complaint not all which were information a belief and which real which factual allegation would have made the complaints timely in that they felt within that you were the question you asked david's independent cause of action this isn't an independent cause of action it's the insulin reaction they gave the three state and filed his own action his own complaint in the alleged late  very really that's the basis of the cause of action a breach of you should be doing all the lisa's family settlement and on the case law sure and specifically say states that in the event other a relation back yes the put on the defendant i notice all claims of everything he is supposed to be defending certainly it's our position that the brief citation to discover does not come close and i think judge coleman points that out as well i don't really have much more ahead on that if you have any questions and if you do press those now i think your family everyone is clearly stated the real issue before us purpose was to separate their interests and protect others from liability if there was anything done by the by this office so we don't believe there's any basis for or over the law for the pentagon official requires that is the primary purpose of the representation record shows that he gave a deposition which he is now or ever discussed family settlement agreement with the deceased he signed the family settlement agreement for the series and he would learns all
oh yeah pretty much
shaken baby syndrome she testified that some of the injuries as she detected could also have been caused by shaken baby syndrome but she said that all of the injuries were consistent with  days prior to the date of onset of symptoms however the victim in this case was injured on august twenty second and he died five days later on august twenty seventh having taken the hospital on the twenty third and additionally there was evidence that prior to this statement from her statement to adam's the second statement he told four other people that he spent the day and finally without the second statement there was evidence that the respondent statements changed so in conclusion there is nothing about the content or the use of this second statement that was not completely devoid of multiple times over to to agree to a continuance which the state was ready to agree to and to to await the end of the okapi report and to retain his own expert in fact i think he mentioned that one of the areas prior to the discharge it for the sake of argument that she's an expert on the finding that she's an expert does not necessitate the amount of weight or dictate the amount of weight that the trial responded to tried to question her on at the at the district hearing and he didn't cross examine her on but it was also free to to present an expert of his own and present contrary evidence and he chose not to do so there i can't i can't imagine what conclusion of hers could be  first or second day of the woman in the child and however that information was taken from her testimony about what she had done during the first several weeks of her fellowship which and that's the that's the evidence in the in the record i'm just one other note is that it is my understanding from the record that the office the report did not sit for nine months awaiting a signature rather it's my understanding that because of the
he was found to know what the problem and we have to proceed on that basis that he knew the problem but that really is your problem your problem is that some people who knew the problem are telling you how to have time to find a statute and others aren't and that has to  struck down the courts noted that city it's not for the majority is power to enforce their own moral view of what is appropriate sexual conduct through the criminal laws and the supreme court wro feeling of u prosecutor can't decide whether she has the capacity to the senate to in some circumstances consent but not others ultimately the evidence they put before the jury is she has the capacity at some stage where there's enough romance where her mom  but here we have twenty seven year old they are came out with describing and i couldn't tell you for sure i didn't review the jury instructions that closely for three or four we run out of time i want to ask you a couple of question i'm bothered by the possibility of slinking prosecution seem to be a suitable candidate for testimony that someone someone told the defendant all she's an easy life that doesn't have anything to do with the question of whether she is co the trial court in this case did an excellent job i think in laying out the various reasons why each particular piece of evidence is relevant and may not be and we have a split of things the various pieces are relevant to we have the question of what was the victim's mental condition is she mentally competent to consent and as the court pointed out there's all kinds of evidence that has nothing to do with sex that you could present on that issue that she worked as she did she go to and i think talking about she keeps referring to this new jersey case but nobody else in the room seemed to know what she was talking about that we now recognize that mentally retarded people have the right to do things that previously nobody ever thought they had and that it's really more of a free flowing sort of discussion she never took the position that you know we would never prosecute one of these other people now as a practical matter they're probably not going to prosecute because nobody's going to go to police and complain as happened here that you know petitioners d n a in her panties we probably wouldn't even be here today so i think and this is an issue that was raised to try to challenge i think in the direct appeal but that's where the nature of the conduct comes in and that's what calendar says nature doesn't mean just what you're doing the nature of the conduct involve on to address her more appropriate direction of her sexual energies that the mother denied that during her testimony actually fail to see what that has to do with the question
all right he was hired in two thousand and two who conducted the interview specifically testified that when she was hired she was not a tenured teacher job or will too soon occur principal at carlisle at the time of trial testified that she wasn't granted tenure that's not the solution unless those that's the law you have to have the requisite number of years of service before you're even eligible for ten year i understand when she was hired clarify this exact point in the opinion letter clearly stated and explained to all the superintendent said it was said can you into the directors to ranch and i think he's the one that requested it because there were questions about this exactly what we've been talking wanted to come in the car were who could work the where she lived in the area but she wasn't going to make the move it was going to cost her all those years of experience which ultimately it ended up doing and if that isn't classic cas