MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
involves two parties and i really have trouble with the idea of an abandonment where there's a deed from one person to another in a partnership your honor for if one partner says i don't want to interest anymore i've got all kinds of problems i'm going to walk away from assessments against the partners and one partner just keeps not sending mr check when they make an assessment so the other partners take the position that he's abandoned its interests and sometimes they have to file something in court to establish that and sometimes he files he gives them some paper conceding the analogy the distinction with property is that here there was simply the analogy would be  property really is abandoned and usually it's for unpaid taxes and then forecloses on depending on what the local procedures are this one it doesn't seem like either kind of abandonment partnership or band in men or the walking away from the property and having it taken for taxes  it just looks like a deed partner has lied deleted been relieved of then you've got some considerations flowing i know how to get rid of property without beating it don't pay taxes well that's one way yes but your  but then you if you got a if you got to a tennessee uncommon or partnership situation you're not going to what i mean it's generally not going to walk away the property you're not going to if you don't receive something in return what if you don't have a gift if you  recorder's office to abandon did you research where the state involved in this case has such a statute i don't know the answer to that question the i suppose if there were such a statute then complying with it could be regarded as an act of abandon so the answer is you did not research the state law in this case to see if they had such a statute for two reasons well that's what the answer is that's correct i didn't i auto insurance has no value unless you're sure you're going to have an accident and the point is you got some relief from potential future liabilities that's consideration and if you transfer property to someone and you get something in return that makes  sale he tried to but nobody took it so he walked away from what he walked away from and therefore that was an abandoned those out of the principal points that i hope to make i'd be happy to answer any questions that i
refused to continue testifying jury in cross examination and he was allowed to step off the witness stand and then be declared unavailable the judge struck that testimony decision that was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and also perhaps it's simply eroni us decision in this case what happened with respect to mr armstrong i realize that i'm getting close to mine limit i might have to go over a little bit but having with your arms that is that early on he exhibited of recalcitrance and so there was the first trial that trial ended up being aborted because the judge determined that jewel juries would be necessary after that occurred the prosecution had mr arms that come in for a conditional examination he was actually in custody at the time he was then released and if the court looked at the reply brief and the document supporting the court can see that the prosecution clearly made very very minimal efforts to get mr arms out in the court ultimately during the trial  prosecution allowed him to leave the court without having him arrested or placed on electronic monitoring program or anything of that nature allowed him to depart my argument that decision was clearly improper that prejudiced mr dobbins because especially what happened at the conditional examination was that the prosecutor mer law what in fact that it was a reasonable interpretation of the facts that trial with particularity there was the there were two witnesses involves hand as already stated one was subject to a conditional examination it was again killing case there was a good possibility that there would be some difficulty with witnesses that was the reason for the conditional examination there was a two and a half months of being delayed between the time of the examination and the time of trial the court determined based on a significant number of facts that there had been a good faith effort made to make the witness available  the that determination that factual determination is the subject to some deference and in fact this court may overturn that determination if it finds that the determination was unreasonable but it has to be more than just clear are the first witnesses pharmacist there my understanding is it was incarcerated and after i think he was initially released on an electronic monitoring system he was brought in for the conditional examination he was subject to a furthe question him also he could not cross examine mr dobbins about anything that occurred during that entire year from the plenary hearing transcript trust and remember hearing testimony to the trial  shows the motives of the prosecution and to not have mr arms in court up there on the witness stand so he can be viewed by the jury and i believe the thank you ok just argued will be submitted will proceed to the next case on the calendar which is robins some verses of nashville council come forward
probation so why shouldn't we conclude that's what congress intended sense at the time they did after the mandatory minimum which was in the protect act the guidelines say you couldn't have probation for the parents if you had a mandatory minimum well i don't think we have judges let them judge and threw out the guidelines of course the supreme court disagreed all we're saying is we're not saying the judge lou in this particular case could not have given my point five years we're only saying if he doesn't want to give him five years let's not probation and put him in jail for no more than a one year because mr track very cleverly she's very good at doing a fine appellate attorney but i think that again the specific controls of the general particularly in view of the history of the  express prohibition against probation exactly our point and counsel also mentions the exploitation of children and i would say that my client exploited children if you paid one for looking at the stuff on the
entered a judgment against my will for almost eight hundred thousand dollars for its failure to collect used tax on internet sales to illinois hello court affirmed liability and damages yet reversed the award of attorney's fees to the relate or for the work of its attorneys took almost now seven years there are three separate and independent reasons to reverse the
macgregor from senior perspective and as you can see today we have a lot of people helping out with a lot of things down here to finish community center and this is something that we have been waiting for for some time and they are fine folks from kong cast who gave up a beautiful saturday morning when they could have been working in their own homes and were going fishing or doing something else when they came out here and put
streets on the highway over junction city this is america last week where necessity has been indeed  who the nineteen twenty cars were old hat to most people the wright brothers invention was still new it was at this time they saw their first airplane the day of the barnstormer cou fair they landed in past years took a few of the daring for a ride and moved on it wasn't a joyride airplane people were serious they flew the mail from coast to coast by nineteen twenty seven where two hundred and forty airports in the last city fathers debated the question on where to put the airport today there are seven thousand airports every major city has at least one half of america's airports are publicly owned they are a public facility like parks libraries are not atari third of american lives in small towns along farms around these towns of less than twenty five hundred people in our centers for the surrounding country since the first barnstormer landed in the level of the jason terry could find the experience to draw from but most important is the nearly phenomenal growth of airplane usage to be considered airplanes aren't an occasional side anymore they are common and they are most old hat airport expansion must be considered longer runways future parking space and more hangar wise men look back over the past two decades and plan for the twenty years to come farmers and ranchers  faithful airplane users the big ground distances in rural america are reduced to a third or a quarter by fly this flying is having a strong effect on the economy of raising a crop and bringing it to har streamlined agriculture and since the introduction of farm machinery they have put it on a mass production basis since world war two the airplane to the farmer has been a useful piece of farm machinery the local airport has become contributed to the protection of the nation's water  lumber industry our nation's supply into paper and furniture and housing and all the products  the executive aircraft of american industry as industry builds branch factories as it follows the pattern of the smaller cities space an airport there are few large industries today that are not airplane users many large and small aircraft the smaller business planes are used by the engineering division by production and by the spearheading sales as one sales manager sent
say that as a matter of law that the making of the connector and or did not constitute mounting was not just as a matter of law in your response in this in march of two thousand terminal device having a video camera which is easy to carry a centrally a cellular camera as you say it would be completely unsuitable for mounting on a wall display pictures device and it's got the features it fits into getting the docking station i'm sorry that's a separate device that's got a feature that fits into the port at that makes the tablet mount going on there between at least the docking stations and i hope the pictures of and various tablets and or i phone and other devices right there is a male female connector so while it's true you could pop the thing up against the wall or set it pad and you left it leaning against it the potential for touching and snapping the same would be the very reason that you want to have a docking station just as dr that's exactly right and that's why th back end they held in the wall without the nails without the wall without the neils without the screws the thing doesn't stand so the whole work in conjunction with the nails the wall in order to hold it up into those holes would make it that one it doesn't rise to the level of creating a fact askew because all of the evidence shows that what's actually holding the tablets right separate is this there may be tension there is tension between the connector so that's not what's holding it operate if you take the docking port away that's not going to be enough because it's so flexible as an extra set and if you turn the tablets on the side and don't use the communication for it it's still holding the docking station still holding
mia please the court to challenge walker's habitual offender status would be by definition a fabulous issue because it would not have garnered walker any real relief when appellate counsel was considering which issues to raise he would have the federal question here
number of course including know what was your prejudice from the new valuation
witnessed subsequently the and also the husband losing his job before that because of his activities after the husband lap the interview saying individuals who took the husband initially came back and just began asking us to do his whereabouts
i i'm having trouble finding anywhere in the statute any language that says that the way you commands a removal proceeding my trust the only way to do it is to file a notice of the that their regulations provided for i the same question judge they have of the us i think if you read it if you read the statute i think the agency can shape any child can document once or the agency in this case says
heavy duty pain medications in order to work and the doctor who eventually  proportions on top of th there in their supervising from  here we don't have an explanation
specifically referred to in the assessments to refer which the government needed as an exhibit in this case and the asylum officer specifically relied on that exception to the one year  filing deadline rule and found that he had filed within a reasonable time of the change country circumstances in indonesia that issue as related to the due process challenge because normally this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction on the one your filing deadline rule are challenges an ass applied due process challenge simply put the immigration judge did not conduct a full and fair hearing on the one year filing deadline issue in this case because you did not consider in his decision the government's totally contradictory evidence and position that the applicant satisfied the changed circumstances exception to the one you're filing deadline ru well your honor we we do have some issues as to credibility and also substantial evidence this could also be looked a made in this case and a stated another way we believe that intrinsic to the due process concept of a full and fair asylum hearing is a necessity for the adjudicator to consider critically important evidence in the decision particularly evidence introduced by the government that contradicts the government's litigation position and benefits the asylum applicant specifically to  a attack on the statute itself this is an as apply due process challenge to the decision the judge should have considered the contradictory evidence  degree of indifference as to whether this was a an event that was the sort of the peak of anti chinese activity that has diminished or whether it's just sort of subsided somewhat but it's still there and so doesn't that sort of put pressure on the system to sort out at least on an individualized basis whether there's  we hear it or should we send it to the district court ronnie basis but no i don't think you could hear it and i don't think it should be so why because i'm not aware of any case father would require this court to entertain a due process challenge where the basis for this court's jurisdiction is nonexistent but wait a minute that's you're begging the question been prior occasions consider constitutional claims arising from the former deportation proceedings now the successor those proceedings will be have in many cases but it's not a cases where we have been deprived
there was no motion for summary judgment before the court in this case to which the planet had any opportunity to present evidence there simply wasn't a motion there wasn't even a rule twelve months this was a housekeeping decision by judge kaufman who felt that he'd figured out this lad claims apparently and didn't need to father to have a proceeding recognized under the rules of civil procedure you know order to get this case off the  therefore require a reversal of the summary judgment here well simply that she'd have this summary judgment in this case is reversed she'll have the opportunity to present precisely the kind of evidence that's the only issue that was raised in anything that was decided by the court in this case before all of a sudden the judge created a motion for summary to make sure i understand your position if the notion that the plaintiff had not presented evidence in response to the motion for summary judgment showing that the pesticides or the herbicides were more likely than other causes the issues raised on a few i think you have to that is clearly yes because the issue raised on appeal his or her really are true one is the argument about summary judgment and it's a label on so much as placed a label on  she didn't know that that was going to happen mr force's comment here that he was in the same position on this case as he was on the other one i honestly the record would reflect what the record reflects but i do not remember mr forrest being involved at the me that there's a potential argument not made but if attention argument yet and know what the spaza to have meant what her response was labeled objection to dismissal if i remember she knew what was coming and and in terms of the record would done with that what would be wrong with having the judge take a look at that issue and it's casey thanks for they are not the same i just don't know that it is i think that the i think the difficulty is the answers to questions are so intertwined is because the that there still is left open that avenue  issue on appeal there may be there may be a number of arguments that might have been reduced that someone in the plaintiff's position might raise that would cause you difficulty or not that's not one that's particularly  judgment on facts it was scientific evidence in this case separate from what she had already submitted in that o'dowd case is a mystery to me and it was a misdemeanor and there was no motion for summary judgment pending anywhere there was even a
documentary evidence the department of homeland security placed mi the lack of each and one piece of objective evidence demonstrating and then ten to share a life and then show me you know gave birth to one of the grandchildren so those are the factors that cause michelmore in it and has not to get the type of document that was referred referring to however you want it there are some documents fact there was one statement there were submitted by at least notarized statements that were submitted by people who knew both of them and there was there was a
license was due for renewal on march thirty first two thousand and two she instructed that he was held there that act it could have it made no difference whatsoever to any pending investigation in terms of bureau of labor and industries ability to go ahead and investigate and revoke the license or to do anything at all march twenty march twenty first when she directed that it not be renewed the the reason why i was directed to not be renewed was because of a nother contractor a third party said he heard from somebody else that question is when as of june twelfth when the agency seen it by its own rules has a requirement that in and in an emergency ratification summary revocation that the individual be informed and be given the opportunity to respond before it's a fact that is not observed and that the statute also state law also requires that specific findings be made of the basis for the hour we've asked this court to accept which is that may or may not have been an option for the bureau under the bureau's own rules because the bureau's own rules talk about correctly pointed out that even if they could have done that under state law there's nothing unconstitutional about not doing that and at the very least the decision makers there is nothing clearly unconstitutional that would have deprived the decision makers for these defendants of qualified immunity and of course these are the evening defendants who weren't the decision makers in this case they weren't the ones who actually made the decision to do an immediate revocation much less revocation of the entire license rather than one aspect of the license so even if the bureau could have done it that way there was nothing in the federal constitution that compelled them to do it that way
one of the next dream in justice there was no fair trial here there was no fair trial because the main witness the only eyewitness to the murder the street he had been terminated by the c d c and he testifies at trial four years later to get his job back there was no fair trial here about it and when it came down they took responsibility for it so it wasn't just an anonymous no this was a note from a members of the a member of the crips gang that had information it was part of the conspiracy and of course you know in very probative as a district court found this wasn't a fair trial here your honor because the case was built upon snitch testimony and even the state court of appeal jury was unable to evaluate that fact because the jury was not full about the deal there was no fair trial here because the corps allow the court gerald engler representing the warden on behalf of the state of california let me just respond real briefly on on some things that may be helpful to the court in terms of what's in the record and what's not in the record based on coun never been raised this is a specific issue there's no alleged constitutional lawyer regarding officer looked at me testimony is one thing that appears for the first time on this appeal in a briefing on this appeal that i simply want to clear up any sort of claim out there on the state court on direct appeal it was never raised as the climate there in the district court so i don't know how that fits hand but it's not any sort of independent claim is constitutional shows that the judge the simply excluded that document and all that description what the reason that document came in is because one of the the coconspirators masters had signed the bottom of it with this name askari which document describing them in marine kind of shootout the prosecution said we want to show that masters really does use this name we've got a handwriting expert that can say that askari it is master signature and the judge says ok fine you can bring in this document that shows a scar on the bottom of that but you have to wipe out everything else and if you look at the actual exhibit the came in and i believe going by memory in the brief i identified i think it was three eighteen glean from that just to court's order in finding so i ordered what i could from from what the district judge ordered and i believe that there's evidence that even though i didn't mention maybe about what this black really family is all about my client was supposedly a member of that and that evidence alone was enough to convict him of murder because of the court's instruction on the motive
old and you were in the restaurant business before you opened your own business yes i when i got the marine corps i started going to school and working part time in the restaurant business and then from there i just get get kept getting promoted and and learn from the ground up the business to a lot of people that have been in the business for a long time so i managed in hotel management and full service restaurant management and i learned how to cook also and all with that you know all that experience that i gained over the first six seven year period i opened my first business at the age of twenty six great now your brother nicholas nick  really good it was it was actually but in addition to the to the soups you have a complete menu of salads with or without shrimp or trick or greek salad and so forth so a complete list of salads the prices a very reasonable price is a very reasonable and in addition to the salads we have a little menu here that you can pick up if you want to stop in and see her say in but you have also have the specialty wraps i was good you can come in and sample as many supers you like so you know there's an opportunity to try soups you know that people have never tried before and also to give me into the catering party planners at the moment right now but if someone has asked for us to do it we welcome the business and we're able to do it we done a couple pipelines already for some businesses in the area  because we feel that we went with what was very popular what people really wanted in foxborough so we brought that idea to belmont and they were able to prepare it fresh every day you know you're right next to the studio theater yes and i kno put in some tables so you have some arrangements with jim yes just b s between jim have an arrangement that they're able to come over and bring their food over to the theater we even tell them that they will to keep it on the tray or a little plate that we put on and they're able to bring it