MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
once again this morning i forgot to go directly to the judge's decision the immigration judges decision january two thousand and one and in her decision and seems to live in looking at all the entire record what may appear to be something that is reasonable for one person may not be entirely reasonable for someone else he would plant he would seed the field by hand now as we do here in this country whether it's up in northern sacramento area that we concede you know two thousand acres  he would do it by hand and after a month or so and he didn't run sixty days for those things were up maybe two or three inches and they grow in clusters he would take them and break them and then plant them by hand and sometime about four months later around december or january he would then it would be time to harvest the drain and he might be lucky to get about that as we read through it there are portions of it that become an audible we have an interpreter that is providing the translation for us and in that courtroom what may appear to many of us is to be reasonable as far as being able to get a document from india made to someone who cannot even read or write better quality than the ones that we issue ourselves so i don't know how much we can how much weight how much we can believe that if he'd received a passport that has the stamp and december sequence he does so right there on the stand i think that the documents that are whether it's the newspaper article that's missing a portion of the complete article that the judge identifies or the passport i think that that doesn't go to the heart rice farmer who spends about six seven months harvesting you know going through the whole process of planting and harvesting his rice and maybe making a total of about ten thousand would be the equivalent of ten terms of her credibility finding on the issue well i wanted to terms that first actually contacts i think one of the major problems he has with his credibility has to do with that second incident which is one of the two incidents that that basis which is the basis for his claim they didn't know he was a member of the party there's no indication that they're going to continue to pursue him for any reason i mean even by his own story the reason he was rest of the second time was he got in the midst of this robbery of what has happened to the court and to the extent that someone may not find that he has a long beard or have all these other items that he should have or that we believe he should have i don't think it
i don't want to put him on the stand because he will testify and then it will be difficult for the prosecution to impeach because we know that at least some things that has to which that balance and given the high court says look this would not be fair because he gets on the stand he says all the stuff that helps defendant but then he's not there you know the bounce off by yes and that was a little bit and there's a witness who walks by who says the other guy started the fight and we keep that evidence for way from the jury because the prosecution doesn't want to bother to bring his opinion i could then be observed being cross examined asked for the basic incident and the only thing he couldn't be cross examined about is being asked is  true that you are a criminal and a scum because you have these connections and the jury couldn't get to see him cringe when the prosecutor asked the last questions he said the prosecution would have to bring interaction with you that the other guy started the fight now maybe you could have destroyed them on cross maybe you could have shown that he got there late may be going to show that he you know he was blind in one eye or he was drunk or under the influence of alcohol or drugs all those things phantom self and my point is that testimony wouldn't and would have made no difference because the victim himself that he started the fight and we have another witness this dance witness investigator collaborat
liability reasonably clear time so we can best to want to record the record provides to us at least one two three four five six different times in which liability can be deemed touching great significance to this may thirteenth proffer now i would think that the force of of such a problem for its impact upon proof of liability saracens observation that this proffer really didn't change mike because several months after the proffer you repeated the very same settlement offer that you  that a person took two thousand and fourteen right and that factual finding is supported by can use testimony that he thought he pursued the opinion in may of two thousand and fourteen and then blair has a july seventh two thousand and fourteen for poor to hartford the main insurer stating that kennie received it in april of two thousand and fourteen and then we've got to know and now you've told us that exhibit seventy eight and the payment transcript pages contain documents which admittedly has two components of pain and suffering claim and death component but by succeeding them and treating them separately at the end of the day it didn't matter because you found that a reasonable offers had been made i don't think there is any serious argument that on the death component the biggest part of the claim that liability was never reasonably clear made no offer was ever required the only issue as she saw it was whether why ability was reasonably clear on the conscious pain and suffering the client that it sort of popped up in the middle of the trial when mr kenny was testifying about his valuation and he evaluated the range of three to five hundred thousand dollars and said i was putting most of that on the pain and suffering claim because i didn't think there was any causation on the death dr sarah's took that as ok a separate claim that may be subtle or an obligation to settle i think to describe that as an unorthodox question about the date but there is a question about what the in the trauma and the judge found that the full expert disclosure wasn't made until may twenty third paint and that is not only not clearly erroneous it's supported by a lot of evidence but now thousand and fourteen spring they say that's clearly erroneous because there are two documents at least in the record who will exhibit seventy eight when transferred pages three eighty eight three ninety eight or something like that he's not he says he's not referring to that no he says he's referring to a copy of the i think people offer proof that has the expert record attached to it we don't know that appears to be also a clue to the medical malpractise tribunals wasn't offered in evidence at the  situated through defense counsel offers another two fifty plus in mid july which brings the total amount of settlement offers to the high end of the settlement range of the value range  judge was more than warranted in finding that under these circumstances and reasonable offers were made both in terms of the timing and amount after two minutes but at most the court has a more questions are perfectly happy to sit down
a drug trance to action out on the sidewalk when you say no illegal activity can you look at what the circumstances are and make a reasonable conclusion that there's proper reasonable probability of drug actually the case cited by the government that the best case you have is one sided by the government that articulated when these threats sales were taking place at all times of the day and night it scribe the manner in which these transactions would take place frequent short meetings you describe where they took place three three nine zero am or who was trans fourth line down the line beginning with the word only the sense in there the informant believes gatto is selling crack cocaine is just something cracking he believes that there's nothing in here that he's seen the transaction but there is no crack cocaine i understand there's a lot of traffic and i understand he has a point of view but to carly's transactions seems to me to go a little further well there's also even less i'm missing something i thought is right if you also look at the first line that's probably the weaker transactions took place those tips were corroborated by law enforcement over a period of two months during through periods of surveillance two different officers went to three three nine zero elma and observed conduct consistent with that observed by the concern citizen informant was a top frequent short meetings each of the periods of surveillance only took place for half an hour yet in the first period of surveillance four separate individual showed up at three three nine zero alba engaged in a short meeting what's more got so had a criminal record and not just any kind of criminal record in addition to to vehicle code violations he was on probation for a prior narcotics conviction this is a factor that was properly considered by the issuing court and the sale if the court would decide for sale if the court which turned to page fifty seven of the excerpts of record the family had suffered a conviction for a violation of health and safety code sections one one three five one point five for section purchase certainly the government's position that the court may not look at it the defendant made no showing let alone the substantial showing required and the rivara if you require disclosure he's not articulating any basis for believing that this information will be useful in his defense
point about nine hundred seventy seven statute is that a federal judge enjoined in forstmann of parts of that statute and that's the portion that overlooked in the state's argument that  what the district court said was if after consideration of all relevant facts including a psychiatric or psychological report the board determines that the first prisoner will be a danger to the health or safety of the community whether a state court interpretation of a federal injunction is binding on this part that that's an open question it's still an interpretation of state law but in the cline the court of appeals went on to say and addition look at that formalize that opinion in order and say yes the board must also make a finding of dangerous which makes yes i think it could be read both ways it's either more favorable to prisoners because  there and the and the state interpreted it differently and therefore the state court said well then we'll go look to the written opinion to intervene with judgment but with respect if that's the standard for determining that judgment is in vigorous and every judgment every the intention was too broad given the written opinion they can't simply ignore the injunction and they would have to ask another court to review that injunction which almost injunction has been in existence one hundred seventy nine clearly many people have different interpretations of in it and
japan is a story of successful copies on a tradition of peace and love of the soil the new japan suddenly turned its back and copied locomotives are playing a great ocean going li even tokyo might have been transplanted bodily from the western world of many plans that one day appeared where just the day before it seemed was pasture land for the place where they were building washing machine when the workers reported for the first time few of them guessed the exact nature of what they were building they knew that the giant plane would result but beyond that it was largely conjecture but then the day came inevitably when the pieces of the jigsaw began to fit together the day when the mountains of material in the millions of m they were building a plane for the army air forces that would reduce their huge fortresses and liberators to medium bombers they were building the boeing designed b twenty nine manpower and equipment within this method jake will emerge the fabulous one seventeen allowing a completely new design which will carry more weight than stern and higher than any other wing the jets themselves here is the wing in a more advanced age if the workers imagine for a moment that they were in the shipyard it would be understandable the mayflower was shorter from stem to stern and each of these wing is from tip to tip all the pilgrim of the the bombays will hold the greatest weight of death ever lifted into the sky toward the tail another big pressurized chamber well how's the rest of the crew except the rear gunner who has a ca the breed fabricated subassemblies are manufactured by other contract and shipped to this plant by the carlo their grandmother old young the young old the little one and the less little one working together in intimate harmony their product their gold teeth these workers are the lucky ones who see the finished product of their labor roll off the line every hour of every day they are witness to this or inspiring  the builder of god and engine propellor the grimy sweating men who cast the cylinders and broads the crankshaft the maker of tire electrical equipment instruments and safety wires the citizens who paid final meeting of every episode and every p their lives and the time we needed to make the weapons to win the war like this one which fifty hours after it will be landing in india or china or some other  the air forces let contracts for planes that would be built to fight the b twenty five mitchell is a big strapping bomber six to seven feet across the wing but it could reach japan only if it took off from an aircraft bomber around it has been build an entire new air force the twentieth the twentieth floor theater of the world itself its operations room is the war room of the chief of staff in washington
or less than he five percent of this and furthermore the defendant was conditioned to shit rip my dismissal on the basis that it did not meet the basic requirement of the
next case for argument is sixteen one six four nine maverick two corporation versus united states difficult to do the commerce department has often taken that into account and either excuse the reporting or require them to present it in a way they propose now in our particular case there was a congress that asked us to morris and say we've got these other plants they're ours we cannot provide for those these are two other plants yes you other plants the same information in the same form that we just provided for why is your friend not right that there may be that you know there's a lot of communication going back and forth and there are plenty forms of question here so maybe there was a mis understanding here is to whether or not stand ready to provide the information with the understanding that it will require several weeks to do so so why didn't somebody say ok you've got to tell whatever day get us the information and that could result the whole matter right well  just let me just ask ask again so we're understand your understanding what i'm saying let me posit for purposes of this question that you are one hundred percent correct about the ordinary meaning of the word unable to put that aside ok is it true or not true as a matter of practice that people come to commerce and say this is very difficult and commerce says oh ok we'll figure out a lesser of less burdensome way to do it ye and i don't have the exact figure but doesn't sixteen seventy seven and see start off doesn't the c say describe difficulties meeting requirements that's the title that's the title  congress considered its legal arguments depriving other interested parties of the opportunity to review and comment on the relevance of that information thank you and your information was insufficient so in the exercise of that discretion they said no too little too late and we believe that was this case clearly apart from any other cases fact that we so clearly the foreign government sales is adversely affecting lowering the price non government sellers in that far country it is relevant to consider what other information might be available and is not being supplied because it doesn't make sense simply as an economic matter to say that a simple percentage without more automatically means the preamble so go and explain again why was it not table to do that it wasn't even conclusively resolving the issue because that analysis of the core lie which is that it's a
us the opportunity to present or argument today i'd like to with the court's indulgence address two issues two recent issues that were not addressed in the briefing the first issue relates to whether the vacate or of westlaw two three five zero eight five six seven and there the court said that it does have jurisdiction this is the borg it does have jurisdiction in certain circumstances to issue it but only due to board error or administrative problems involving the receipt of the board's decision if you have you have an issue involving the failure to file a brief with the ninth circuit as well quired by the court's order in a briefing schedule i think it of counsel occurring after the b s a has ruled me raised with the board by filing a motion to reopen however failure to do so does not bar this court from hearing the claim reviewing and why we had three or six in three who went and then sure which citation supports which part of your theory the reason i'm doing that of course is saying something is not part by something else to fail to inform the court that that the papers were prepared by a particular trainee who is appearing in a very limited capacity and will be withdrawing from the court at that point and so that's why do yes and no i cannot name a case for you that involves he's exact specific facts other than to say that the court does have the power to recall the mandate and reinstate the prior theel and if it has the authority to do that then it would have the with the with the declarations of counsel and i realize that supplementing the record and providing declarations to the court of appeals is not normal however under rule twenty five there is at least a procedure for an inmate for example to provide does not and we i attached my reply brief portions of the there's a lot of attachment so i just attached portions of that motion to reopen the government's response to the motion to reopen which indicates that there are different issues another chance for the form is not really for th unpublished memorandums that were issued in the past two months all of those cases involve indonesians who are christian and non chinese ethnicity where the ninth circuit court of appeals determined that the board had failed to address disfavored group analysis and as a result they really ended the case obviously it's not precedent but it's something that the court can look at simply for persuasive value in terms of the board not addressing these claims i would i would say that it's it's not as much but i would certainly say it's the bombing of the church where he used to personally worship that would provide that evidence and it's not unlike the hard to me case which is discussed in sale where the court specifically said look you don't have to be personally attacked in order to satisfy the standard as long as there's some sort of evidence that you've been individually singled out and that would be the evidence we go on thank you
also pitched in and spent a lot of time or so girls picked the project and they decided to work with you guys and they look forward to hopefully coming back here and playing some games with you and they really worked very hard to get here sell i'm very proud of all of them and to give something back to those that have given so much to peter's so they decided on the senior game room because they saw the need and thought that they can help other people we would like to get special members of our community a place of their own to socialize  were volunteering so are we but we have to work together on this project and that's important because both in doing some accomplish their mission girl and i want to thank all the girls and the leaders especially for everything they have done into this wonderful room when we first took over this building it was just a blank room with nothing but new  the girls have done a wonderful wonderful job and i can't thank them enough and i know we all feel the same way thank you very very much ok i'm back again and i want to again thank everybody for what they have done and i was just told me they found a picture of the school and they framed it and they're going to present it to us i don't know if you can take a picture of that or not and
clear that the judge was well maybe it wasn't clear exactly what was happening at that point if he was asking standby counsel to take over temporarily or if you miss with trying with the right to represent she really orders to sit down i don't think so i think she has just said mr keller please take  just a loose in a to happen i think you could perhaps look at it that way for the suppression hearing but not for the rest of the trial and the defendant as you read the record it's very clear that the defendant never took at the upon the burden to clearly state i understand and i accept the consequences of what it means to represent myself every single one of his answers sort of was the two of them were judge to the judge engaged in a partial again a partial questioning of whether mr chaika here on continued to continue to desire to represent himself it was right before the suppression hearing and at this point there was  in interaction where the defendant suddenly became very angry and said that i will tell you for the last time i'm going to represent myself at that point the trial court then proceeded with the suppression hearing without any unequivocal and the government's position is not that the defendant's request was unequivocal i think that's clearly indicates that it was on it unequivocal he was very sure about and stuff the problem that we want to raise the question of is the based upon the defendant's conduct at the center september twenty four hearing we all know what that was and upon the answers to the court's questions here today on january thirty that his waiver of counsel is not knowing and voluntary does a waiver under that rule and destructive to her i said he understood it i don't think his conduct demonstrates that he didn't understand the charges and the penalties and the danger of just how he does it maybe may not have known how to behave as a lawyer but that doesn't mean he was to understand when the judge was trying to explain to you or ask the witness questions he didn't seem to be able to do they didn't comprehend what that was to an argument with the court record called in stand by