MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
the government they refuse to believe that the door of opportunity afloat have made in america connected with a large company the doctrinaires of the opposition have attempted the picture me as an opponent of liberalism but i was a liberal before many of those men heard the word and i fought for the reforms of the elderly and he had all roosevelt and woodrow wilson before another roosevelt adopted and this started the word liberal i believe that the process of free enterprise must be regulated i'm opposed to business monopolies i believe in the right of collective bargaining by labor without any interference and protection of that obvious right i believe in minimum standards for wages and maximum standards for hours and i believe that such standards should constantly improve i am in favor of the regulation of interstate futilities a banking of the security market i believe in federal pension adequate old age benefits and unemployment allowances i believe that the federal government owes a duty to adjust the position of the farmer with that of the manufacture if this cannot be done by parity prices and some other method must be found without too much regimentation of the farmers a fact i believe in they encourage amount of cooperative buying and selling and in the full extension of rural electrification and i believe that the federal government owes a very strong obligation to merger of our natural resources but i do not base my claim to liberalism solely upon my support and advocacy of such reform iraq and liberalism consist merely in reforming things it consists primarily in making things we much substitute for the philosophy of this debated scarcity the philosophy of on limited productiv stand for the restoration of all production and reemployment in american private enterprise present administration has spent sixty billion dollars the new deal stands for doing what has to be done by spending as much money as possible i propose to do it by spending as little money as possible this is one issue in this campaign that i intend to make crystal clear they part of the conclusion of the campaign there is another very vital issue which i would like to debate with franklin d roosevelt faced the plays and that is the assumption by this president in seeking a third term of a greater public co america hard to do its presidential johns washington jefferson jackson lincoln cleveland theodore roosevelt and woodrow wilson we have not and i pray to god we may never reach the private america when there is any such thing as the in this man we are engaged in a sacred cause the preservation of american democracy i cannot lead this cause alone i need the help of every american republican democrat independent you protestant catholic people of every race creed and color if we all join together each doing his utmost dedicating ourselves
village of limits of the ordinance states that no person could have more than three cats or dogs over the age of six months  trial court level the trial judge ruled that because the plaintiffs i did not issue or did not allege sufficient from the trial court however i believe what the trial court was also still at the time was that there was insufficient facts alleged in the original complaint well that was facts sufficient that have even been missing one is that the ordinance calls for the number of cats to be over six months old there is no evidence in support of ian ross the intentional court of appeal that any of these parents were course in the criminal proceeding had ordered the that the defendant could keep ten kegs so the judge's ruling that it wasn't appropriate to file the complaint without an pled guilty to cruelty to animals for this new charge and that the order a probation indicated that she could have up to change cats and there's no indication otherwise it says that she hasn't been they did lay out specific facts that they're getting justified adequate factual allegations and even in those specific factual allegations and no mention that these cats
petitions that he had a fully exhausted claim that opportunity should i think even to him if he was he's in federal court and he has this fast one two and three that he had to stay petition that he there was no not of this was known to him so he knew at the time he filed the state petition they either did or didn't tell us counsel to file a notice of appeal and that was obviously a critical determination to the state supreme court because it actually  then he should give me given the opportunity to have at least the opportunity to be given his ryan's kelly options which he was never given ok here's more of the opportunity if i could just minister sees me for the opportunity to a opening brief here doesn't mention that relief in although you have a line in your reply brief about exhausting and exhausted going are being allowed to you still assumed that the court was looking past that issue because we've been through that issue so many times this language has not stood up in the ninth circuit so many times and so now the court is simply looking past the merits of the issue was was the issue exhausted and it's had the reverse situation in this court i have the exact reverse situation where the certified issue was was the tell you small and language given and my answer to fight issue was well he didn't even need that because he's feeling out that you can look at other cases that we can take the steps to get to that question it's just the same as if you had equitable trolling if she was certified you can take the you can make a legwork that gets you through the statutory tolling before you reach the certified issue which is acceptable to me it's the same booker a couple of options i know one explicitly said a state was not one of them however there was the functional equivalent of a state and i would point out that on page two twenty nine under but in this case i don't know that one necessarily even concerned about that because it's not part of the certificate of appeal ability what is presented here is whether wide spectrum of from strickland itself there's a spectrum of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that are probably infinite in their factual allegations and what mr booker did in this particular case is he took it from one spare part of the spectrum to the extreme end of the spectrum alleging that he told his counsel that he wanted to appeal and he did not and counsel did not and that the first prong of struggling that being that counsels performance fell below on objective we reasonable standard what he presented in state court is far different from that and that's the court has any additional i think the characters i mean it's right off the bat there is reflecting what he says and his twenty five twenty six of his brief which is that he is conceding at some level that there was an exhausted claim here the nature of the fight has shifted and understandably we recognize that we don't think it renders an exhaustive but i do want to touch on just a few things really quickly first of all just picking a head at the merits that he does have a non frivolous claim here and i want to address the cour
know and two men or two women want to get married i'm not going to stop them they can sit there and argue over whose turn it is to clean the dishes and get no real emotional ripper over who's whose family they're going to can we trump those who don't agree with us slow down a second so i mean personally you don't mind if bill and frank hang out together and get married well i honestly just my friend  i've got a brother in law who's gay came out in the seventy's i thought back to do that and a few years ago my sister came out i love them no less i may not agree with them you know she likes we've been datas i don't  but i honestly know i'll still respect them they have dignity that needs to be recognized and the choices they make to live their life say no that's on them i'm not blocking that but i do want that community to show the same level of respect that they're asking from everybody else so when one proposition eight fired off in southern california  was california burning the book of mormon and spray painting mormon churches with graffiti i'm sorry you lost me there you want me to support your cause win me over by the wisdom of your philosophy show me through your actions that it's something worth my attention of but here's a think i know you've called it before and you are active in the catholic church now how do you merge those two ideas which catholics i mean is definitely my personal actions i'm not going to go that route i wrote my my son married now and i'm going to be a grandfather in june my little granddaughter audrey will be wonderful what if she's what if she's gay you know i've got a sister never in that realm already you know again who am i to judge another that pope francis came out and said that ok but can skin can you're gay sister lesbian sister go to church she does you know but i mean you know i am is that is that ok that she goes to church to a catholic church if you want to you know he's the way out in her own mind where the can whether or not it would be communion worthy is she communion worthy communion you are supposed to in your mind be right with god you follow the church's rules best you can and if you've gone to confession if it's something you're struggling with say alcoholism if you know in your heart your work and working towards what you know is right then yeah you mean you should be able to but you're avoiding the question can a lesbian walk up the aisle and get communion and that be ok with you there are rules that the catholic church has and there's what's ok with carl that are two different things ok i know you don't want to answer it i can feel it thanks a lot hey you know what you need to clear a line we've got amy that's going to call us right now ryan and amy
proceedings a little but here st we will identify ourselves and try to remember to identify ourselves when we speak we ask that at the beginning of each time that counsel seeks t counsel will identify himself or herself nd there will be announcements of when you have two minutes left in your speaking time and when your time has run please abide by time announcements if we have questions and it takes you over the time please go ahead and answer the question we would ask it if we didn't want to hear the answer to it all right with that we will go ahead and beg can you show that i mean that the showing that you have to make is that the health of alternative strategy had to be reasonable and i don't know how in light of rough in the other case you could make that challe conflict eventually adversely affected his lawyers performance moreover he must show that it was unreasonable for the state court to find that there was no actual conflict or no adverse effect from any conflict even if that somehow creates an actual conflict there is no plausible alternative the there's no adverse effect because there's no possible alternative to transfer i that other than to withdraw the p ordinance requests to proceed and that that statement suggests there may have been some prior conversations between to me in the court and is there anything in the record that support counsel and set up for another hearing and then we can decide if this plan is voluntary or not and and then on page nine of the transcript beginning at page as far as what she did while she was still representing him which i don't see how she can do because the conflict that she had was that she could not identify the fact that the score she was incorrect but the remedy that she wanted she said the chief plain to him what would happen if she did that and the remedy that he wanted was nevertheless to go ahead and withdraw his guilty plea so how can you show that the conflict affected the representation she gave in that instance
record clearly i think i have responsibility for not getting that record in a more timely fashion and we're talking about dr drucker i'm talking about d and if we look at that evidence your honor we had a psychiatric c e done by dr michael who found the claimant did not have sufficient mental residual functional severe spinal injury as well i think your honor that that statement is rather demeaning not only to my client but to all psychiatry so i mean i don't think the government would go ahead and and he had her quite limited and in fact limited her to basically what would be sedentary work with some significant impairment in being able to use her hands the far as i can tell from reading his notes it looks like he had a chance to look at two m r i s and no treating those that were provided from any of getting back the issue your honor of the of the evidence and dr drucker's knows there's two questions one is whether or not they're relevant in terms of what they indicates well they don't really show that she would be mentally disabled but the other issue is whether or not they would prove her credibility as they've been used as a vehicle to show well they weren't in the rafters so she was incredible i just don't see in this case your honor where there was any any clear and convincing treat the plaintiff for some period of time but his treatment essentially involves noting of her complaints monitoring her medications and whether or not those medications caused an adverse what medical evidence is there what is there other than the all over again and say well never mind about all that demeanor staff we're just we can't just decide with a jury should have found somebody not guilty or guilty i mean yes it would have to go the other right because we can read the paperwork and you know why would argue that in a case where the examining physician findings are conclusory and not necessarily supported by by his or her observations and contradicted by a state agency reviewing physician whose evidence is consistent and who they end with the independent clinical findings it does serve a substantial evidence and as an administrative law judge is appropriately can appropriately rely on that evidence from that  plaintiff's counsel also says spent a lot of time talking about the issue of riemann and on the issue of new evidence we would argue your honor that there is no good cause for this new evidence to the considered by the court matters if that if the administration is arguing that the treating physician didn't order them and the administration did order them i think all of the diagnostic
why political opinion in he helped he gave food and clothing to north korean refugees in no in no way there's no evidence that he actually helped them cross the border or helped them these people living in a factory or hiding in a factory but it wasn't it wasn't i believe in my real record that was not the racial aspect or the  i guess maybe your answer my question that's what distinguishes it is the humanitarian aspect of it because without anything other than the fact that he counted these people in the warehouse and they were obviously cold and hungry and he provided them with food clothing shelter that kind of conduct if it were engaged in here would be a crime the first thing new people are just to legally in china for some length of time and as you point out the province borders on north korea that's correct but i think where the prosecution lies i think in this country as well i think they try to these refugees were they asked to share continuously where the refugees on the record in page one twenty five a she testified that he was continuously questioned about the koreans whereabouts on ninety eight and there's no other
that he tried he made every effort to obtain that information and put that he was unable to be supplied affidavits which are in the record showing illustrating that his family members try to obtain his file from his attorney in canada but that he was unable and so if if we if we have public records available to us in which he had told other authorities and perhaps had provided other information to canadian authorities in connection with an asylum petition then wouldn't that be his attorney who we come back and get a story that he wants he wants money and at that point doesn't mistrusting have an obligation to make application to the canadian government on his own without going through his attorney in canada while for whatever reason the petition was not able to do that we requested whether whether your firm made any efforts to obtain these records from the canadian government well being that i haven't been with the firm there since since the time that we handled this case however i do know that we did request and we have on record i believe th for obvious reasons masterman security saying that mr thing is who he is what happened to him actually happened and also for a sandwich in his eligibility whether or not he had a criminal record although he did admit like eventually that he used these false identities at the may second two thousand and one hearing that he did as i mentioned asylum application to include one of his names but after that discussion there still was no addition of the two other names the false name to use in greece reasons she used that he stated that he used his you know matriculation documents to establish his identity in canada in order to get his canada canadian driver's license and identification however the matriculation records that he provided he had of being involved with militants judging from his demeanor his testimony that i j noted or found that his custom his testimony about his cousin seemed everything made it up at the last minute and then only later realized that it didn't fit in with the rest of his testimony and there were other consistencies like you said he was in hiding and then he presents a picture of himself playing out a couple of the tournaments and being photographed and although he later explained that it was because he'd only played on and that it wasn't village to collect kilometers away he only said that after he was challenge and it still doesn't explain that if he was why if he was in hiding that everybody in the community knew him well enough to find him asking the plan was tournaments and all of the other things that failure to provide sufficient corroboration was fatal to his claim he provided affidavits but they were of women or proto probative value because the people who signed them did not speak english the affidavit were in documents because he did not he himself did not read english and he wasn't familiar with the signatures of all the people who provided them and he had no idea how these documents came to be met with regard to the canadian document he
the district court would not either follow her own dispositive motion cutoff or the law there were improper standards applied to the motions considered by this district court to begin with the defendant who brought the defendant you're correct rather however the diligent standard is presuming that the district court would agree to change its deadlines only for one side and not for the other when the law clearly allows for the court to both have  trial case management conference that was presented to the district court that included a number of agreed upon disputed legal and factual issues that would have precluded a finding of summary judgment or precluded a finding that this point as i understand the procedural posture of the case all the discovery had been completed crack the motions cut off the been completed except for motions related directly to the trial such as motions in l are some kind of diligence and here we just record made up line held to your wife you and your wife failed to show good cause because of a lack of diligence pointing out that counsel had two months before the deadline for filing was only on our end when you have a pretrial conference which is designed to get to ignore analyze whether or not amendments are appropriate i mean this is like a lot of cases that that you this court has already evaluated for example in  on appeal to six thirty eight found that at the pretrial conference it was the district court's role to evaluate whether or not it was appropriate under sixty eight the rule that supersedes complete pleadings to take a look at the evidence and allow for that evidence to be incorporated in the presentation at trial if nothing to trying to mentor complaint and a month later when it was time for the pretrial filings the county deadest the county said it would too and raised these issues to the court and raised them in the form of motions in limi required simply because the county could have but did not bring it just positive motions to engage in a time wasting our size of having a trial where there is no complaint in support of the claim that the plaintiff is trying to prove so i think that what this case boils down to frankly is a claim that's familiar to parents all across the country of it's not fair it's not fair that you heard her late motion and not arly motion but i think that the facts of this ca show that the plaintiffs in the defendant were not identically situated this is not a case where there really was the same situation in both cases and the court was simply arbitrary capricious not to treat both parties identically when presented with identical