MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
passion showing by respondent we maintained that the boarding gates didn't impermissible fact finding in that regard rather than reminding for hearing on that issue with respect to whether the i j a had hearing and there is and there is an on the record discussion between the actually of the parties and i just was if they state that the law the case should control with respect to the first i just find his especially in credibility and to reopen the case whether it was the fault of the i j a and not living in the scope or possibly the fault of response council of that time and failing to limit the scope of the testimony the testimony was wide open at that point for whatever reason and it prejudiced the respondents and it led to a ruling by the remain i j a that there was an adverse credibility funny based on what he perceived to be inconsistency between their testimony and given the history of four coups in fiji and given the racial tensions and the animosity between need a few genes and indifferent she insists it's reasonable to presume that responder as a the proponent of the who so to speak was did not maintain animosity toward it you know for g s but that doesn't change the fact that just because once political believes that it automatically precludes a finding y in addition your honour's put his own past experiences at issue when he supplied a declaration on june tenth of two thousand and two prior to the hearing and at that time he went into great detail respondent's entire case in light of current country conditions so again here we have the fourth motion to reopen based on the two thousand and six crew and that's current counsel is arguing to the board that it should reopen the entire case and finding by the way i've never heard that argument before today however with respect to the declaration that mr that filed he stated that he had heard from friends and family that conditions don't find that it is an issue before me and at seven thirty one the idea stated we have a long case that remains in effect and he further stated that the issue on remand specifically was how change country conditions would affect the respond that's all it can be interpreted as is just merely a restatement of his part declaration and his testimony it was not inconsistent with his previous testimony declaration and it provided no basis for the i j a to reopen testimony and has a persecution
against the cook county s  really didn't take place and full until this channel seven i believe it was a piece ran on on the news that's when they went back to initially two years and then ultimately five years and evidence that the plaintiff has presented both in terms of the nd amended complaint that was filed as well as all the documents pleadings motions and evidence that was presented this is an issue litigated in state court about the decision of american troops and laws correct this argument about the composition of the board could have been raised in that you give why can it be raised because that would have constitute violations of due process and procedure doesn't matter what the legal theory you have to raise all of your legal theories being one bit of litigation and i would i doubt it's the principle now if there is some to protected speech he did not let you know what happened to him equal protection he also can
the city paid one hundred fourteen thousand dollars in temporary told disability in this matter and tens of thousands of dollars in medical there were as you know from the record there were many many surgeries so within that context i just think that the commission was wrong the earlier it was wrong because first whether or not penalties were to be issued section nineteen hey penalties especially because when in this case for instance bothering to review the disco gram which he did now which was necessary but then they go on the find it was told tunnel responding to tunnel vision allowing it to consider the opinion of a one time examiner while ignoring the opinions of several treating physicians and even its treatment for the low back so this is why dr lawrence ultimately decided you know we're going to have to have we're going to have to have surgery on the on the on the back and can't have any conservative treatment here so it was  thank you thank you
o have visit our north tonawanda plant and show you what goes into our products in the way of cost care craftsmanship and quality should be at its best
message partner who was pregnant and they were going to harm her and the child if he continued in his position as a police officer so we're basing our argument  relegate somewhere else and the government didn't do that and even if it is it was not safe for her to live somewhere else in guatemala the gang problem is not only in the area where she lived and is officer they don't want the investigation of go forward they issued threats they eventually kill him now you're saying years later she couldn't live in another part of watermelon because of crime no violence  notice that she is there good morning the clergy mete out on behalf of the respondent attorney general i'll start with the argument regarding the waiver of the past persecution claim if you look at the brief shishir before the board it's clear that there was no argument regarding past persecution the arguments made were regarding the nexus argument with regard to social groups and it looks like in the last page there was a political opinion argument that there's no argument  religion was all she argued before the board which actually wasn't a basis of even i j or the board's decision so it seems this place but it's clear that she did not make a specific past persecution argument with regard to smuggler and told me to go to the united states because he feared for me she actually contrary to what counsel said she never said or testified that she was threatened or that he said my family was threatened he told her he was threatened and therefore he feared that his family would be harmed but he never she did not testify that he said to her hey this game frightens me and my family and i'm afraid for you and you should leave he just said i was threatened and i'm afraid for you and you should leave so there was never that extra step of saying the gang threatened to kill me and my family in fact her testimony was that he was killed and then when she was asked on cross examination if she knew him or she knew that it was the same people who had threatened him she said she did not know who killed him that his family knew but they wouldn't tell her so there's no link actually in her testimony between the  threats that her boyfriend received and the people who eventually killed him so there's a record evidence that those people were were even the same people so there's no connection really between the threats that child has family there that you know support them in that way when she was asked why she didn't present a death certificate that she is in contact with family there that could have gotten her when she just didn't get it so it's clear that she still is in contact with family so friends had been she could have found out about them but there's
this was not just an act of bystander but now i take it to be that i don't have the excerpts of record with me but the defendant in moving to dismiss did not cite which portion of address the public part of public property issue leave first cats which will light upon the supreme court case of brentwood academy held this you know there's all these tests nebulous tests and all these factors and four seven four seven factors no better answer to that your honor so what i can only repeat is here's what the court considered and i think based on what the court considered that it was a proper finding and that there were not sufficient facts that would allow received a motion to dismiss under twelve and decides to convert it into a motion for summary judgment he has to tell her she has to tell the parties directly i'm making this rule twelve motion they're worried about jurisdiction that's another issue if they're worried about summary judgment with all of its ramifications that's a totally different ballgame now somebody entitle to know and i would think that the lawyers by
whether they should agree to remain for that purpose but there's not much we can do well i want you to look at another factor if mr javid is removed from the united states and his wife ha and on account of his medical opinion the judge also found that in pakistan these two groups and the political factions that were fighting with each other were liking that and therefore they disagreed they were like enemy combatants you know war and you can create a style into enemy combatants in a war that's really outside the range of immigration law political parties are definitely what exactly what they are political parties and decision so i think that is if he was found credible he absolutely must be granted sun and as a backup must be granted convention against torture because the country which is totally and completely corroborate this murderous situation that is going on between the two parties and between other factions and and the the impunity which the police force has in pakistan and the current collaboration between various criminals in pakistan and the police force and mr grey became a victim of this whole situation so his testimony has to be taken into account at least with the requirements of the convention against that's another way to do despite warning after warning after warning saying that you know that to the respondent i say to the petitioner in this case that if you continue to be under sponsor to questions that is if you continue to when he's a judge and whole no no no that's not what you were asked if you were asked this question please answer the question also the gratian judge found that the petitioner in conjunction to doing this he was also teaching in american officials what they think of our property and i would write be different from what some administrative agency and another country would think of it people tend to think there are well motivated behave well whether they do or second of it of an individual personal judgment about how your group should be characterized constitutes a kind of fall of testimony that makes your your story of why you've been persecuted
first of all aired by failing to identify all of her severe impairments now that was not a harmful error by itself and became harmful when the l j fails to include all of the limitations from those impairments in a residual functional described the many limitations he has and by were my own judge also rejected her daughter's lay observations in which she also described the many limitations that her mother had largely from the problem and we just like it's a it's a difficult impairment to diagnosis these a diagnosis of exclusion where you have to exclude other causes of the symptoms that are related to fibromyalgia similarly once you find you have it there's not much they can do about it they can recommend exercise they can give you various medications which she had tried shooting and that was taking gavin pension and that's in the record and that was the they conservative treatment that was helpful we can and we're reducing her symptoms but that doesn't mean if they're all gone that's not a reason once again off three of her treating physicians said they were the symptoms were still there and she described the symptoms she was still experiencing i have trouble understanding that it's it's a medical term and it can mean it can mean different things for each individual and so if your if your pain level headed nine and your take medication that knocks it down to a for your kids you're managing the pain by knocking your pain levels down before but it doesn't necessarily mean that you can only function with that remaining pain level i think man that responding favorably to conservative treatment similarly can undermine allegations of disabling pain and here we have conservative treatment we have a treatment as one medication got it and she certainly responded favorably to that treatment painting or changing notes also indicated that she spelled out the questionnaire with minimal objective evidence available and she also state recommended an independent medical examination for a quote more objective measurement and notably no sex examination at once again conservative treatment if that's all that's available and it doesn't cure your condition it's not a reason to disbelieve what your description of the symptoms you're experiencing throughout the words freely admitted and it's doubt pension was helping she wouldn't have taken it if it wasn't helping what's the point but it was helpful but that's not a reason to disbelieve her
big possibility of gambling in these games do we do what is the what is the security connection that having materials that increase gambling
and if the case isn't settled by then i'm going to give the estate away to the salvation army and i knew god damn through me what is it oh that must be big now i told him to meet me here goddamn or i got a letter from great bear god damn drake oh dear drake glad to hear that you're feeling good and everything's going so well i was skipped it of course i'm ok parish jesus christ sorry i suppose a pretty big deal  there and never came never came back never showed up  again and we want a hundred ninety dollars because he knows that's what we've got saved up mr johnson and i have been saving for a long time to buy a boat with two how was that when you
in fact it couldn't be as strong stronger than situation and moon obviously that happens a lot where there's a minute under the table om you know mr gary could have been paying for
that he kicked this case appeared on the d w p call of this court and this is a heavy criminal matter and she has a constitutional right to both a direct appeal as well as affect understand your health problems and your other problems but counsel rob here's the bottom line is she needs if it's a she i mean that she is he said he needs to get this case properly before us the record isn't hasn't been prepared this is dating back more than a year i think you should seriously consider seeking leave to withdraw and allow us to appoint a state appellate defender or  a public defender so that this case can get better get result either wise we will you know it at the situation could worsen and i want to direct your attention to today's the chicago tribune where there was a i think you failed to comply with our rules so far because we had an order directing you to to file out the record as well as a brief by a certain time and you haven't you haven't filed the record yet but we can keep this very short  if you would answer the question whether you intend to withdraw let me know what you want to do let us know what you want to do that we don't take any filings  illness all right well mr vance i just want to know whether he thought regarding you know any issues that might be related to your representation of the defendant those will have to be dealt with you it between you and the client i'm only concerned as to make sure that her his appeal is properly heard before us and let me just ask you one more question that is the status of the record it is still not filed to file your motion to withdraw giving proper sed notice to your client pursuant to the rules and we will rule on your motion expeditious and we can almost assure you that it will be favorably ruled upon to allow us this case to go forward ok any any any other the russians thank you very much mr vance for appearing on behalf of the state's attorneys anything all right thank you very much mr vance that if you do that comply with this oral order and we will i will put it in writing you understand that you could subject yourself
served nothing was ever see what then happened is there was an enormous amount of product that was in the warehouse and that was one of the factors we took into account that you know we're going have to bring in take some eyes down here and move the stuff out runs contrary to all of this circuits and other circuits authority dealing with once when someone is wrongfully enjoin as well as the case that it relies upon the rocky mountain case in the rocky mountain case the court came to the establish the parties and direct opposition if you're not in direct competition what the effect of that on your case that would be that would go towards actual damages another words our clients ability to get profits as a measure of lost income on an actual damages i know or are very aware of trademark law i mean that is that is common practice and that's what trademark holders the first thing they do put people on notice that they're violating your rights they put them on in there's a reason for doing  been addressed and it was and that's why courts including central district have very specific requirements as to what you need to have an emotional summary judgment because it is routine is that these aren't really is a drastic remedy you're denying someone their right to a
appeal filed timely in this case hearkens which deals with a petition for rehearing filed on july second which if it was construed to be a motion for reconsideration which presumably means that the appeal was  to watch her husband out of the house to want to get her hands on his money and apparently other witnesses who can testify that the police officers and one of them defected and did not do their jobs  i don't understand is the court is the question really i don't think we can do anything about it now because you've conceded all right dad i can't here today i don't see any way around that thank you  true at the state court trial did the defendant claim that he was innocent as a defen
supervisors who made some of the decisions that he's complaining about made comments six or took action six pressing racial animus i'm thinking of the comments attributed to mr sabir and the conduct may two thousand and sixteen but now i'm looking at this from the perspective of the hostile work environment claim which would not require a specific cause a specific adverse action it would prove it would require an assessment of unless there's other questions from the analyst or decision thank you
collateral value three c says that the current should take into account as appropriate and practical under the circumstances things like the fair market value and it lists the fair market value there specifically so i measure the loss to think in the form of additional risk and one way to value the additional risk that they took i'm not surprised about that they themselves put on it which was the down payment that they have aspired to that isn't a value it's a risk defend it come forward and said ok you have to talk to the value of the collateral that would have given the district court the opportunity to service it some sort of estimate on the very small evidence that we have on the record as the  about not only because the testimony about the condition of the apartment buildings but also just because of the fact of it which defendant attributes to a general downturn in the economy of his father's ability to make those payments so there is evidence in the reason on the record to believe it is far and wide than that but in any case that amount of loss is purely speculative at this point and so that takes me back to the end it states we cox which is quite said unless you can show us an amount of money that had not resulted in the appropriate guid were in front of a different judge and just that there's some evidence on the record that whatever the dispute between defense counsel and the judge actually rise and keeping in mind that this court
the violence was quite minimal six hundred seventy dollars but that's all they could save given the fact that she was merely a helper of seven eleven and she was trying to save as much why don't you go back where you came from it horribly hopes is that going to i think that this question came up at the beginning of the hearing about whether she
well this is really great for us we are so clear to have you here in city hall and we're broadcasting live right now so people are watching you all across the city and beyond and of course will also take care put on the website to and last but not least to yes
recommendation addressed as it was sort of one of the latter arguments that mr braswell i must have raised in the direct appeal no it was not raised in the director feel but question we've got is whether this procedural bar can we get to this question or not what's your view if because it is something that is easily dressed by the district courts  indictment i and i think i'm pushing counsel inferred that it meant to address the ineffective assistance issue but also there's the problem  the evidence that we've been prevented presented to discovery would have provided that information and if they were still lingering doubts that trial breached the jury instruction everything before trial did specify the
district court after the first administrative hearing where the judge issued another favorable decision it was appealed to the central district here in california omitted crucial evidence in his hypothetical to the v so the attorney that was attorney lightner at that time he asked  affidavit from the claimant in the eye opening stating if the judge cut him off and if we try to enter a new thing and the way he yelled all the time made him sick when he left s commissioners finding as the final decision so the claimant appealed to the night circuit and in pro per and then he was he was able and legitimate reasons based upon substantial evidence in the record it was just an attempt to uphold his prior just as in and find against the claimant so we have here is a claimant who has been diagnosed with major depression who would appear to be listing twelve for and we do have an l j who conducted a hearing who was not an impartial educator as required by the administrative procedures act so particular procedure to be found to develop that the more truthful has been discussing with you the development of the difference between the dictionary of occupational titles and the jobs that are being discussed is that regulation for benefits on april one two thousand and one and and has been receiving s s i benefits so what we're dealing with here is a period from march ninety six to
permanent structure and it has generally speaking and in this case based on the evidence here it has a regular salad blocking friends or on the inside and also on the outside and empty outside or very usually is a and then the package goes off if you will you know the package alerts and how many minutes i guess it's a couple hours later at that residen hours when they followed him around town to get you know out of the car other people get in and out of the car truck so they're there was a lot of goings on in between but did they see him exit with the package that claim and then he comes back to his house but we don't know that he has the parcel right but then the parcel goes off at his house right and i gather from the evidence of the trial that are not talking some kind of g six law enforcement vehicles in his driveway which then created as some sort of an emergency was a circumstance really entirely and the troll of law enforcement great to hear from the government we do know where the officer was but it's not in the warrant he doesn't describe her yes he describes it he has followed the mr thomas to his residence he doesn't say exactly where his part doubt that this person is the one who was getting the drugs and that he wasn't really going to need to establish him i mean if if you have reasonable suspicion that he has the package that just got picked up from the post office then you have reasonable suspicion to you thank you very much