MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
back up a little bit yes you know hideous has to be based upon a constitutional claim of course not isn't it clear given ross that there really is no constitutional right to counsel or discretionary appeals such as his that he didn't get relief when his claim had never been reviewed so i don't see anything that makes this claim and this argument of extreme and extreme inequity any are stronger than the one that was presented earlier i think generally speaking he is bringing a claim that this court has argued review the law on the facts the courts in pennsylvania haven't really reviewed along the facts there is no s supreme court the the real meat of the claim is not nearly as obvious early on in the process and so i use are not overall frequent they are significantly more frequent in the pennsylvania supreme court and they are the u s supreme court because you don't really get into the meat granted and point you realize you know whatever they may have realized this is becoming mere error of you know that's not what we what we do here or there this is just not something we're going to consider a program that was not obvious earlier in the process prefix i think for both of those reasons the i g is not particularly remarkable i don't think it was them trying to you know avoid having to create a relief i think it was likely but i'm trying to parse trying to figure out what happened here you know and that would be something i would be happy to write something for quickly for the court after the argument but i would need to dig a little deeper into what we said in our briefing you know grant reopening they have to be a determination that he was entitled to effective assistance of counsel from a constitutional perspective and then the from the year strickland to proffer standard applied and if we were to find that he was denied if it was all to have determined that it was tonight effective assistance of a pal of the council then we would argue it would go back to the very position where the  that he did he had a right to do that but if you were not to believe our position then it goes back to where does the error supposedly occurred ed that is in line with what school yet actually said as opposed to complicating factors here but i have heard nothing that changes the fact that the below underneath all of the complicated procedure absolutely controls and so do you concede that there could be an ineffective assistance manner when you don't have a council to begin with so you say ross would control that yes
when the police you know are edge about gun violence but i think that this case will come out the same matter where you are in regards to race you know the supreme court in mendenhall said that race is a factor that the court can consider but again i don't think that  officer and then to request to speak and that's very important to communicate that complies is not required and that's very different from what happened in this case where the officer took over rated to mr de castro guy out immediately focused on him and walked toward him but there were
shakey's this year we're going to utilize the mechanism of the ever rising are in work for the new york state retirement fund last year we were able to pay the full amount
psychiatrists are the or can't can you kind of bootstrap continuing into cation by continuing administration medication for the new bootstrap that by using all just wondering i would like to hear from both parties chief justice on that issue in light of our most recent publication of this recorder it was
in mr morris case the fundamental right to due process was violated because the prosecution relieved itself of the very heavy burden of proving material that yonder reasonable doubt in his case the heart of the government's theory isn't something the jury would have to follow what matters here is europe and so i'm not sure that you've got anything that you can point to that requires the government to prove this proposition that you're arguing they're shifting the burden of proof if the government doesn't have to prove they're actually fake what more is required that you don't have to find the burd pointed out in my brain i just i don't i don't understand this as a burden shifting argument i don't understand what occurred to be burden shifting the government was required to prove that mr morris acted with intent to defraud and one of the ways that we prove that that these things are fake and then just say he knew they were ok but they're required to prove every necessary fact beyond a reasonable doubt that they told us we're not that we're not going to we're not going to stablish that if in fact these bonds were real which we don't know with certainty either way because the government chose not to establish it and they could they could have brought an expert witness we know for sure right now whether they're really that if they were in fact real then mr morris in good faith when he was speaking these handful of individuals was speaking from a place of truth what he was telling them was genuine if you believe in these things he didn't own malam didn't have control over the money he was telling them that
trial court just followed the supreme court authority and ignored and northants to disperse district that has ruled on it on a form not convenience cases but if it just looked to the supreme court  when you have a defendant that does business in calling for for not convenience purposes it is permissible and advice to look at the nature and extent of the we are naming an individual to accept service of process in st clair county therefore you can't do that same thing only isn't your residence and it isn't your place of business in this case advisable and proper to consider the character and nature extent of the business that is drawn in the county of residence so you've got an incident that took place in came but you've got that defendant  reasons having nothing to do with that the paramount pictures of how the accident happened and why somebody was negligent the person who hit the pedestrian was negligent in king county discretion case it has to be viewed in that way you want to short circuit it because of the hearing or promised you pronounce it supreme court case and i don't think this proper role of the supreme court respectfully disagree suppose i will just say this in closing if you look at the cases cited by the defendants in their brief you can go through one in each and every case see examples of essentially religious  shopping if you will through those cases cited in a defendant's brief and will see cases where there are no medical witnesses and no truth witnesses at all in the county of the chosen form you will see cases the motion to transfer and i think it's clear from the court's ruling that he carefully considered the pertinent private interest betters as well justifying the decision of the circuit court to break the motion to transfer venue i think again it looking at the entire record before this they've completely reiterated every time that if comedians should only be exercised to change venue in exceptional circumstances when the interests and justice require it and i  think that with everything in the file with the amount of business with the location of the witnesses with the affidavits that the panel can honestly look at the the facts of this case and say this is an exceptional case where
and i think i mean that might be more of a borderline question i think probably if you don't have to i think at that point some would say you don't really have demeaning control of the car if you have to go he's given it to me right i can say it's mine i've paid for it minute right and it gets put in this lock box we don't know whether holding some things are very hard to break into so holding a box that you can't get into isn't receiving  circumstance but in any event i would also point out that it's a record and because although the defendant said that the burden is on the government but well that's true when you go to trial but once you plead guilty and seek to withdraw your guilty plea as your honor said it's a very high bar the burden is on the defendant to show that he was actually  didn't meet that element so i guess to answer your question i would say there is a factual component here i don't think the defendant is not challenging that factual component but that's part of the mix of what happened below and while the text messages were relevant because ultimately you have the
required to use the word voluntarily in order to define knowingly the defense counsel had wanted for the judge to use the word voluntarily instead of knowing requisite for money laundering so what else is there well it all started really with the indictment because the indictment charged the defendant in count one heart of this not only knowingly and tamped so i think that's where the argument came from but the fact is that the defense theory based on knowing theory the government has also argued that the count one gambling nothing a general intent crime so knowingly did not have to be included in the charge and the government made this thing argument also for however what i ask the court to do is try to look at the bigger picture here which is that there were a lot of variances in the in the indictment and in the jury instructions and when we into the transactions and we're talking about forty five i think i think it's now forty eight money laundering statutes the actual instructions that were given there were four of them three of them sent out the legal elements of money laundering and then there was a fourth one which just briefly instructed the jury to consider the evidence  or i think that the court ought to take a more conservative view in favor of the defendant if the judge did not like it willfulness finding obstruction and then of course  where she was going on an almost daily basis to the bank making the deposits of the gambling proceeds cashing the checks to settle the wins and losses and this is going on almost every week are almost daily for a well the judge said that she could have she could have done a number of things to report that this was happening and she didn't do so she had every opportunity to escape her husband and she did not do so that she she knew that what she was doing was wrong she she on cross examination i took her through every single money laundering act that she did and she said that yes she knew that she had done it but that was that was wrong the judge also focused on the finding with respect to a particular receipt which the government offered as an exhibit and that was a receipt book which she admitted was in her own handwriting in which she made receipts for gambling debts beginning in one nine hundred eighty eight mail on direct examination she said that she had not even her husband had and finding of the extent of her involvement and her faults testimony about why she didn't believe casey would have had to have been walking for her to did that's correct your honor and i think the court also noted that she did not accept responsibility she did not think get the credit for that and that is tied in of course to to whether there was an obstruction of justice which which
thought it was a foregone conclusion that the district court had been denied the defendant's version percents modification three times already and would certainly do so again there are if this is a case in which the make money profit if you use your argument until the until the economy turns around the scheme was working but if it were still steam and it was different from what he told his investors and their money would be safe that one time kid could do the transfers it would be there and back he took complete control of these funds and best of them in a way that once the market turn profits for all the illegal transactions the money in trusted by by the exchanges to ration the holding escrow could never become profits profits would million which most likely never ever are going to be able to pay off and it's not destroying component in bankruptcy certainly your honor so there are three factors that lot of money from the legal cram sessions of the government seeks forfeiture of those who got in profits this is not that kind of case he did he did these transactions towards he and he did not realize any profit from it and yet it the government is now asking can he forfeit fourteen million dollars that he never actually realized but it appears and maybe this was your point any of the beyond restitution and goes well beyond depriving someone for profit said they've made it is really man to deter other people because the possible penalty of forfeiture can be so much greater than you could hope to accomplish when your crime and because of that result looks like this not constitutional well you don't seem to be doesn't this size forfeiture make it almost impossible for the defendant to rehabilitate himself in an economic way so that with lesser fines a lesser poor preacher there's a likelihood he ever thought he was apparently a successful person until the develop a scheme that he could if given some leeway could possibly rehabilitate himself and pay a more reasonable amount to the government then this amount which makes it pretty clear that he can't ever pay anything so that is sort of a zero sum game for you get a big number but this is needed that doesn't well that might be the town but in discussing what it meant in describing and analyzing why there's no joy in several liability it used the terms interchangeably throughout the opinion that just was kept talking
space because we did a lot of hanging and everything by ourselves but in terms of the actual challenges it was sort of a big blank white room and maybe the challenge was sort of like harnessing what we wanted to do with here and there was no way that i was going to let the show house outside without at least trying and trying to get an extra special needs extra special experience yeah i mean it's a it's a lot of work but i could never imagine having a show house in visually interesting i wanted to sort of be something that there was always something for you to look at but it wasn't overwhelming so i had to sort of pick with others carefully so the traits for instance are more solid would you say was most challenging and i think the space was challenging really i think it was just fine you don't normally get houses that are twelve feet you know twelve foot ceilings being able to you know put in a great big light not worry that anybody's going to whack their head on it when they walk through just being able to really see the full retreat of this wallpaper because the ceilings are so high i think it was great we have a very loyal tight belmont fall away and then people all over the state new england this year was a breakout year for us and i think the people who are really feeling good about the
of the stache related supervised release they did so that anything related to restitution when you go to another country as part of this extradition when you're going to basically withdraw a legal resident of spain you must know that what the law  be might be special terms of we have a restitution statute all those things always provided to other countries so this was a departure from us practice here well i do know where we have with with this court i believe it is this court that has looked at there's this substantial issue of statute of limitations return home to spain and that he could essentially be supervised from spain where it would not have been an arduous and in face of restriction on his life or he could of paid restitution he could have been supervised ten in america for example the defendant argued that the extradition treaty between the united states and south africa required a worth of actual vision as part of the extradition process and in that case that had been done now this court the country to enforce the country knows about the the violation at the time and if they choose not to enforce that it's not a fantasy writers for i would not ask you although i would ordinarily address w client and you don't want to review the question as to whether you should get more or less time for cancer you're not asking to send it back and to review the stance on the questions of supervised release as to which the district court already has exercise
judge considering a warrant application has a critical role as a play in ensuring that warrants only issue based on probable cause this is what friends call the work of fourth amendment protection to perform this function magistrate judges rely end to provide campaign information and sufficient information for the magistrate judge to make a quote independent evaluation of whether or not there's probable cause that languages from fran bulk of it is things about the confidential informants criminal activities things it's not surprising that he knows the things that they're able to confirm about mr florey are things like where is he live parts that are offensive it does go on and on and on and there's this one isolated little reference to a gun and if i'm going to do this much credence to that as to be able to support the entire one i think you need to look at the entire conversation and that's where you  on what they're talking about why they're talking about it why this conversation is even taking place and to think that it matters that you know this is at the behest of law enforcement and that he is trying to get information and that there's a lot of talk  caution the defendant the opportunity to have a friend's hearing the district court heard testimony from the agent over the course of three days and i think that is significant because that indicates the judge ha bed is able to assess that when he made that statement is he trying to hide something from the magistrate judge or give his best assessment of what he knew at the time and the same goes with respect to the criminal history to the last one about the i would agree on your last point on the just a position he's provided useful information in the past two sentences later and say he's provided information during this investigation are drafted with a more general statement such as he's provided information in the past and many more specific statement about the information that's been corroborated in this piece it's true that just  mission i don't just look as because what he testified to at the hearing aid rise after listening to that conversation at some point and he doesn't mind but at some point he had a conversation with the cia where he said
in the first issue i think should be
still trying to get it back no they've given up on getting it back i remember they sent her a letter saying send back six figures worth of money  whenever i remember they said you are the disabled at all the whole thing was a fake and that we want our money back and right what i was wondering i wasn't clear on whether the judge said pay or until we're done litigating and then we'll see about the or did they decide she wasn't entitled to health benefits because she wasn't disabled at all even though the corner held the bench trial and decided that the decision that she wasn't disabled at all was an abuse of discretion  in reading that language judge carney apparently is under the impression that there's something more for the plan to do the plaintiffs haven't done anything i don't know what they're doing but they haven't done anything and it's been way out of the time and i didn't make erred in assuming that there were further proceedings before the plan what you need to do district judge is reopen the federal hop in one proceeding and allow hofman to litigate whether or not there is a nexus between call the nexus issue between her admitted disability and whether she can tie it to work yes well i'm going to get that in federal court not before the plan sability decision too was she doesn't get health benefits because she's not disabled at all has there and then she went to court and had a bench trial and it was  there was an abuse of discretion by the plan so she was treated as disabled and that's why she gets all the money and she gets to keep it for the disability if they ever made a decision three assuming because we lost a trial that she is disabled was her disability caused by her work they made that decision they made that decision  limitations that operates filing a lawsuit so whether it was sitting before the motion was filed is not a statute of limitations issue but the but the issue then comes down basically a pension plan they're not a government agency the way they like to pretend they are i misspoke i misspoke but the decision we rushed rolled issue here as to whether or not and the plan thinks we're all done but the plan as i understand it is never decided ok assuming that you are disabled it's not because of your work as a stop woman it's because of an independent health problem the plan didn't decide that because when the health benefits issue was before it decided ultimately that she wasn't disabled you say you can't work because of your disability and we say you can because she felt herself out as being able to work and then she said no i can't work look at my tax returns they show i made no money i haven't made any significant amount of money and the plan said we won't look at your tax returns and then the court said that was an abuse of discretion missional if there are tax returns there are some other abuses of discretion to the bench trial was held
was back to work for four months it took another boss time because he had an increased pain problem and he went through a series of evaluations including one by a medical expert retain was a unanimous decision we have another decision
if what you're saying is that the petition was technically insufficient relied on things outside the record as a matter of law they could do that sounds like a good old yes around it but if we're talking about  is the credit that they are stating is it is a credit to bed must have come from the records compensation settlement but there was no identification of such and if it did come from the worker's compensation settlement then under the workman's more mention of twenty seven thousand dollars which one better mention of twenty seven thousand dollars coming from iraq the compensation settlement is a completely different matter and why is it a completely different matter it's because the statute worker's compensation statute indicates that an meant but again the issue is now that the fairness customer nature of those charges to be the issue is whether the workman's compensation and precludes are we covering up the difference between those charges tition was filed roughs a two to three weeks after that those emails forwarded to the cappy of the fell judgment to mr murphy and only two days after the execution so i think in terms of bad aspects of the diligence issue in this case and carson acknowledged that he received the complaint and some people said yes really he did it doesn't the records show that there was communications between the actor's office and mr murphy that they were still looking for their money doesn't that really  documents or so attaching a record and they show you that there was a sufficient notice that was given as simply put this case shows that there was no statement by mr harrison by his
they share the same attorney and they he's paying and he has been indifferent to the concerns expressed by the other children