MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
consider additional factors in a class action namely one the resources of the debt collector into the number of persons adversely affected the issue presented here is whether the court of persons adversely affected as an additional relevant factor in an individual case this factor would be effectively subsumed within the black language of subsection one and with therefor become redundant in the class action case and or subsection to the phrase all other relevant factors temple would render the additional language of subsection two meaningless blurring the otherwise for sysfs distinction between the factors the court should consider under each of the two subsection the upshot is that at least two thank yous as a matter of law cannot be considered as other all of the factors in an individual ratched namely number one the resources of the debt collector into the airplane here that is the number of persons ever adversely affected and again a matter of law that cannot be said well i think that the court has a broad discretion under other relevant factors but because there are specific distinction in terms of the would assume that the inclusion in an individual case would be an air of a matter of law and the reason again is because  statute but that it would also negate the legislative purpose for things shouldn't between the two sections one to one is for an individual case there a the real issue comes down to the fact that whether or not the plaintiff the same time is able to prove that there were several other people affected by this it doesn't affect the legal relationship between increase costs in the with respect to attorney fees that are generated in the case in order to resolve that would also result in plenty of disputes in the courts regarding whether this information should be  confusing and misleading terms because they think they put in almost two thousand dollars in debt that they paid and paid seven years ago so there were four violations with mrs king alone that's frequent and persistent and how many more  she found it was deliberate and therefore intentional specifically made it fine if she found it was serious which of course it was because they they required the dispute to be in writing and to be accompanied by documentation which is not required by the statute that's the that there was there was before that before the summary judgment there was virtually no time on the floor eighteen there was a paragraph in a complaint letter which i had you know which i had and my of my whole argument on the i'm not going to set the practices is that a federal violation is also a state violation i didn't win that and then preparing for trial i spent a fair amount of time looking around to see whether i found that there had been no telephone communication we also had three other lawsuits pending at the same time for a dance that occurred during that same period of time that state could have made the calls and sold the only
but you know secondarily you don't need to make that his statements were not voluntary he was in a very precarious present position as a frocked chief that means that he was sort of provisionally promoted it was but but that was something t chose nontraditional punishment over a court martial and by doing that he gave up something but he also gained something he would have faced a greater punishment had he been convicted of his offenses  but by choosing non judicial punishment he guaranteed that he would never have to face a conviction in his record where is his argument going you've heard two questions from the court could you please direct your argument more to these issues what is the sore is the obligation and is your opponent right the only remedy that would make any sense either is the exclusionary rule the remedy iran or the error that at one ten to one twelve and cited in this brief he was entitled to a cleansing wronging if there was a reason to suspect that the article thirty one the warning had been given to him earlier their record does not show that  n guys are had a reason to suspect that the warning was in the navy has assumed for purposes of argument all throughout the proceedings today that the warning wasn't given but there was nothing in in at that time to ask warning if the navy officer in charge you had reason to think that one statement was given that's the navy's zinj that's what is that there was no error and considering a voluntary statement and the second is that if there was an error by not getting the original article thirty one people wanting or not a cleansing warning that would not be prejudicial because this wasn't a court he didn't have any from that particular situation because he chose a non judicial punishment the statute sad as that where that statement is solicited at violation of in the navy for seven years and that he was on the road to becoming a chief and they ascribed to have a certain amount of knowledge he was in prize january thirteenth at nine fifty seven am in the morning that he had a right to counsel that the navy would pay for that right he was advised to gather i genuinely fifteen that he could alas not to have non judicial punishment he also waive that right there the navy's position is  as there are now for their question is the navy asks this court to a for the decision on the part of correction no discussion in that case for an explicit corresponding exclusionary rule the court's remedy for that violation was to exclude the statement turn in my second point i think the remedy to if failing to truthfully report to the chain of command the incident that had occurred on the night of january eleventh are statements not probative of either of those charges or is it is she the commanding officer here knew that he had been your client had not made her report the injury her statement establishes that she was the
about the drug activity had they done more than that i would i would tend to agree but just stop and somebody ask for me is really not consistent with what terry stops all wow that's what i arrested him if it was eighteen days it is home same as presumably they would still have searched his home if it was the day after they learned of his address that was the only place they knew off to arrest him delayed the triggering event they only had his home address so why is it twenty two days makes the search of his home more onerous than had they done it the day after they learned of price as well that would have been found regardless so the people would still continue to assert as well
significant is number one i think the same case which is very important to this number to the government in their response reply brief that seems to think that the relief that's ultimately being sought here was asylum and that's not the case what we have here is a gentleman who's of justice that was christian who is entitle to the relief that's an important that's not really the case and i wish it were the case i'm an immigration law practitioner of every adjustment of status based on a petition by united states citizen was automatic my life would be a lot easier years had appeared nearly a dozen times the point is there has to have been for lack of a better term a rescue it's the quality of someone who had been vigorously appearing for over five years the one hearing where he's finally eligible for relief from deportation it's the one hearing subsequent i'm going to design oh he misses the court date and i think i used the adjectives in my research something murky about what happened we know we got bad advice from a can look at we certainly this court has said that and certainly we also have to look at it we're talking about obviously the possibility of deportation based on rather technical grounds to what our country calls the axis of evil so that is something i think is appropriate to consider in the was there with all of these things going on again that's what you know i certainly opening a business is not except for certain things but these other things were going on but they were not brought out in any form or fashion he spoke informally with the district council and his brother who didn't know his presentation and that it he had appeared for his hearing he would have been suitable candidate for the exercise of discretion now your honor i don't agree with that contention as distinct from the same case for example where the court specifically pointed out and where the i asked counsel conceded that argument that had that elian shown up it would have been only a formality essentially of granting him the relief case there's no question that the alien understood the time that he was supposed to be present at the hearing he had been told both in writing by the court that if he didn't appear he would be subject to an end of censure order we've been told that in person by the court when he appeared before the not concede that that would constitute exceptional circumstances there's been no indication that the elian ever attend intentionally ever intended to attend the hearing where he was absent his because no evidence of an airline ticket or any other information that would suggest he ever intended to be present at that hearing in the first flights and i think in order to provide exceptional circumstances the sudden illness that this wife would have would have to be shown to be something beyond this control of the time that he relief i think when you take the strength of the belief coupled with the harsh and deportation coupled with the near certainty of relief and i say there's an immigration practitioner if i can win this case and hand in my ticket finally
indirectly or attempting to do so the court of the obstruction of justice enhanced much in this report case on two grounds the first round was based on attempted phone this report received the enhancement based on the fact that a series of phone calls extending over five days were made from the jail to the victim's house  the operator was attempting to make the connection but there was never any contact between mr four and the victims so we don't know we don't know the purpose of the phone and the only thing we have that here the courts didn't address the men's rights issue whatsoever and that's part of the reason why we're here is we feel that this case needs to be remanded to the court and do that  there is incidentally in the greer case discussion of other conduct by the defendant but review of the decision makes clear that that other more against flagrant conduct wasn't considered as part of the obstruction but this court has not addressed the issue to my knowledge the notice was good enough and hernandez necessarily has to be good enough here with respect to the post arrest telephone calls which in our view provide an alternative basis for holding the enhance
standard stuff you get accused of a break up you probably won't even notice it
i'm sorry repeatedly so the fact of the b i got that wrong really doesn't justify sending it back there on this court i've no doubt many who are much more familiar with the would be counted let me ask you one question about the proceedings before the b i the government ever argued that they were changed country conditions to the best of my knowledge it did not sure on concede that that argument in terms of the impact of the movie i mean that the circuit has been clear since before the time of the hearing that was allowing activity can count as political and it is clear that the prosecuting attorney perhaps probably in my view probably come to the conclusion because their own had shown past persecution which would entitle him to under the law of this circuit a presumption of future persecution upon return this is a r presumption however and because of the legal error that the immigration judge and the government attorney and the board were all operating under they viewed it unnecessary to go any further and address the issues that would the government could raise to rebut the presumption instance that the agency or the board has not decided correct or on right now the board as well i mean is judged by the way through this as i read this the agency had a chance to decide but that the board issues with the board did not do this properly t general for an exercise of his discretion we would not usurp that at all that's correct question that you've argued i says a little different which is that you want to say ok if that's what you get that's what the court things then we need now the government now it's an opportunity shelters change country conditions but change country conditions sounds to me very much like an affirmative defense and you have a theory and you had an opportunity to show change country conditions and if you didn't put that evidence on at the initial hearing i don't know why you get then they screwed up you come to us we all know we're sitting here having our arguments made a lot of time to step we know they screwed up and now you want us to send it back which you know now they're hearing
characterization and the problem with them with the district court deciding that it doesn't matter any of that is because of the testimony shows that there was no contraband with in plain then stops the door from closing doesn't matter whether he enters a room or not to do it that he he's letting the illegal search continue to proceed by holding the door open which he had no right to have open in the first place is that fair was that your point exactly right i agree that a certain asked when she says come in there's already a meal with a search in progress so how can that be proper consent since there's already an illegal search in progress and the officer obviously going to arguable that you can sense it later the court had to find as a fact that she consented for the search of the belongings regardless of whether or not there was a search at the door because one's personal belongings still maintain the fourth amendment protection afforded them even if i think room itself and west when whatever in plain view of the room is not so that there's consent at the door but there's also the independent consent for the belongings within the room well but if there's no expectation of privacy in the room then i privileges at least until it's time that they ask him to leave the reason it's important what the hotel does in the relationship between the hotel and have about fees that is because under the fourth amendment the reasonable expectations of privacy often turns on the though the person has possession and the owner of the property haven't told him get out even though the owner already knows there might be a problem with a credit card the order has been told and he got out and your position is that any police officer knocking or not knocking you just enter the room he feels like it is  room and i think that the record doesn't show at all that you actually did that in this report didn't make any findings like that so with that we would submit thank you
has a well founded fear of persecution in armenia because he did not exhaust that claim before the board does not have the court does not have jurisdiction over the board's denial of this motion to reopen and the court lacks jurisdiction over the issues that the petitioner has raised that are that occurred after the closing of the administrative record which was after or denied his motion to reconsider in june two thousand and five in your view what do we doesn't but given the facts before the immigration judge at the time the decision was still married and actually there was a misapprehension of fact in the operative counsel's argument today divorce decree was issued on may sixteen two thousand and one and that's in the ministry of records and he left just our last lithuania in january two thousand and one so he was still married although you might have been separated at the time and i don't know what consequence that would have with or while in that country receive an offer of permanent resident status citizenship or some other type of permanent resettlement unless the stablished is that he was just passing through and i think  by the state department that stated that there is no prosecution of the newspaper and media personnel that drastically changed and if you look into their country reports for the last two years you could see that no
another version of our show another show that focuses on the serious focus on the artists in film and you may not know them we're bringing them to the to the to your camera to your attention via these shows and today we have the privilege of meeting a four day who lives here on twenty twenty three and he is a metal sculpture and he's invited us into his house to tell us and show us how he makes his metal sculptures and the both of ok now we're going to cut the cut the fed is in the back now we have to make a dimple here so that the will older the the arm and we make the dimple about this position and and if we do this light the course he was playing with something engels saying gold piece of steel and something like this and well them together in a certain way and said wow this looks beautiful maybe something is something like coming to is what is this one called again
things but it is not clear that jessie understood you know all the ram patients in that short period of time well there was no evidence of actual fraud in this kind of a case where there's absolutely no evidence of the guy actually doing anything i mean so any child who accepts the position of being an attorney in fact for their mother or father or whatever runs the risk of not being able to then hear it through a bank account or whatever even though there's no proof that they were involved in any kind of financial maneuvering well judg problems and also the problem of showing any undue influence because jesse was largely with the fans most of the time you know they're
linking your time to the murder to the police in a psychological examination and a conversation in jail you have three times where you needed that he did this and then now he's going to come difference if the prison was recovered from the steering wheel of the ca
property to businesses residences personal residence system personal property but as far as this case is concerned it involves two businesses discount roofs and the same mess true which was probably on which these companies do business which which would be discount ruffian saved max or the running i suppose of that of the compan of a different test when he said that well we have to look at the appearance of impropriety and we want to err on the side of caution and well my parents or something really in any of the suits and therefore it was almost as if she no knowledge that he was actually her lawyer and therefore it was almost doing this sort of equitable kind of light being that how could you wait how can you actually waive this century title to when you don't really know that this lawyer who's professing to you that he really had no can see it with her how could she weigh something when she doesn't really know wh of these companies between the two people the main issue in the case and that in that issue is that for many many years ok once one of the chair of the two people is on mr guest for a fifty fifty ownership they have  two thousand and eleven mr desboro goes back and he essentially raises her from a corporation tastes ok ones moves on and then the regulation starts this situation between these two people is somewhat confusing because they are not married but if you look at the exhibits in the record most of the third parties dealing with them think that they are so bad so important part of this is it really don't because if you look at those two ca and as i said their business affairs are confusing it's not true for work but how can you say that a suit for money owed for some bad shingles then apparently was resolved with two different settlements some of it was resolved with actually exchanging some shingles and the rest was he'd discount had to take money for the shingles that s techs claimed they owed them money for and substantial attorney's fees ok so how does the ad in any way substantially relate to a commercial divorce between these parties and forget about that it took a long time to settle apparently everything takes a long time to settle we know that ok so that's the truth is this how is this money o the individual pay the money there's no it's a payment on those guarantees no but there is there is an effort to collect on those guarantees and who pays them on it and they discount that discount  could draw from the complexity of the litigation you know you don't agree with the length of time as a parent yet the fact that these are these business relationships between these people are confused they're very confused this is not a straightforward set up where we have two people search and that's how these things pop up the surface that's right takes some time for this to emerge they did not they were not candid in their discovery answers so they say you know rate they tried to you know i don't know
the intent behind statute which is to make sure she doesn't get denied custody credit because for example you have the government failed to do the paperwork that was required again ultimately the court found that she was in custody the record supports the court's ruling in the state equal yes in their fighting so one appeal of the state cannot challenge the court's order in that regard by arguing that she wasn't in custody because the state already took the position that she was points are wrong and both points are inconsistent with the state's position in the trial court all in its brief where the state argues that she was subject to mandatory consecutive terms as the same things that she subject to mandatory consecutive terms because she was on arrested in cook county interest with a forgery that case went for she was convicted one way or another and sentenced to the department of corrections she's still on me time she's asking for is time that she was in the department of corrections on a subsequent of ants she's not entitle to that this is not simultaneous custody she was not in custody and will county at any time that she was incarcerated for the cook county offense once the cook county offense was served they refer back to will county they sentences of three years three three three to three offenses and well count now i am not sure you know you're asking for time that she spent serving another sentence offense that you committed and went to d who see you that's not simultaneous custody issues only custody that offense at that time and i think the statute is pretty clear when it says that this court decide she is not titled a credit for over a year almost worked in months of credit that she spent serving time in the department of corrections for a subsequent  thirteen in what kind of he says the state's just fundamentally wrong trial courts judge the sentencing of the sentence she's in custody in one county on those dates the prosecutor agreeing to that she was in custody that her custody in one county started in anything in this court today to support it's wrong i don't recall if i honestly right not don't recall of robinson in fact i don't recall robinson specifically involved bond ome but major cases that interpret robinson and reliant robinson show that that's not necessary on does and is positive arm i don't know that the supreme court has ruled on it but definitely this court has in at least two cases and neither of which