MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
they're all erroneous relevance objections were sustained by the court for off for matters which are obviously relevant which the court even admitted were relevant in some cases and so that they could be addressed other witnesses later in the case and never were manufacturer of the harms the potential risks of his product but that's precisely what happened here evidence was excluded of other claims made against the company evidence was excluded of complaints made about rather be able to join issue with them once you do that there was no showing of substantial similarity that the evidence was here say it was irrelevant and it was incompetent in other words this is this writing material that you forgot in material very clear from the context that the use of the word anecdotal was referenced it was used in reference to all of this evidence of other people involved in foundation and second that there's a showing of substantial similarity in the showing that relevance which in this case would be a showing that that the evidence in question related to the same neither generalized bad experience with shock therapy and it would have to have a competent witness testifying and it would have to satisfy all of the other that's the question of relating to medical science in general and in opinion that shock therapy is never appropriate it's not a proper scientific experts opinion and that's what we have here not qualified as an expert in in all medical science or even an entire branch of medical science and and and also with regard to the specific questions that he was asked there friend of the district judge here i've asked myself that many question many times here on going into it was and i think i lost ten pounds during the trial i'll leave it at that go ahead dr coffey of course put on any evidence of that whatsoever obviously if that if i could have shown that i could have won the case simply by showing that he's been damaged and that their their machine was was improper in terms of the alternative design it works after all these years and all these treatments we don't know how it works we just we just think it does so the issue in this case as you correctly pointed out of the outset is as to mr ackerman however good decor
i'd have to agree in addressing that there was a significant increase in violence indonesia two thousand and seventeen united states so on international re
looked at it and said you know i read all this stuff and i understand but i just don't think that's a good defense why you haven't really quite explain why he had to go and talk to somebody again very it's just it's just not in accordance with what was going on in this case that she would tell mr bergdahl unless she were feeling that she was in imminent danger of serious harm which is what this kind of evidence a court pointed out it wasn't a matter of getting more and more and more specific acts of violence he presented a substantial amount of violence this was a strategic decision to pursue another supreme court states that if an investigation is incomplete substantial amount about it and i think this record supports that before i conclude i would like to state that we would across the court apply the different standard  that's a factual statement whatever you consider an arm it's national statement without basis and any development of the record your honor except of course the whole record from the trial
a decision issued by this court proximately five or six months ago up until a couple days ago i thought that this case was calling for a fairly straightforward application of felix vs mail but male is still binding and valid precedent within this circuit but then the question becomes a practical one of what ought to be done with this case because the supreme court's decision is obviously going to be govern relation back issue as it applies to the states for how long is that going to take there certainly are i mean this is not just you that came up until just a couple days ago so there's no authority that's been cited by the parties instance one of those flames is a first amendment thing so that gets us to looking in at the facts of this case what really happened in this case here is a man who is talking to a woman who worked at a sacramento amended petition do they relate to the same transaction occurrence that is challenged in his original position is pretty amendment deficient and clearly they do the claims are just directed at what was mind that this man all all throughout the course of district court level twenty two fifty four the seedings was in pro per counsel the first appointed here in this court as i've indicated the four claims that he sought to add to his seven original claims clearly do need further refinement and that is the substance is a group name and of this claim on the first amendment since what he was doing was speaking to claim that he proposed you don't think that's off the wall i mean the general principle being that as long as you commit a crime by speaking it's not a crime for instance a federal security violation fraud is stock it's sure to go up i will guarantee it go up not a crime because i only spoke right but what he means but i don't understand what you're saying but what he's staying in this case what i think  and i spoke to him yesterday told me that oral argument before the supreme court in felix has been tallinder for this april so that gives this court a sense of how things are moving in that case you think you want to hand issue and in this case the final issue is the cruel and unusual punishment issue and as to that issue because the conduct here about which this man was talking to the victim in this case was really if you look at it braggadocio he was trying to how to put this delicately he's trying to have a sexual relationship with this young lady and is talking about how he can set her up with businessmen and politicians they're not high class if there is high class prostitution instead of the jury pardon me it didn't sell for the jury if that particular defense does not sell the jury however constitutional violation would it with the exception of the first amendment claim which is ludicrous the rest of them basically boil down to questions of state law which are not gradual issues and with that  validity of the federal sentencing guidelines are now before the supreme court yes it came out in different cases but that's really an issue yes and one that i'm not familiar with ok
beijing as a result of the work accident and then created the opinions of williamson or for seniors current condition is not quite what really it was their decision that was a commission or what's moving but once again looking at the continuum for this work yes it is nobody was telling him don't go to work and go do this and after the accident they work and the other thing commission a work of forty one one seven sweeps of t t for the period from april twenty sixth twenty eleven the feb seventh twenty twelve awarded thirty seven point five weeks of permanent partial disability for seven subsequent to june twelfth and you can receive a recovery for pain treatment after every a minute if the pain is related to the original action even though you're an actual medical group but but they do they
well that in this case the truck or didn't i mean the hearing that was conducted there was no evidence and my understanding is the there was no itemized attorney's fee bill submitted into evidence however both of the attorneys had an itemized bill at the hearing i think it was represented to the court that about half of the fees would have been incurred after the administrator was dismissed out of the case or the cause of action was changed but the trucker heard the arguments on all this and made a finding and the finding was that these attorneys fees didn't benefit the estate i think primarily because the estate was also released at the end at the time of the your brief and even in your brief you describe it as that finding would not be disturbed absent manifest or palpable air sometimes it's described as it really has to be fanciful  rational tried or would the fact would have made that decision i mean it's pretty tough standard to be sure it was and you know if no finding had been made that's one thing the trucker here did make a finding in the finding was this benefit of the estate so what do quite by appearing before the court and saying you know i'm not objecting to every raise every thing like that the only issue is whether this was a possible action only against the individuals and we agreed that half of it was to then approximately you see what i'm you're let me ask a question the same question real quick basically what happened here was the awful twenty's went in and said judge here's the situation there's no dispute about what the facts are the estate was released this is how much the attorney's fees for about
only question is i understand your argument is that despite the earlier briefed to the b s a explicitly and mistakenly saying that bothering me is i'm having trouble seeing any logical stopping point it almost seems like it would be equivalent to saying that anytime someone files a brief raising some other issues that they're implicitly challenging the adverse credibility determination and that seems counter intuitive in light of our specific that he's trying to challenge it was not raised for the board and the board certainly couldn't anticipate that that was the challenge that was going to be made when it was never raised to the i j a below even if there was something wrong with the so to say that the and what i take counsel be arguing here is that if the guy if you're reading the i j a opinion and then you look at the things that were a challenge in the
er twenty fourth two thousand and eleven the court was presented with numerous issues what should the college education with spence's before jessica should dr fix get any back college education  testimony showed that his wife works at the bank here in his tower and their total income for two thousand and ten was about a hundred and seventy five thousand so being on the other hand at the time of the hearing last october w her fit here as an elementary school teacher through the date of the hearing her greatest yearly income was thirty five thousand sent solis also married to a retired english bates presented evidence regarding jessica's college bills he won when he won it was even though he filed in december two thousand and ten he wanted me for the entire semester from august to december of two thousand he also was seeking payment reimbursement for a car that he had purchased and while she was an attending johnny  information after the hearing and take it into consideration after the hearing the court learned that jessica's cash value was nine hundred forty two dollars and twenty five cents the tr he found that there were eighteen thousand eight hundred fifty four dollars in total college education expenses and because of the timing of the petition by dr that he found it in peterson case he couldn't go me in rather than the courts setting the stage for the standard that it did for the college educational expenses didn't need it to split for the past medical in any future medical with regards to j caitlin who was sixteen at the time no evidence as to what school she's going to go to what her and i mean that we use the same sixty forty percent ratio when jessica i'm sorry caitlin goes to school and that anybody had a problem with that they could file for modification at that time and order with enter on december first two thousand and ten even though that wasn't reflected in the they were they were in the transcript i mean in the very first when the court says what are the issues with regards to on this case the court was priced by mr is here he went through play with regards to the heat when the younger child there's no question that needs to be we should deal with that when she's ready to go to school and she's a senior and we know she's going to join here she's going to get you wherever but we don't know what
wants to question him with regard to some other activity not the tracks as the video shows he peppers him with twenty five questions in two and a half minutes now more than ten minutes into it he turns on the camera because he wants to have dispassionately for him recorded thirteen minutes forty five seconds  at this moment in time the traffic stop is yet the officer without reasonable suspicion engages machu majed which in two and a half more minutes question asked and seventeen question and two and a half expresses his concern that some criminal activity other than this traffic violation is going on for another two minutes there was no reason and this situation it was unreasonable assessment of this was because they were stuttering because their english was halted and these are individuals who said or at least you perhaps that's to the officer i'm sorry i have difficulty with english i'm issues become a burden and i think the supreme court is trying to figure out a way to make the trial courts take care of these issues if there are any questions on foreign ok fourth amendment speeches from the get go because he for him stopped the car in the right hand lane of traffic and he had to twice ask him to pull it over to the side of the road that's not never that it never happened that way before but that and all in fences when the drive did stop in the lane of traffic each one of those involved in a rest when he talked to them initially in many different their identification he said that ukraine was having trouble providing an answer it was like he was making his trooper his experience when somebody has been by and as these defendants were more than once that they not going to get tickets but instead are just going to be given a warning that nervousness typically almost always g decision for the illinois supreme court is leaving the bench in a week and they're going on do it there is a period for the hearing allowed or perhaps what's the early  overcome it's apparent on the video there are apologies for the misunderstanding what the officer and the idea that i'm only giving you a warning but yeah now you have to sit in the car and talk to  now i have a video recording our conversation i've told you that i'm suspicious of another police officers tall another police officer arrived the passengers placed in another police all of
means you have no one there's no
action to the district court when it still lacks a legitimate order of deportation from the immigration judge believe and plus decided by the ninth circuit question i'm going to read back to the beginning because to be be candid the the explanation that you offered up to distinguish this case from alina camacho i finally began to get a hold of after you've mostly gotten done saying what who's seventeen point eight eight pm hard to seventeen point four b one one but in this case the argument is that the b i a action yes even a vulture of ours was redundant around necessary because there was already an effective order removal that was put on hold by virtue of the weight here a final order removal because the district directors order is affected and so you're appropriately here and i guess that would let us reach the issues that were actually briefed before the intervened to to give us the preliminary issues but is there a reason why so many for the moment the government is correct that there is a final order of removal or reason why you can't be here and proceed with your customs service if we accept that there's a deportation order here that had been issued validly what is your legal challenge to the legitimacy of that order
criminal history and the nature of the charges and also the very strong case against him and the fact that he was facing over ten years so i don't mean to put words in your mouth but i think all that's big down to her consideration of a half why am i wrong about that i think we've all been trying to get you to go to that if you want to see you think the district court heard by not doing a separate analysis and ask you to go to that analysis and tell us how would it change how would it differ what wasn't considered well i think once you get beyond that if the court is to hold that there is a different application i think i agree with largely white church christian is getting out which is that the factors that the judge considered here would indeed be the same sorts of district looks at in the st instance and those are overlapping the result would be the same in this case but i would start with the st factor from the due process analysis being the length of the detention and the government didn't c in its brief that the length of detention here would weigh in the defendant's favor but i want to concede that now because at this point the defendant has been in custody for over a year and in fact by the time of his trial it will be that those same sorts of factors what come into play because they really are what determines whether the ends of justice warrant continued trial or a continued detention  be setting i thought it was may mr law and was i think saying april but i thought it was many is that a real trial date if it is notices presumably are getting ready to exactly the date of the current trial if all things went as perfectly as we hope they do which is to say that the numbers continue trending in the right direction and the counties continue moving down so i would say may and then his guidelines range allowed and is fourteen years to i believe almost twenty it's ok thank you let me just make sure i understand would encourage the court to look at that factor obviously part of the due process analysis and for the next i think it should be taken into consideration or the speedy trial but beyond that factor i think the court really does need to not because of any wrongdoing on the part of the government also strongly weigh in in favor of continued detention and against the due process claim because whether or not the u s attorney's office is with many of the same kind of considerations and not that hard to imagine a circumstance where somebody wouldn't have overwhelming evidence of guilt right wouldn't be facing so much jail time wouldn't have a criminal history so it would get if it would get to be a much closer call w agreed with
of action under section one hundred eighty three the once the first part of the task is met there's a presumption that applies to section one hundred eighty three remedies are applicable and any given federal statutory and imposes affirmative obligations on local governments which would be enforceable even though the statute did not have a provision saying a court of competent jurisdiction can take the case because he could go to court anyway that is true though that doesn't add anything to his arsenal the remedy here is comprehensive the nature and because any person can break any agree person can bring  type of privacy additional remedy that is about as comprehensive a private judicial remedy as you can have one argument that was missing that i did not hear my posing counsel mention and i think it's an important principle to remember before that there was there would be a right to go to court before this of course but the statute is very specific here that that act has to be filed within thirty days and is entitled to expedited treatment i think so you're a good because he can wait a year but he be out of his mind the way here when he thinks that they've done the wrong so the city is probably never going to be aggrieved it's not going to make a decision that it wants to appeal so  a short time period and what congress intended was for litigants to get into court very quickly and maybe a requirement to get into court very quickly impellers for these land use issues to be as off quickly
that you can rely on other evidence which is what we've done here we've relied on the bio spira relied on their statements in the case in which it doesn't necessarily need to take the form of a counter affidavit from him please don't necessarily have first hand knowledge of what happens w then those are considered public records of the public body it's a simple question of whether to strip to thirty has physical possession right now if they don't the station advocates them to obtain copies of those documents and produce them where there is a recent
reasons good last time was drafted in the still good law so again there is no absolute defense restriction the provisions brought it deals with construction and alterations those things go on every day or certainly a regular basis in the subdivision case there is a total of five hours represented three while those that are actually appealing this so the thirty six slots in the subdivision only three hours are actually feeling yes so i don't know if that affects the critical reason there was no transcript available there was no court record and all we have is the report of proceedings which doesn't mention this point as one factor report of proceedings does not say that that this was the  language to the degree that there are problems generated by the language is not the fault of
workflow was there any evidence presented about the circumstances of the creation of the joint accounts in other words was there any evidence that would read but the presumption of don't even ten i think there was  deceit in cali was i have been receiving different sources of income didn't fix social security and pension payments the pension payments that had been to withdraw all or part of it in time and the survivor inherits or keeps whatever's left at the time of the death of the joint tenants i mean was there any evidence that this was only for the convenience to p little confusing here i mean if you're on a joint account you don't have to have a parent attorney correct checks out right and so but you're saying that she testified that that's how she used the joint account was through so there were two joint accounts yes and the first one was created before the power of attorneys years ago ok so when that be a presumption of a gift there there will certainly be a and the other component begin again that i have with the converted claim to kind of answer your question again you have to prove it there was no testing whatsoever what are your troubles there was no test what do you have a case where there's a lot of creditors and you get a cut and you know with plans to get the a stake and you have one person claiming tortious interference based on something that th accounting it might be different that's not what is going on here i mean if you are pursuing a cause of action that required you to prove conversion you don't prove it just by something so on the numbers don't add