MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
of company b about that senior person moving company b income to company ebay benefits senior person during those conversations or for those conversations discloses any competitive business information that violation it got up from a moment when survivor is a pennsylvania company that provides the insurance side of the insured on duty coverage does not provide claims in this gratian to cities and towns that's what cooking is this this email from a volunteer fireman executive who says maybe you guys should hire boy question maybe you should hire roy level executive just cannot disclose confidential information there is no allegation however the any of this information that he supposedly disclosed and or just as was pointed out earlier but does say that this is not information those disclosed to volunteer firemen  actual confusion and damages they can argue that the information is false and back in fact as this judge stearns pointed out in his decision the very letter that they say was false and gave the impression to so litigation but it didn't do through contract it did not getting nonpayment with any of these employees it didn't pay for that but it wants in this litigation it wants to have an exclusive claims handling or agreement but it doesn't have that and it didn't pay for it this really gauge and should not be used in that fashion this case has gone on long enough initial case against gary was filed three years ago this second case
he had received notice of the contents of the order to action the state failed to do so where as here a assertion that they are the state failed to meet its bur spending guilty beyond a reasonable doubt does not require any evaluation of the credibility of witnesses but rather only a determination of whether certain set of facts of ice meet the state's burden the question is legal and as such the review the standard of review is a no however under any standard of review the state failed to meet its burden at the start of the state's case the state took an unusual step right after opening argument that you should stay five hundred feet away from somer thompson all right you may consider that that limited purpose only not this unusual step of usual notice is not complete because the jury was never instructed that mr moore and had received notice of the contents of the work in fact they were explicitly told that they could only consider it to show that in order for jackson was under and that one of the conditions was that mr moore and stay five hundred feet away protection working essentially a three step process which is first you have the emergency order and then that plenty hearing the plenary order is scheduled the hearing for that the bar the box that was checked says that you received notice of the when the trial court was ruling on defense counsel's motion for directed verdict and reviewing whether or not the state had given notice the court explicitly nuts that it may be ambiguous as to whether he just received notice of a hearing where the order might be entered it was personally served with the order protection but the proof of service was on january twelfth two thousand and eleven the plenary order which is the only thing that the state admitted and which never reached the jury was entered on december first two thousand so practically it cannot show notice because it was entered before notice was put upon it can only show notice that he was notified of the hearing which is just also in these boxes that are chapter not check the defendant was not present and does it also notes that it's jurisdictional findings yes rather exhibits so that it's a question in this case just because it was mentioned to then was charged with unlawful violation of world order taken by coming within five hundred feet of summer johnson who was protected in the your the jury instruction under this crime was for different elements to be proven defend did take judicial notice of all these documents that referred to by the us the uk prosecutor including the return of service in the jury heard the trial just to sell the trial judge erroneous lee gave a limiting
he was detained in two thousand and two following a skinny brief departure and returned to the united states and on his first attempt to reenter he was detained and some back to mexico a couple days later the same thing happened he three enter and was returned the third time which was a couple more days later for i believe this time he was placed in removal examining officer has to inquire whether the alien has been present in the united states on lawfully for a continuous period of two years or more and in this case there is no record the immigration service submitted nothing into record of the first two instances where he was detained the only i didn't see that the immigration service submitted was that exhibit four in the record and was the i to thirteen which is the record of the portable alien and that was for the third detention on july seventh and your honour's on that form mr vaile readily admits that he's been in the united states living continuously for twelve years applies for admission when he's first detained the immigration service and has the option of doing a number of things there is a simple return which they would say to you quite regularly there  procedures and this wasn't done in this case in the first two incidents we don't know mr vaile submitted the declaration saying that he did not he would not have accepted any kind of voluntary return or proceedings in july two thousand and two he submitted his application for cancellation of removal birth that's a month complete with documentation of his physical presence in the united states every single year so  the statute requiring an inquiry as to his physical presence in the united states and his readily ready admission on the i two thirteen and his own declaration saying that he would not have consented to something like that we can it was is a memorandum the station it's not it's not precedent but it's almost exactly on point with this case alien had the only a mexican national had eleven years physical presence in the united states was returned via expedited removal and two occasions days apart and then on the third saying with mr  under these regulate regular perper visions except then the third time to place him in removal that's the reason for the difference in the treatment however this is not part of the record nor does it have to be part of this record immigration judge decision immigration judge said quote during the course of these proceedings were responded through counsel admitted the truth of the factual allegations contained in the notice still appear and consider removal guilty on the bas record part of the hearing transcript where it says all factual allegations originated and removal it conceded on all charges just so you have your time has expired and i believe your stand government's position thank you very much it's the one they called it and then a sort of voluntary departure the reason for this ambiguity is because it's not in the record there's not record for the first two occasions on the government's counsel saying that doesn't have to be
purchased by the mayor and by the rebels now i saw the testimony of mr eventually said that he was structured three times i got no testimony that his life was tested and tortured of the lead responder in that case or the petitioner now that's why he was the immigration judge denied the application the first inconsistency where were the date everything he threatened this persecution was not on account of any of the reasons covered by the right he actually it's an argument over how to handle gambling proceeds bucketing of the money from the mayor i mean the mayor signifies the political structure of a town and he was voicing out believe that such should not happened that the money should be given argument as being a political statement which in certain circumstances obviously it is we have to say that this is a person who is quite willing to engage in illegal yammering operations and the sort of corruption he  illegal gambling operation at their marriage supposedly forced them into and the subsequent public at public protests against the merest corruption at a rally attended about by about three hundred people on the other hand why isn't that just a mess just a mistake meaning does the change in date in any way enhanced his application this design istana lying and has has the application but begins in eighty nine it happens and when it happened doesn't matter it's the same thing so this is not a lie that helps helps the story one where the other means it may be alive may not be alive but it doesn't help the story i'm giving this or exposing this fact during the trial itself now you know i submit that we have here a person torn between
let's go behind the scenes where we see the old virgin a taco company in a state of excitement the quarterly sales report has just arrived and the big  important business for the big bosses sale these are the just to get on the campaign to make every man woman and child in the whole country a cigarette smoke speaking of voices let's not forget the young people get an edge in every high school paper that you and i weakly read give those kids something for their busy little minds this is your on the spot reporter with another unrehearsed interview to find out which cigarettes america prefers best by the way sir which cigarette do you prefer every move and believe make it all of us around the planet here we're really proud of you joe brainchildren here real mellow and real mellow i've got to be going kid that's the way of smoking around bars in this country and the next few years you know that from all i've been able to understand cigarettes nothing's really bad to people in fact several of the problem doctors up on the campus say that it's undermining the health of the just what is an intake of breath and so dangerous i know about nicotine a cause or just the ordinary things that you find around the house the arsenic carbon monoxide people why do we keep it undercover you may be a great quarterback five and a half but they didn't teach you much this is a big business and if we scared them do you think they'd smoke why boy we've got a big responsibility to our stockholders are tobacco growers and are employed we've just got to sell cigarettes even if it means not telling the public what suckers they are not so har but then we had increased the amount of strong tobacco to get to spec so the filter really isn't any good but it does sell cigarettes is that all we're interested in than just selling cigarettes last ten years here we see that lung cancer has increased at the same ratio is cigarette or ramchandra then all those you well i don't like it i don't want any part of it i feel like a hypocrite i haven't anything to do that make and suck as the rest the country when i don't even smoke myself wonderful wonderful young never for your quarterback with some bar
of fact as to whether the officers intentionally penetrated as record with an intentionally penetrated his anus with a flashlight and touched his rectum that that entitle some tonight amendment trial yes that deputy hill's smiling and even if we ignore verified complaint and look at is deposition testimony yeah yeah yeah they pushed it up against me my buttocks cheeks on like they poked it in there to push it back to see if there was anything so how does that not at the very least establish a disputed issue of fact on the point where you just agreed if there was one he gets to go to the jury and the  complaint that he was only touched by a flashlight during the search and not seeing the answers the record received he there is further evidence that mr johnson is only alleging now you point to anywhere where it's very clear that it's only because i  read the statements that i think you're referring to and so have the thing as i was touched but that doesn't mean he was only touched yes your honor in excerpts of record one time when mr johnson there is a movement mental health summary judgment i don't even understand that argument putting aside the fact that a physical injury is not necessary for an th amendment violation involving sexual abuse that could well be something you could argue to adjourn when we are required to look at the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving already including all inferences in their favor how could the alleged lack of the injury even bear on the summary judgment calculus touched by a flashlight in need of a legitimate search that's the evidence that he provided by his own statement and then he the complaint  completely different version of what occurred and the th circuit held that you cannot create an issue of fact i contradict in the deposition testimony t in that case he said that if a party who hasn't been examined happening on a deposition can raise an issue of act simply by submitting an affidavit contradicting testimony that would greatly diminish the utility of the summary judgment as a procedure for screening out sham issues of fact and so i just like to direct that we're back to the deposition testimony as well as other evidence including a point  and said so back to the search the question was so what happened when they continued to ask us what it cost because beginning that you were really coffee what happened and then i'm sorry i'm just going to skip down to you answers of record want to go seven the question was and then what happened the answer was and that's when i fell they feel that i didn't do the things he told me to do thank you both sides for the very helpful arguments and i believe that you took this case pro bono so thank you very much for doing that it's quite helpful to our court when people are willing to take on cases like this in a program capacity we really appreciate your  submitted thank you b
over a laundry list of what this happened to my client let me ask you a question first if i may one of the things that happened here was that the an immigration judge declined to believe your client reports that a number of jewish called theaters universities in santa cards have risen in the years following the collapse collapse of the samea era your own as you mentioned in our brief at the where they publish and play semantic diatribes and are not prosecuted under the relevant plot it would be nice for a government to as a window dressing create laws but it would be even nicer for them to implement the laws it doesn't look like in the ukraine that's what's going on concerned about some of the discussion and i think it comes from the main young country report about on page eighty and on beyond starts in regard to discrimination on the basis for race or religion a new constitution of ukraine prohibits discrimination on the basis of race sex now the ground however due in part to the absence of an effective judicial system the government has not always been able to effect doesn't that raise a big red flag in the middle of this proceeding as to exactly what's going on here you know there's a very slight there is a slight step between discrimination and persecution but dozen or so the seeds of that the government is unwilling or unable to control it then that might rise to the level of persecution but in this particular case we don't have instances of the league perception or others reporting these incidents incidents to the governments of the government as an opportunity was maybe it wasn't a question but i guess the first step in germany was kristallnacht which was physical damage to synagogues and so on and then things progressed to the point where there were the death camps at  and where where along the way do we draw the lines here in this we draw the lines in looking at specific conduct specific allegations and when there are specific allegations of anti semitism and if there is any specific conduct backing up those threats and we look at the government's response to those threats to that antisense of similar system and to any harm to the particular individual we don't have that evidence in this particular case we don't have reporting of incidents to the kiev authorities or the ukrainian authorities we don't have in this record evidence of actual physical harm we have serious questions of credibility the immigration judge may not have met the honor driving over here today i heard on the news that the government of the united states had secretly hoped the current president of you sheinkopf ukraine it's very telling that our state department report into the rosy picture of ukraine back when and now the help the where in fact there were a fourteen instances and i have again a list of them to discount nine other incidents and only fixate on five of them is incorrect because the cumulative effect of all fourteen instances is what ri
was why should you because of the broader real purpose of breeding for the st step that the st step backward design as i said to protect people from circumstances as my caller an african american closing sentences is the business of district courts courts of appeals are tasked with reviewing it by either affirming or faking it congress had wanted to make the cut off point the time that off or one of qualifying prior conviction counts as a predicate and that is when a conviction becomes final the fact that it did not use the same language and for a one seat confirms congress intended that the wor different statutes considered imposed to be referring to find a conviction just not create an ambiguity and in fact there's nothing ambiguous about the word imposed unless that work has
national focus that crawford does apply retroactively to our case it was our position certainly that we had a strong issue at that time and we believe that the issue is even stronger under crawford the only issue that really is left to be admitted what the trucker considered to be in coming within the exception to be part of the same statement but it was essentially saying i know where he lives and taking over and pointing out the but i think to the extent that the question in determining whether or not a statement is testimonial has to do with whether or not the likelihood that it will be used at some point and in the criminal trial i think the statements made ten minutes after the incident when asking questions trying to find out when he makes the statements regarding the identification although it's a less certain identification that he made later and statements to the police that i can even take you to where he lives the statements that were made at the scene when he was meadows testimony that that the jury came back with a with their guilty verdict getting to the floor eyewitness statements would suggest that individually and either individually or collectively and they established that the air in this case  was prejudicial it was harmless there was a person who was a beer truck driver who had died given not a positive identification initially but by the time you got to trial he said he only had a vague recollection fairly strong statement at trial regarding his ability to identify mr villareal but then when he was reminded that he told the police initially that he couldn't be sure when he was looking at the photos whether or not that was mr the reality said he stepped back and said you know this was a while ago and i said at that time no your honor is an exception to the years they rule i understand that but that's a different issue then if you're violation of the confrontation at the entire record of the evidence that was actually presented and whether the evidence that was properly admitted was sufficient to uphold the conviction even i graphic lineup he even said the man in this photograph has a mustache but it is the same man he was clean shaven at the time of the shooting and and that and in fact  was clean shaven when he was picked up by the police close in time to the crime the other is that the second witness john shane was a hotel guest he signed and circled the photograph and could not make a positive identification at trial but he certainly had picked out a pal and and then freddy miranda who was who was waiting for his driving connection had  him in the photographic lineups they also searched his home unfound gang materials events that corroborated the testimony received from the other from the other witnesses
discrepancy good because apparently the immigration judge took that into account and felt that there was a credibility issue the reason i read the testimony and the reason why i was going through all the facts because i think that th a possible argument yes but the way that i read the nairobi statement the father says that he was going towards the troops walk in or whoever it is it appears that their militia mother dressed in civilian clothes they kicked him when they walk in and they kick him in the in the shoulders apparently was a testimony there was money behind coverage that they didn't take  found is that the two brothers wouldn't fit in the pickup truck of their escaping and i really don't understand well i think one of the problems and the  fact pattern you just referred to is there now was standing the fact he was playing there and he had a very specific description of what actually happened and who the soldiers were and he could describe what they were brother it sounds pretty severe but then shalit i gree now i don't know very much about about weapons and i have never not i don't have much experience but i think that they're capable of ling and the likelihood of persecution when he gets back i think the case was based on past persecution but what about future persecution i don't think would expose him to to persecution to be honest i don't know the exact objectivity status of somalia at this time and my knowledge of the region  think that it's not stable enough and that he based on his past he has a reasonable fear for the future i know that at the time of the hearing his father and his brothers were still shot in the stomach can survive overnight and have the good fortune of having a western style but as i'm not sure that that there is in the case authority to support the proposition that you can make a global average credibility's terminations without pinpoint specifically the problem think that one of the testimony department culture report suggests that it's likely that he'd be killed or seriously injured because of them future ties to the bar regime and that it continues today that versus the community development agency of the city of los angeles