MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
section two forty seven to forty two eight one and two forty two b as mr foggy pointed out proactively in his opening brief there is a not insignificant question of whether the court are denials of non discretionary matters mr probably alleges that the court made statutory errors of law and that the court made and that there were adverse credibility determinations made by the government apparently concedes that the immigration judge found that there was next to it but what i believe is that it would be useful for the court to address that issue because the spin the case back and if that's what the panel deems appropriate that of course is harmful for it to do and we will accept that decision however the record is very complete there were two days of extensive testimony taken of the response of the petitioner and his mother and there was a complete asylum application filed there is enough information in the record to allow the court at least on the merits of withholding could be determined that there was a social group or not to eat if it's that there isn't the social group or that he might not be persecuted as a result of being in that social group if either one of those far south as a result of the evidence doesn't he lose that part of his claim he would lose however i would say that the evidence doesn't establish what you have suggested that if the judge agreed that he would issues in it including as to tional or other issues so we believe basically that there is two panels decisions and i don't know how the court's going to resolve  figure out what is the decision so if you could address two things one what do you think the actual decision once and then how do we judge that decision and w record particularly when there was a couple parts of the findings that went by the wayside right i mean has your first i guess why clarify or brief because i'm not sure was clear in there from our reading harm that many it's i guess that is here well in spite of them better that's been properly related to any one of the five crown grounds or so at least maybe i'm missing something pages for through seventeen and twenty the government thinks that the board just meant page four through the first top paragraph on page seventeen but not the bottom  think that the that the board reached that issue and basically just want the other part of the analysis doesn't rise to the level of you know the things that they're level of issue if the words the judge used it's possible that the father would beat him and that might happen that didn't rise to the level of likelihood but give rise to the level of well grounded
counsel or circumstances indicate that the waiver of counsel is limited and here mr everett tries to revoke his prior waiver at a new point in the proceedings and the cases have consistently held that you should be allowed to revoke a prior waiver at such actually as noted in the previous he did sufficiently challenge the court's restitution order at sentencing when he said you know sir i'm on a limited income i don't know that i compare this in two years and that would be enough to really preserve this issue is that it is a fresh start is that the first post trial proceedings the cases are consistent that when there's no sign that he's trying to game the system or continue with delay which he had not shown in this case through a prior class for counsel was he  certainly if there was an it was a second attempt obviously there would look more like and it's up to delay i don't disagree at all in in this point in this case because the defendant was adamant originally that he was going to represent a m mr everett should have been handling this on its own had been raised in that you have the judge says that he was offended by it as it seems that it might have been apparent even to other people that maybe not that he cared anything you can you can decide that you want to be in over your head if you know that is your your desire but there are also other options perhaps  lawyer i need to get a lawyer i want to get a lawyer thing i don't i don't know how that is seen as you know this for the purposes of don't lay i was there you know i just i'm not sure how in this context you get there you know without some other evidence that he was somehow just the  has bipolar disease and obviously a little disorganized thinking and so and he mentioned that at some point that he had a disability that court that the jury heard that and so that was the question where the i don't disagree there would have been an option circle would be a pretty reasonable limit and i wouldn't disagree with that option either if it just wasn't a requirement well this man was in his head as far as he had it and a public defender at the very beginning of these proceedings or operate on some time limited time come get an attorney you don't have it then read scepter proceed that would have been appropriate
easily could be easily fabricated or tampered with and they could have kit would have cast a doubt to the jury with as to whether mr howard because he actually responsible for the photograph claim that the issue is waived well people versus a cargo strongly criticized that maxwells holding and cites a whole bunch of cases that disagree with it and  challenge or without trying to create a doubt that mr holland was responsible for the photograph is opposed to somebody for the shopping tampered with the photograph or somehow creating this
are claiming that we don't have the right to seek an injunction to stop that if in fact it's wrong we've made a claim that it's wrong we made a claim that is a breach of the essays obligations and you saw an injury get your friends i'm talking to your friends on the other side is its impact on the defendants it's not how much money is going to michael that is not that sounds to me like a derivative claim you go up in this case you can't be bringing claims about how the corporations  profit has standing to do things that you do either daily or jacks and say you can recover damages to the institution in a direct suit believe that they say that we have the standing to check whether we can get had been you said you wanted an injunction but you didn't specify and so and you have an obligation to specify our position is that at the outset of the case and i think the longest cue the out of the case of the player comes c superior court which held the statute limitations had run some of our point which puts us in a very awkward position so one would have thought i would have thought i continue to think that every will coley would have been sufficient to solve the problem us somewhere else and then we're told that allegations in the complaint if you look at the appellant grief they're claiming damages by a asset not by themselves there is no allegation that any of the plaintiffs suffered any kind of community daily involved claim and jackson claims that affected the status of the plaintiff they affected the steps but they affect the behavior of the organization and the issue was not those people did not go to court to get four dollars thirty  been i mean there was a dispute within a church it's a religious or argument it's not that somebody had taken their property it wasn't property that they own they were members of that organization the organization had been hijacked actually what we say and they were complaining about how that were going to zation was conducting its and the issue is do they have standing to do that do we need to monetize that do we need to ask how much money is going to come back into your pocket if you win and the answer resoundingly is no so it
it he said is there any way i can see anything for the record the feds counsel advised against it and the court asked him if he talked to his attorney then the defendant said yes i have but i just wanted it known for the defense finally says he said he would admit that and finally the court says thank you it doesn't matter to me sir it doesn't matter at this point thank you good luck to you and following these comments the proceedings on that day  mean it seems that they were not a speedy trial claims it's from what little he got out some type of you know pretrial conversation with his attorney and because of this the fact that seems to be talking about something different and ultimately a major factor we don't know exactly what his claims were addressed merely addressing the speedy trial issue is insufficient and in in this way  were and so all of the case needed to be remanded for a a preliminary critical theory and the same result is is warranted here because ultimately and in this thread my guess is case again we don't know what he was trying to state  to the court and so there's no way for us to know whether there was any mirror to this or for the courts to even begin to evaluate whether or not these claims had any merit to anything you want to tell us about your relationship with your lawyer were anything else cabbages and kings and he didn't say anything one five minutes to cover two structures now with that kind of a record i would buy your argument that we could affirm but based upon this record where the judge basically cuts him off and tells him you need prejudgment it doesn't matter to me and either the judge w as able to understand what he was saying but the transcript doesn't relate to what he was saying because he was supposedly an auto you want to learn how are we supposed to affirm something we don't know what happened suggestion based upon this record is go away and don't bother me so why would it bother him again with a motion that would bring up old things that he was told by the judge go away no bottom eight where as a reasonable person assuming he's a reasonable defendant would prepare a motion that would bring up new subjects that supposedly the judge hasn't already prejudged he hasn't already told them go away and don't bother me because he did this he raised issues about
involved in these drug bites he was able to go through the sequence of what happened but what's troubling is not just the dates on these notes but how much  something down with this person doesn't independently remember these and he couldn't remember other things strange sense when he was asked well what days were you arrested i don't remember and he couldn't remember starr i have  outlines probably not but a government representative for the sovereign should be impartial and should not lead a witness did not provide any notes for them to testify to based on not conspiracy and for his own use in fact he still owed money on it if it was part of the conspiracy why didn't the members of the conspiracy they had members pay for that that was on his own he did not admit to being a part of this what he had made it to is that one time i saw pick up something or one time i saw him bringing money in other words he wasn't involved like all the members of this conspiracy were he was not actively doing things he was just there he was there living in his mother's haldeman delivering drugs not by the time of trial he recalled it at one time certainly when he gave the dates to the investigator but then at the time of trial he should be testifying from his own recollection he was there as to the transactions because he knew notes before and noticed that he was going to probably use those notes to refresh his memory before mr amano ever got on the stand so once you start once he pulls up the notes the government actually said what do you got there what do you look at what are you referring to they have noticed they knew there was no cooperate so he doesn't get the departure down under five to one day and i would like to to find out that the notes were provided the night before this testimony and it didn't say on how these notes were prepared by somebody else or just if you received one that there was a copy in there and inside that it went out to get to there were too many details in here that if he had independent recollection he wouldn't have needed these tows notes the date would have been sufficient he didn't even need the for the convention not for the convention but it was used for background information as far as he has his drug use and abuse through childhood and so forth on a ten wiretap there was nothing
a petition to modify the custody or arrangements of someone who couldn't be in custody of anyone because he was a competent adult at the time that what we did was we asked the court in hawaii  was a competent adult who legally couldn't be at that time in the custody of anyone because he was a competent adult that is correct you know and the entire purpose of your filing this was not because the court order was somehow wrong or because it didn't describe the actual legal custody status but because if the court entered this this would give you an argument as to how your client derived derivative citizenship because without that there was no possibility of that right i was going back to correct and that  ok so let me let me let me go back to my question of the purpose of your filing was to help make an argument that your client had derived derivative citizenship right because it obviously had nothing to do with custody since he was an adult that is correct or and and and you weren't arguing that there had been subtype of typographical or scrivener's error in the original order wrong it was that this is what the order was but you want to change nothing for a time because you wanted to help with your client's immigration case that is correct and also the fact that my client fact the father did not have sole legal custody because legal custody was determined by the word or that had been entered in one thousand nine hundred and ninety right regardless of who had immigration case and maybe that's why she she signed the order but it isn't that sort of speeding citizenship family courts of the states instead of on and so allowing purposes as the basis for derivative citizenship would quote allow the state courts to create loopholes in the immigration laws on grounds of perceived equity or fairness period close quote and that wasn't permitted unless it's absolutely necessary so if we chose to follow the st circuit which is a very logical route is nothing wrong with it absent i go i understand it isn't helpful to derivative citizens he didn't satisfy the conditions for automatic derivative citizenship during his childhood and seeks to create a legal fiction that doesn't represent the conditions as they actually were in during his childhood and it doesn't serve the purpose of the statute contravene congressional intent who really had physical custody and was doing everything on our sorry that his father's that the father was the one at physical custody and was doing everything for his client and that the mom was back in the philippines
if they're mad this isn't a building let's see what happens
client you of anything requires a reversal no no not on the initial not on the initial pleading because i don't think because one other question any relief for that initial pleading you know we're not seeking will you want it to defend its ruling was unclear and within that within that petition the defendant mentioned that he wanted to overturn his conviction and that he alleged a constitutional violation which was denying access to the jail wall library in so the trial court considered this that petition to be a post conviction petition and regardless of whether the whether the trial court properly decided that case the fact  in the mail the notice that her at her stretchered against him and even previously in this case the defendant had filed close a appeals knowing that he understood that process and just refused to do so and acted as if there was no adverse judgment against him and the right to a direct appeal that was lost in the council's ineffectiveness a subsequent petition is not a success or a petition for purposes of section section one hundred and twenty to one and once again that's not the case here going in this not seeking the right to reinstate  to a direct appeal but is merely seeking to refile another post condition petition as if that final judgment was never were against  conviction really that's what he filed it's an adverse judgment doesn't appeal then he files but he entitle amended post conviction petition for relief and then he f
of what actually happened in this case is at least lame tendered an order to the course a proposed order the court made changes in that order there was also  familiar with this also has seen involvement in the case and is in a position to determine what was fair well to call the work is and in this case the i made a point of saying the word primarily that includes the sixpack which doesn't magically include things not washing the record because of the police and the prove government while the record in this case is and what decisions  and that bit of this not just the dollars but the
were probably paid under other insurance or other funding sources it was an enabling yeah it enabled the secretary of health and human services with the authority create rules regulations and program the centers for medicare and medicaid services for a while there as a condition of any worker's compensation so that is in excess of twenty five thousand dollars total value certain information be submitted to that area so that it's terminations can be made whether medicare's interests need to be protected for future treatment arising from the workplace injury that is being s cookie if the cost would would be more than sixty two thousand seven hundred forty four dollars over a period of time medicare would have to pay the difference is sixty two thousand seven hundred  expectancy came from government charts thirty seven years and the first year deposit into the trust was front loaded in the event that there are any expensive treatments the might be required there recently does the first year front loaded and then divide the remaining thirty six years into it you come up with fifteen hundred ninety nine plus change so that total amount is actually the that there is no injury whatsoever to the plane to because there's only expectancy is that his treatment will be paid for by medicare or his employer through this set aside
those in back out to what we got over to nickel itis now the guys goes in she goes up no good and we got another job well it's all twenty nine twenty three minutes play the first quarter and there's two for the rockets by haley like body like body hair like i guess that's the bucket and his fault now twenty nine twenty five jackie for reading katherine nestor number thirty two cally christopher is going to get her second they get ten for two a little bit of pump action there no call cheerleaders kick it up for this time up by six rockets a seven point one to play the third quarter thirty six thirty  possession and there's the third quarter at the edges third we got belmont thirty six ready rockets with thirty dollars up by six  on high school since you can't get me service hours for helping out with any media center production stewart goes up to no good to solve and turn over to belmont reading the rain rockets going hard here reading in bounding she doesn't make her second thirty nine thirty out of bounds  thirty nine thirty to six minutes to play in the game in for the rockets number five ellie wilson as julian mcgauran will sit with four files out about it will stay a rocket possession forty four thirty two four forty five to play t week what goes in she drives what she has filed forty six thirty five to forty two to play it's a ni is checking back in in the final two minutes or so the updates game for the rockets forty eight thirty seven both teams look at our winner there when called tonight very actually very hard fought game between the  sixteen to play fifty three forty she makes her second fifty four forty one sixty the play and we got shot clock violation turned over to ready twenty four point dyed second shot clock is off fifty seven forty one thirty seconds to play improves their record six to six two very good fortunately balls one to one ten one to ten great game played by both of these teams tonight graduations to all the girls for playing such a great game tonight
in the early days of the web when lawlessness and feuding held sway a powerful and mysterious organization called the legion of the black arrow sprang up seeking to destroy the united states of america the government tried by every method with them it's hard to discover more about itself logon ization but to no avail until at last the president himself some of them asked writer of the plains to lead the fight against this mysterious pole to help preserve the union and make the western see past got a groups of men once he was less than twenty feet from a campfire no one saw him finally reached the spot where he would meet the secretary a cape no soldier question the secretary companion in a moment they were aboard the guarded train the horses were gone i was standing the blindfold was gone from my ice i was in the great a rocky cabin men were all around me with black hand to cheating on their faces at least a one hundred men there like the idea but
but i think the prevailing the the the primary issue in this case is whether or not even need be considered because it was a way the first issue released on appeal is concerning the failure of the trial court to rule that the affirmative defense standing was not timely or it was the first issue that needs to be looked at in addressing this this foremost there was no notice whatsoever from the village of the defendant that the union had had this divorce or split with point the amended complaint contained a letter two  first and foremost they agree with the arbitrators one controls and it doesn't say that the rules of civil procedure apply but if if for argument's sake they were liable then there is also a little holes in the civil procedure that an attorney even brought to the attention of the village for months after the lawsuit was commenced until they were attached to the amended complaint and so those were copied a thing with the bill that during the entire operation proceeding agreements nothing communicated whatsoever from the union to the village that being said with this argument on the standing issue that it was the time of the race also asked to fil to refuse to will rule the standing affirmative defense wasn't timely rids the next issue is the was there standing or wasn't there standing and based upon  union representative and that person currently and i would think there would be virtually impossible to do that because it would everything all the communication between the union and the employer would be privilege there would be no incentive these issues with the hunger of labor practices and standing aside as an alternative grounds for affirming the trial court the burden to reverse or modify so given all this other material these arguments that are specifically raised by the way don't even facing all of us the dismissal was still appropriate because there is no error of law or fact on the face of the  ever participated in any of the selection we are prettier and in the back and in fact the style case and the presentation of the case and the record producer present it was not that this was a
to make their credibility determinations which would include determining whether lawyers brother was fred of all when or whether larry was credible when he said he did everything without defendant in terms of the circumstantial that it all fits together apartment  will county one in cook county it doesn't have any bearing as to what evidence is relevant to prove defendant's involvement in this conspiracy that links him to the heroin in apartment ath the one a you know no one testified as to larry testified that it was had meant manufactured in italy so i believe from larry's testimony can be inferred that it was cut with lactose because he also described the process of how it was