MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
defendant testifying here it was only the defense counsel who gave this option all to me wasn't able to deliver that implants that idea to the jury that defense counsel said that this is going to happen but nothing to do except for to argue and quick creative solution to the problem that you know there is this fact that illinois law does not preclude no marital relationships it's just the case that in gillmeister screws they have she retreated to the bathroom was in the bathroom burned glickman in there because it was the only room in the home that had locked the sides and outside so when she was in there barricaded themselves and there as they do that the defendant were under ineffective assistance that is a question if i'm trying the case and i'm trying to put it defense out for this defendant i want to know before i even set foot in that courtroom what am i
purposes st to define the school of the investigation and investigative process does not have targets that's the same thing that the supreme court said in essence in reserve right i thought the standard you wanted us to assess the sunder is whether there was a reasonable possibility include information about violations that the i c c had reason to believe might have been incurred the for the four were listed but the f c c had at it or had information excuse me that tended to show issue whether or not someone something would be reasonable under the circumstances and here there is evidence that creates a conflict of that fact issue there is a formal order describing potential violations of the securities laws by a square but there is also the
the let me call the final case will take up the people versus wai objection with that is there were not specific circumstances regarding when these statements were made by the child and tell me about what what detail was lacking and i'm i'm just maybe speculating trying to
court's findings which are not challenged the record is so clear that she cannot perform any work in the economy that we should direct or the benefits and your your argument i question is what you think needs to be done if it were reminded that was the question what are the issues that are still open and if you granted this individual  support it who's now what hold on what are we supposed to do time after time send it back to in a l j and say you didn't give the right reasons last time now give him again and then he gives you another set of phony rea cycle that's the only been five years so far and there's no way will ever end it because the next time your agency gives pony reasons you're going to come back and tell us well what we should remember because as i'm sure you know you have a right to cross appeal you could have challenge the findings and you did not so we're starting to hear from the premises that these are illegitimate findings since you don't like phony issue before us is whether that is the proper consequence of those findings now we getting down to the issue we have findings that his reasons for rejecting the testimony were not legitimate now the question people that would be a very good idea i hope you go back and tell the agencies and ask congress for more funds have would be an excellent idea good luck to you and i don't know what you consider to be an improper length of time for someone who's disabled to wait for benefits now i don't want mine to blame it on the people who work in the infancy whether this is talk about the united states government i understand that the agency does not get the treatment it might from the congress or our president but none of us can do anything about that but we can consider as you suggest in deciding what should happen  ok i thought the district judge took it back because he thought there was insufficient vocational information after he said you know the treating physicians and and it was no good reason to reject that so i guess i want to
sense thank you very much your honor you know and i just have a couple of two primary points that i would like made first i think that rather than looking at what my client could have just to terminate the interaction we need to look at the agent project and how that affected my client because of the agent's client in this world these days of conduct in this rural setting blocking in my client that he did not feel free to leave and under kim and judge  that particular part of roy's road had not been monitored that morning and i think it was important to keep in mind that the government would like to urge upon the court that an entire category of people those who are driving cars that the traverse it does or should
had to find the actual knowledge or even actual improbable knowledge whatever problem knowledge means and have back with a guilty verdict on this record they probably would have succeeded probably would have been just fine that they could have just believe his story that he didn't know and he didn't leave the material knowledge was required that only actual notice was required however the harmlessness of that is shown by the fact that the evidence here overwhelmingly down straight at actual knowledge of the requirement we have been notified on at least six separate occasions even i even had the jury been properly instructed that acknowledges requirement the trial court was not required to instruct them that the prosecution had to show that petitioner knew that the requirement was a lifetime one i find that strange because he had to know whether he had a register at the time he was accused of not having register his position was i thought it only had to do with when i was on parole so if he didn't know that he had to register money must be on parole he didn't know he had to register time he has been in prison and was not required to register in time he was in prison therefore it was after his final release from prison that he did not register that he claims that he didn't know about the requirement and that he would have expected his parole officer to tell him except for the fat than he ever reported to his parole officer and he was living under an assumed name he was providing a false birthdate and even though he testified at trial that he could have so he was on testimony on that point is completely inconsistent it's not at the temples argued uncontested or indisputable it's internally inconsistent and circumstances in this case show that he was quite aware of the registration requirement and that the reason he didn't register was not because he didn't think you have to vote because he didn't want to he didn't want to be found and he didn't want to be sent back to prison that's a very good argument for a jury it's it also goes to whether or not any case was harmless your honor and in this case it clearly was all of the evidence all the credible evidence showed that he had been advised that the notice of see i don't understand the argument for have this could be consistent with my argument is that in land for the defendant claimed that she was entirely unaware of the statute this was a los angeles municipal code later found that wilfulness entails knowledge of the registration requirement however garcia didn't again garcia the defendant claimed he was entirely unaware of the requirement that he register and even though the jurors the court found that the jury was most instructive in that case it also found that the error was harmless just as the evidence especially was aware of the requirement or had been made aware of  requirement and whether he misunderstood whether it was a lifetime requirement or not this is information he could easily obtain this is information that is contained in the very first sentence of the statute it's contained in every notice of registration he was g
defendants and they are supposed to pay them during their period of probation that can't be terminated so they'd they do it so that it would be impossible for him to pay this during a very months i mean correct happened is once people have died with the this is a probation above the statutorily me in the conditions such as i see he had to have an alcoholic valuation a what happens in the probation department there is once those additional non mandatory provisions are complied with then the probation department will terminate probation early and i think what judge mears and the simply trying to do is while he's on probation for this was it three years or whatever the term was i don't want it i mean even i don't think the language he chose necessarily communicates that this or that i do think in defense of jets mirrors and he was not trying to avoid sentence i know however that you and the state seem to ignore paragraph twenty one in the order of probation and it doesn't require looking if you ordered probation which says the defendant can possess a bow this phrase that the court may in addition to these in numerator discretionary conditions impose other conditions that are related to the nature of the dealt with defining the statute and they said in a i think that they had the idea that there were these three cars they didn't deal with the mandatory but they did say that conditions i submit that this case and the statute clearly say that this child support payment order does not have to relate to the campbell is indeed it deals with real hosting fines and costs that were originally posed a separate prosecution conviction  you can't do that it's perfect sense that's like saying you know in my theft case i was ordered a certain kinds of costs i didn't pay them i've now committed a drug offense
place going back to two thousand and eight what's important to keep in mind in this case is that he had at that same time three ongoing workers compensation claims related to his back issue in this in this case is the manifestation and it is our argument that there was no factual basis for the commission's decision in this case you are a traitor in this case states in her because he thought it was caused by his back which was worthless but tom tells me no it's not your bit it's carpal tunnel but never tells him the box and he turns around and testifies that the first time he actually suspected that want to go see someone and you want to take detail javascript you know the world does that unless there's a discussion about work and carpal tunnel so his frankly his saying well i was a babe in the woods i didn't know is not a credible state he's having discussions with other treating physicians about work related illness in november january twenty one i was specifically is the manifestation data you're suggesting the test done a lot when he was diagnosed with doctor with doctor injury is job related is not necessarily a manifestation date because no doctor told that it was charlie and that's exactly what he can read in during the commission said no manifestation date was indeed when you oscar mayer basis they get they they kept using that term plainly apparent now they did look at other factors in terms of date of diagnosis that should be consider a date that you actually get medical treatment lot more and well in retrospect now i guess that's probably true because that's why i asked one redirect examination what is it that you actually believe that this was work related well it's after i talk about a crowd and i think that supported if you look at dr brown's intake form
well and they're looking even further back and we obviously know that there were there was an injury in two thousand and seven for which she did have treatment regarding better treatment his symptoms were generally confined to his work down there from  that's just not the case throughout two thousand and seven he complains of right arm right hand numbness right sided neck pain right armpit pain and most importantly if you look at doctor got these nodes three weeks before the accident reports on the injury records from rockford memorial hospital brings me to counsel's second argument where in smith and his attorney both try to downplay the symptoms of neck pain in the january twenty eight two thousand and eleven report the doctor got his notes pacifically indicated that he was complaining of significant neck pain which also noting that he was having difficulty sleeping because of his neck pain interestedly he was also complaining of dizziness which in two thousand and seven symptoms that he reports in two thousand and seven into danger anywhere in two thousand and eleven he's reporting that he has difficulty sleeping difficulty driving these are all things that were repeated over and over again in his pre accident medical records accident only cost a temporary aberration of the preexisting condition as his two symptoms at the time of trial were identical to those it mentions throughout two thousand and seven and he also testified that his symptoms of the time of trial on his the shooting pain
accord thomas bender on behalf of brown university it's difficult to know exactly where to start but why don't you start here it is there any dispute about whether the  because this this process began as a motion to dismiss in lieu of a complaint and i had attached a written statement use a statement that she had referred to in her complaint the written statement that she gave to the committee that i served  summary judgment gave them the opportunity to submit any additional materials in order to apparently explain the written statement admitting that conduct she found an affidavit in response to that and then i filed given the opportunity to file response to that and because it had been converted summary judgment i was able to put in the transcript of the actual conduct hearing that she had that had  contract analysis and i would refer you to the brown university and i have to give you the citation to that because right now there's about five brown universities in the district court it's two thousand and sixteen visor let's presume that she told the truth when she wrote the written statement where she said that she used the word she was she said it was late at night she was exhausted she had many projects she wasn't thinking and this other woman was talking about how she was going to answer the question and i was writing down at the same time and she said i quote i used her suggestions and her hearing testimony was testimony because it's not under oath she told she said that she didn't know whether collaboration was allowed on this particular test or not she admitted to actually being in same room and she was running down  and you know that's not that's not correct because the reason that we're different was because that was the first academic code violation for to go she had had an academic code violation the year before normally you have to wait until the last semester of your senior year to petition to have that taken off your record she had that she partition the previous year she had taken off the record approximately one month before this new term examination and it was after if you go back to the transcript of her hearing she was worried about kicking her out of her out she said she just wanted to continue her time here every round and the chairman of the committee tried to tell her that we want you to finish from probably wants you to get your degree from prout it was only after they found her responsible for that the case manager for it gave them her prior record that she had actually had another one and that's when
't i mean is is it really that big of a deal if the court knows or and the court makes reference obviously to knowing about daniel's case the reality is that information was also presented don't support the state or hold it for a few minutes is that really the intent of possession in your view black one and i gave it back or anything else that would prove possession other than those three statements and so that's it i think i touched it if it's the black one i gave it back and that's it that's a whole basis for possess
whether that universe is adequate here mr ackerman maintains that it was an inadequate because he just that the judge never looked at it this person or this supervisory relationship between the two attorneys so he's only love so only look at how how how the board could affect the case not how the war could affect night the attorney this judge a lot more than a lot of judges have done in these kinds of situations right i don't know the answer to that personally  circuit court able to take adequate steps to determine whether and that's a conflict we haven't been able to flesh that out on the record at this point imposed under the counties oh i don't know if it was imposed just to fund that specific counties court system and even if it was it's more of a general fee it's not it's not opposed to
called into question is crucial not the petitioner has met his burden of proof related to the nexus point if it was in fact on account of his family members refusing to cooperate with the tribe traffickers in honduras who killed are on us my brother counts all stated that these were garden variety death threats and that there was no indication that these that the man who broke into the petitioners apartment had any desire to harm him  so this is a lot of evidence a very bad block if the court doesn't take into account the testimony that existed about access the court cannot the board of education feels an i j cannot expect the petitioner to
opinion get ignored in disregard
you know i don't and the court made a statement about the complexity of sensing and said do you still want to proceed as your own counsel yes i did and that was if that was all that happened during the friday hearing despite all the irrational psychologist was looking for and when he was five thousand reported that he doesn't have any i mean you know she didn't say i was looking she said there's no diagnosis on the three axes so at leaves us with a guy who is i was i read a kind has a that a lot of people seem to adhere to yes and then the government says well you know that's fine a lot of people have this theory they should be treated differently than anybody else i personally i think that anybody who comes into a federal court  those believes should be viewed as somebody who needs a little bit more explanation than the typical person i don't think that anybody who's truly rational can think that that that is the appropriate way to deal with a federal case but i don't want  myself on that one but in the letter said i personally think that anybody with those types of beliefs should be treated with kid gloves i don't think the court has to go that that far i think that here the stuff in the record the rambling crazy filings the statements in court that made first the magistrate and then the district was saying you know i don't know what you're saying so you know i guess i'll just have to enter a guilt not guilty plea for you i just don't understand all that i think the general dangers and it's important to look at what happened after that that's when the district court went through the dangers for him the district court kind of gave a combination of dangers and gave specific examples and talked about how the senate would have to know the federals of evidence how any attorney would be more familiar with the fan strategy and we did more for murder with kind of a viable defenses and things like that and the court also gave kind of a more colloquial answer which  defendant if this is how you're going to represent yourself you're putting the noose around your own neck and this court indicated that that would bring home the point perhaps more than other information i think that's why what the district court said here would do so i mean the dish accordin believe the only extra money got was under to be one point one for the amount of  confusion by doing nothing at trial that he really didn't understand what was going on and the second point i wanted to make was was about the acceptance of responsibility and the ones clear statement he did make a trial when he stood up in front of the judge and the jury
so this was the day for friday february twenty second for the hearing on the stadium
no other questions what i'd like to do is reserve them any type of all that's fine that we're from the government hundred when you look at all the of the tracks and all the defense they use almost an actuarial approach in their reply brief which is creative that i don't think that's what the law requires it's not a matter of just saying how many years have you been in this country how many children you have judge i think you're right that i don't think that this is going to be a tremendous problem that's not going to fact that's statutes all across the board let me ask you first of all when we take a look at the transcript what do we look at just what he pl you look at the charging document and i and this case if you decide to take a look at that plea probably you would look at is the factual basis for the plea colloquy and what do we do with the judge's statement where he says after this so this is a man who took the car without permission and even after he was given
a political party there's bombings going on people are dying political persecution like the one on in that case i think that case there's no need for individual rights showing but you have an individual i showing how law but let's call this witness in let's question him let's ask him what do you mean by thomas what do you mean by this he never got that opportunity and that's all i'm saying is like michael jordan was denied second chance to try out for the basketball team we never at that time state department poor the conditions going on at the same time so i would say that there were changes country circumstances and because of the pattern of practice of human rights violations and people of his racial group that were being targeted sounded very much more like a problem mr kissing has been in the united states now for a decade and a half it's not unreasonable that someone would be looking for him after he left think i would have to check on that and it's whether there is knight circuit president i know that this language is commonly used by the board in cases such as square you have a person coming in with evidence of widespread bombing say on one particular jag without any indication that that was materially affect his asylum  and the border there as far as i know there is no statute or regulation as to what the board is required to say or requiring the board to say certain specific words the petitioners presentation of it is that it was persecuted because he belonged to a lawful political party the judge your party i'm not sure if i'm pronouncing is in the news paper it is true and certainly it was true that there were widespread bombings in the jails in the courthouse in the countryside everywhere in bangladesh on a particular relief must be for me and i'm just wondering is that under this nice circular authority is it appropriate for them to just not even in a very cursory fashion deal with the argument convention against torture application well they did say that the extensions were not current and yes i would say that that is under the evidence that was word in and the denial but the board is required to consider the evidence to show that the evidence was considered and  even if he was the most dishonest person in the world if there's evidence of change country conditions that we still wouldn't it would alleviate responsibility to look at the evidence and when i say that i think that the subsequent visits w