MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
catholic attend mass and obviously have no objection to christian symbols on private property however i do strongly object to the government allowing a symbol of one religion on government property that is not open to others to place free anybody who felt that the state obviously out of the church business and so it really didn't matter what church they went to vote if they believe that it is entirely possible that that's what the court was thinking of course the court didn't discuss so we don't
passport he gave a different name he gave back in different name at the airport and only finally after after two interviews gave what he claims to be his real name and he claims that he held on to a nine hundred ninety grew up came from the village and his mother came from this man her gender saying did not appear in court yet the petitioner testified that this man has a green card he has he has he owns a restaurant here he lives in the united states the only thing that affidavits from people who believe in india and the supposedly good detailed testimony about what happened to him i mean odds are you are afraid to give testimony where you're not afraid to give testimony it doesn't work that way the person who lives here was a little prominent resident two documents that have not arrived stamp on it from india i think the judge was absolutely reasonable in finding that these are you know having no no foundation laid for these documents that he wasn't going to g why do have to say i follow the five k s i know that is if you start out by saying here was a political movement which i was involved and the movement of course includes the idea that it was a minister that how do you know because anybody any indian and if i could just if i could just follow this one because while the petition is attorney spoke you very detailed testimony i disagree with that when you read this record what he said was i attended i attended a rally and i shouted slogans which is  hell but it's not the type i must tell you we see a lot of these cases and this case has different details and then there's what you call the generic read anything i've never said i've never in fact i don't think i've seen this particular assertion before wh conditional country condition reports talk about there aren't very much a few incidents after nine hundred ninety three and this gentleman talked about an incident in ninety seven that occurred in a complaint that didn't even occur in
incident mr martinez had to move not only did he have to move but he contacted an a t f agents that he had been working with previously and told him about this incident the a t f agent advised him to turn himself in at the border because they could not protect  in mexico so much you know it's moved rd incident where the police again dimon a different area and again this time i had a gun that placed it against him and told him again that they were running in opposite decision this time you found there were no police officers there was not torture there was no acquiescence the country conditions did not show that mr martinez suffered the likelihood of torture or that there was  the immigration judge for clarification instead of clarifying his decision the immigration judge doubled down and again that mr martinez was credible but that the two men were not police officers but there was no past torture and again that the country conditions didn't show that mr martinez suffered a likelihood of future torture in that decision the immigration judge again makes market departures without explaining he never explains why he granted chat in the st place he never explains why the updated country conditions were not relevant or were or didn't meet  officers but the board does this time it just assumes for the purposes of the decision that the true men were police officers but because of the b i cannot engage an independent fact finding the b i cannot find that they were acting in an official capacity so again without honor we are requesting that this court remand with instructions to either ramp or to accept the findings of the immigration judges st decision and we also would request that the immigration judge at this point be recused because since these are specific part of the c h p definition of torture that is in the regulation that talks about what you have to have to have mental torture and i will say that that regulation corresponds with the spinet understanding at the time that  after ten years of going to getting this case that anything has changed that would change the government's mind i mean commit to anything that would stretch this case out even further relevant as far as evidence that he could relocate to another part of the country it's relevant but this court has never found that we location has to be impossible in other words you know that that were officials acting in an official capacity and so we're just not able to make an appropriate findings at that point it should have at least reminded him back to the immigration judge to make some significant explanation you why you think it be important have a board analyze something that they already assumed in your favor because for a convention against torture you have to find the public officials in that they're acting in an official capacity but the board assume they were right
involved in a deep dive into evidence or council points out of the statute does indeed suggest a possible open door in that the word references related to but i think related to usually is going to be clear from the face of the leaves what is the nature of a conduct is led in the pleadings in the case that congress cites two of your selling a car a car model obviously those car models are sol all across the country so they're related to question of focused on the nature of their conduct and given the the transportation of it across the country one would reasonably think that there might be similar torts completed but that occurred to others they did as well if you focus on the nature of what it was that that they did in this case but but i think your argument be that if even if we focus on the nature of the convent there still have to be some indication in the our case is not about transportation it's about jumping through chutes the loading facility with the dust piling on the cars and those cars going down a local railroad then i want to make the the point that conclusions that are fact based there isn't a noble hearing before the district court judge and that is the plaintiff's opportunity to respond to the objections that are that the defendant that there is in article three jurisdictional problem here this case was never intended to be a group action
unit in the discharge right tend to discharge any duty what and i will since this is a question for the other side so i want you to be prepared on this one we have a case called stanfor and really for the purpose of the heck analysis requires in my view way more than having unsatisfying if you don't mind i'd rather focus on what's necessary for a conviction under one forty eight absolutely  stipulated his counsel stipulated with the district attorney that the this is what they said you are reading too if you don't mind and mr carver is the district attorney except in both of those cases they both assume that the officer was acting lawfully in the discharge of his duties and that would be the implication of the invalidity that would be the  that potentially complete in other words at what point is a nine hundred eighty three suit necessarily incompatible with the one for the normal way if he is obstructing merely by did compare the allegations that he made and in his deposition i did present some deposition transcripts he did compare that to the stanford case and in the stanford case the full allegation because the court the concern if you're having your honor and they had accounted for one forty eight and they don't elaborate is there any is there any kind of special prosecutor that support struction about the factual basis sixteen of the penal code which prevents that from being used as an admission against the plaintiff in other words he couldn't get up on the stand and you admit you pled guilty or you pled no contest it does not act a the judge then the judge says any right and i would read that to be any right that you have any right that you have under this to pursue i said ok so i mean that's one potential construction another potential construction as an obviously he has in mind listen what am i supposed to do here if i if i if i take an oath one forty eight am i allowed to pursue a civil suit which he clearly had in mind at that time because he thought there had been excessive force used on him at some point during this transaction i have to say that i'm kind of believe that state court judge understands the law as the state for judges describing the law and that's a pretty broad statement that would consequence of this area of law and these technicalities we know that it sometimes happens that the police get in physical or altercations with people that they're trying to control or ostrom some fashion and we also in this case i'm saying nothing one of the things that worries me though is that police and the prosecutor have stuff of leverage over someone who's been in a physical altercation with the police it is very often the better part of
verbal argument in the morning about stop the car was off and she tried to support the con pock and then she was trying to start the car that's when with the manipulation stopped then she's sitting there trying to start her car she hears defendant from a distance away say you're trying to kill my kid you tried to kill my kid and she hears a gun shot then she looks over there the man is now walking toward her so that statement number one could just as easily be construed as an a complete expression of anger and and as of a thing that you're trying to kill my child especially at this point that he isn't he's not five to six feet away her testimony was he came right up to the car and he's five to six inches away anything against his family defense of others rejected but when he approaches the car from the side that's acting image and sad as you're trying your tried to kill my kids and shoots i have a problem with the internet site happens well he says that before he starts moving towards a car he's still in his mom's front lawn when he says that any fires a shot that so there's you having my daughter in it it stopped no reason for me to do anything correct that's in that period of time yes because there's no there's no testimony that he felt she could do anything there's no reason to believe that she could do anything from you so now let's talk about this is this is two issues but we have the sentencing issue where the trial judge said you were agreed that he misconstrued t that someone who has just seen his girlfriend sideswipe containing his family members could be seriously propelled in titling him to a lesser category occupied vehicle that's not a small well we don't know i mean did it but it could be in for it but there's no evidence that the child or children even knew what was going to happen or that they were apprehended or had every intention that something would happen to them and in any event it was the work at the time the defendant wrapped up instead of five inches from the papers window and fired into her car there was no substantial u because there was no assault at that point they couldn't get near it the fear that she would do anything to them at that point she's in a car that's a bomb can't be turned down can't be moved
who receives a forty one year circus with a for of a crime that person is eligible for release with they forbade credit no later than thirty seven years of age how is that a de facto life sentence we're talking find the question of whether miller applies to a particular sentence is whether the state has denied the offender a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and answer that question a stretch just just noticed miller is all about mandatory sentencing schemes the language of miller itself focuses on that and we can't look at just the sentence that the trout are imposed and that's clear from graham and it's answer we must look at the scheme under which he was sentenced because it matters what the legislature intended and the legislate legislature here intended for her and her petitioner to be released after thirty years under this scheme of is the best evidence that a person has changed and has learned to conform their conduct so a set of rules and will st as mcdonnell the u s supreme court made th offender learn to comply with rules which will then indicate whether they can comply with rules in society and and so for heater the petitioner through his good errors or a prisoner's institutional hurt a book at the disciplinary offenses that were committed and make that determination on whether they're ready for these using the very same facts you look at the eligibility or or what there are things that are for her after so the arguments that you know i think the appellate district has made and fisher is making center on what happens after the opportunity has been provide he will be released after thirty eight years the systems are not particularly different i think they're in focuses on collateral consequences and whether you know a credit scheme because it's a collateral the system here is designed to release the offender i think we've had some discussions are just as i did some cases which talk about how the credit can just be revoked and how there are protections against which but there are other you know that any person would say that it's r i was asked about a forty one year sentence saying that the sixteen year will be released at thirty seven dollars assumes that the credit will all be received and there is no is it's an opportunity that is based on demonstrated rehabilitation so if the offender doesn't do anything to better themselves to make themselves a productive someone who could be a productive member of society they won't then want to tame parole but since credit doesn't require the prisoner to make any kind of pro active effort to become a better person simply complying with prison rules doesn't need somebody one way or another to be better or worse in in society you can lose your time product based on on the economy the reason for that just because mr dorsey also has a fourteen year old all squarely under miller and a lot of the cases involving proportional penalties
between the two and i don't see any recognition of the fact that you need someone to see something process our position with respect to the misuse of the process was that it was never
customers the record is evidence of his subjective intent to pursue our dreams of this conspiracy and to participate in its mechanisms of operation in fact the record shows that he was remarkably hostile to the way that the larger operation proceeded conspiracy so that they maybe can compete against each other within the realm of the conspiracy but they're not looking at it as a zero sum game because everybody is going to get out of the organization of which there are fields at sales and that's clearly not the case for this defendant whether that's a sign of intelligence or just simply sort of looking out for his own narrow interest it's certainly clear that he stands alone within this group with that by the time he's the only person whose name and contact information is not found in the cell phones that a record of the defendant subjective state of mind in order to make that assessment briefly to the messiah question if i could and specifically to point to writing is an important distinction between cases involving jailhouse informants saying is the problem here
court there were seizures by the federal government the federal so right now the trustees been turned over about one hundred and forty five million dollars from the federal we've collected about twenty plus  short period of time and we attach one top promoter for a one million dollars that if taken with talk or more wasn't even on the radar screen of three l b i homeland security alone and certainly not on the radar screen of the trustee the reason we were able to bypass that is because we are in touch we are the people who wrote off we know who with the end of the money we are no bunch of other names to are enjoying is nothing worse there is nothing worse to the american than to have your right to go out to someone who you are someone who filed the wrong taken away and that's exactly what's happening here and
and of the month of april of two thousand and fifty mr kozak had been paid forty two thousand five hundred sixteen dollars and fifty two cents actually slightly worse than he claimed on his affidavit but that he was as to why she thought this income was at that time but lo and behold once we got the documents attached to mr close have sworn financial statement we found out that he was earning a lot more than he was claiming through all these machinations and he was right on when he did his sworn statement i think once he got into the poor room and realize what it was and what he was facing then eat and  seven hundred seventy dollars a mouth so he wants to have both ways he wants to claim that he is put out seventy seven and seventy dollars a month but he did not want this war and they include the child support  consideration of the crown court because the evidence at trial was the point it's ensuring piri comfortable lifestyle for eleven years and that comfortable lifestyle included living in a beautiful  thank you thank you because mr combs that would never filled out a thirteen page financial after the event and had to actually deal with this in a trial study when he made that mistake he was not aware that they were it would be illegal to say well you actually make over
and that's sort of leads into my next question which is whether there is any language in the statute on substitution that allows for a discussion about appearance of impropriety well this is actually
promotion and he was the president of the company he never took his employment was never terminated he resigned on his own nickel work for a competitor if you look back at the predecessor to x e n he worked there from two thousand and ten i type twenty
thousand and six version of the statute the key differences between the two thousand and six law and the cover for the purposes of this appeal as far as reading is the twenty thirteen and that is substantially change the intent
that who's going to pay them but the claimant nobody disputes that the queen what is entitle to pay somebody ought to be paying penalties and i mean big time which is warm you get to insurance companies that want to fight with each other fight with each other outside the context of these cases i don't care what you do what would you do by arbitration or not but we could physical over and over and over again would to insurance companies of his symptoms relating to his preexisting degenerative condition and it became symptomatic in twenty zero six with latest testimony i believe those i believe so but i think i also think what offend their particular accident he's not here and i don't think i'm a proper person to even get into what i think that would be his his position he certainly file what i
for the in between period part of the record and therefore that decision that she reached was also clear error because she didn't consider enough information  that still doesn't answer the question or was it exhausted initially because failure to exhaust the fact that you enter into a voluntary agreement suggests that everybody understood that there was an exhaustion
occurred to me that the court might appreciate less paver on a subject that was nothing more than rewrites of what's been submitted in other course of the time but in any event two days ago this court is in kenya and in a case that has this may not be true all over the circuit this motion did not appear at any point within those things that the district judge had to do with  the motion was filed at the time of the filing the complaint before the magistrate judge the initial order of detention while the three days that the statute provides for the detention hearing went by was horrified those request because the pretrial services officers would compare the report not available there were some issues about the report that needed to be taken up the matter was continued for several more days and the total days involved is twelve and between her and her husband in a circumstance where there was where the permit was applied and the government had not laid the foundation for the only exception to the marital privilege which is that the two were right and then defense counsel said that's right then the wife got the waiver because i think you can understand that exchange to involve the government basically saying we are to put this testimony within the exception to the privileges that exist with just for freely undertaken joint criminal activity and everyone expected that that would turn out to be true and then it wasn't true just for you just have about half a minute left and where do i live in the meantime until that trial date and i am not sure why that should count i have not briefed on that your honor i certainly there is a mandatory minimum that was two forty three this is the defendant really five i believe got two hundred sixty two months and that issue of course the jury fice special verdict finding i found   her transactions being about the instructions given by her husband you see i think it's a marriage all cases we cite talks about the joint criminal activity exception to the exception or narrowly because of public policy concerns and in this case all the defendants have someone or all the co defendants or mrs bowser testimony concerning the defendant's activities were related to the shipment of the parcels what was going on and how to  issues in effect as if i don't read on and the other supreme court cases dealing with plain error as restricting the kind of analysis the court can do to cases other than privileged cases and i think
alternative to rap's i guess they posited strategy that it was trying to buy up all the wraps so that its competition would not have available the wraps and therefore none of the plans goes down the drain because you've just told the competition  basis for saying it to come up with glee with a contrary view and if they do dispute that then you have a classic example of a case in which there is a you know a fundamental fact which is not completely frozen the dog didn't bark here is they had third party discover they went looking for other competitors were getting ready how many competitors they find they got in this period zero nobody did i think all things being equal assets under management growing is a good starting which arrives interests but that's i mean everybody agrees that if you grow assets that's better than not growing assets but there's really no evidence here that and the future and that's what they're expecting of the facilities for those futures here on the benchmark i think just kind of questions of right as to the correct answer they are fully disclosed that's the benchmark is telling you what the product is as it is