MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
of the evidence that was submitted and what's frustrating is in a sense mr party was kind of same vague the government brought in all this evidence of uncharged allegations and he wasn't provided an opportunity to confront any of this evidence and the court used this to twenty two things about the notes that are not clear to me why it's not clear to me that they were in the custody of the government and to it's not even cl that was just never done in this case the court just considered that it's only option was to continue well but you have to have some basis for claiming that you're oh sure and the witness in this case said these are my notes and according to my what it has to be is a state made pretty close to that statement prepared and adopted by the witness as his or her statement and definitely would qualify the witness prepare them and then use them as the and certainly here i think the government's position what did position was at the time that all of those witnesses were not necessary there were certainly enough at least some and issue of reliability as for those two letters that were presented to the court brad the probation officer think the court was mostly concerned about the danger of the community i think the court made it very clear that was his concern and i might add if i may put is that me really me i believe the court was not only concerned about defendant had not followed through coverage the court had given the defendant to opportunities by modification to avail himself of the treatment that wasn't happening then he had information to find it was a class three sex offender and he had information not of real standing so i don't believe it was just based on certainly those two letters of humor too but he also had a probation after that based on its report and a live witness they were telling him exactly the same thing i think  used drugs and violation and in fact this one statement which i'd better get on to this one statement that the government was not a government suggestion i think the record is clear defendant told the court he was not did not have any of his records with him he was relying on had he did bring up a point about atlanta tickler incident that had never been alleged by probation and that was not one of the violations and everything i've read in the record i don't see how the court even mentioned it i don't think he considered it
they are the mil abroad and people at home lost well for the want of packing a bomb may be lost it takes people of machines and it takes men to keep machines going in a paper mill of war maintenance man maintenance man who also make war products the heavy duty cargo winch for example yasin that takes power to lots of it then to turn out that power and along with the men and women and bakers strippers tremors and paper machines along with the maintenance man the man in the power houses are the men of the war products division no department a paper per serving selected war materials to make them stronger more durable more efficient and from the same resin scrap the work product of asian men developed case alike a laminating in molding paper paper paper to replace steel aluminum synthetic gresson and other critical materials and more product these are the men who share a large dramatic part of the overall story of cumberland park at war but these are the men who performed a production miracle who converted a male from making a product of peace in paper to making an intricate product of war and metal a big job difficulties problems ye into an ordnance assembly plant one of the amazing production conversions of this war in seven months these men brought together one hundred and twenty subcontractors five thousand people in eight different one hundred and twenty different sub contractors in eight states supplying over nineteen hundred different parts plan worked out and supervised by kimberly clark engineering new learning hands willing hands important hands yes these are the hands of people who are paper mill people making a receiving the armed services highest honor for outstanding production of necessary war materiel yes they use out the people the people who fight the war a production
i think that there was a basis for him to move to reconsider the record it's not clear he never did he gave up i don't believe it to be a jurisdictional requirement when there is a consequence constitutional or and then constitutional bias among the court did find that my complaint with that is first of all that this is a factual dispute that's being adjudicated not on a full evidentiary hearing now unlike the cases cited by the attorney general court here in the magistrate are making these credibility determinations based upon or a paper record and this court and smith versus band xanth says that's not the place to but that's not how we determine these issues of credibility so and in fact mr seto's deposition was taken in terms of preservation because he was in the military and was about to be called up and look for did not grant depositions of mr bruner or  state courts and rammer and smith in those cases don't see exactly what kind of hearing but what if you had to bring in the witnesses and examine them about what exactly happened and in fact yes racial and john sampson his assistant attorney general representing the respondent the district court correctly deny the petition because the state court decision in this case was neither contrary to nort what they said was that petitioner had presented no confident evidence to prove that the only thing he had presented was hearsay they hearsay testimony of mr have heard father who said this is what i heard from person who heard the comments from the juror said the only thing the juror said was don't worry we'll take care of them he said the jury never made any racist remark there is no direct evidence of any racist remark the was on the record with direct evidence saying i never talk to the defense attorney just to have first defense attorney i never talk to mr halfords father during the trial was not till after the trial all the evidence shows that the attorney made the motion when he heard about the act in a reasonably confident manner they found the first problem they also found the second prong because they cannot show prejudice they cannot show that any juror misconduct actually occurred because they cannot show any prejudice they cannot show that they could have won on a timely filed a motion based on ledger misconduct because the only statement was don't worry we'll take care of them that's an ambiguous remark there's no extraneous
and here for that matter why isn't an adverse credibility determination supportable in this case where you have someone who's come here on a business  question and the answer is that mr grant specifically testified in the record that he had a conversation with his father in china after september eleventh two thousand and one that very depending on the legal requirements that make that may be something they have to have i don't really understand how the mere fact that he's renewing his legal document shows that he's not afraid i don't even understand but just wanted to point out that sir there is actually nothing inconsistent with what mr waller was testifying to here but he didn't he didn't contradict his written statement he contradicts himself on the stand the only
exhaustion or the merits of the issue i don't think so you've pretty much controlled by and i believe that we address that argument in our brief that's with respect to the ineffective assistance of counsel issue i believe that the proper response to this court is to remand the case back to the district court for a hearing with respect to whether or not to counsel made i think time had he had the california courts have a fair chance to deal with this i think that he did raise the question of waiver in the california supreme court on appeal i think the specific factual assertion is of the initial filing and as a result had he been he probably would have been more specific about the basis for the claim and as well as the filings in the california supreme court all of those filings were appropriate result here i think only with every man and can we both have an answer with respect to what happened factually at that hearing and also with respect to whether or not the claim is properly exhausted in the california supreme court court or before the california supreme court was the end right right was it raised in a place after the united states supreme court decided that issue counsel submits his briefs nonetheless arguing in drafty and then raising this new issue which he's been arguing is that counsel was ineffective in making the decision to forego having a jury trial on the on the substantive offense and instead focusing on the application of the three strikes law to this particular defendant this case occurred at a time california had relatively recently passed a three strikes law so there were all these issues about its application and whether or not a petty theft of the prior qualified whether the trial court had think that this got on its face that he was mis advised he would get one year if you pled because the whole hearing the whole purpose of the of the forgoing the trial tremendous precinct many trees were lost on everything three strikes application there were numerous unresolved issues about its application and that's where she chose to focus and judge arneson and as i said it went against the what the where we thought things were going until the cost of supreme court decided romero and agreed with   a long history i don't think you're outside the spirit of the scheme that's the language in this respect and i'm not going to exercise it on your behalf so he got it is you're saying it's loaded with john yeah i think she did the best the whole the whole point the litigated issue is this application of the three strikes law that's what everybody that's what the whole fight is about so the idea that he was promised you plea you went to a slow plea not get you a year it construed as liberally as possible i think that this court should look at those pleadings as containing a claim that it's certainly included the factual or potentially included the factual assertion that his lawyer made this promise
identify with the government or and so i wonder how you would explain it even if it's timely where is the persecution so i  to be individualized and just speaking only for myself i'm concerned but from your side of the case what happened to your clients was not a good thing did not i have a question for you about the timeline which was the primary but not the only should we examined
is an exception to the
we were preserving five minutes only one serving twenty milligrams per capita than your honor but that would make are permanent injunction actually i think after the providing more detailed information about what but it doesn't really matter the whole thing is the contract  two thank you very much
when it comes to a question of the law i don't question the fact the state has to speak with one voice even if they're different for the state represents one point in criminal cases matter what the case is always the people so  what regarding the cause of prejudice determination there's really no reason to limit bailey to that situation where you're dealing with just the initial
the court's main concern was the possibility that the outcome after a trial would be different if a default were entered than if if there had actually been a trial of the merits counsel are you familiar with the case in franchise fully versus  factors in the meaning of these factors they do lay out the factors but first of all in this particular case the court laid out the factors but the question that was never presented to the court seemingly as to whether or  not all three factors must weigh in favor of the of plaintiff or the defendant or whether the court can you can you can and should weigh those three factors and balance them against each other for a second the court in franchise holdings never reference informed and had been addressing the issue of whether these three factors should be should be considered independently or whether they should be balanced against each other which which in fact was what the white court winter carpenter's work did it looked at the there would only be if the if it were default judgment case as a rule fifty five b addresses but this is not well looking at the couple conduct factor in this particular case the court seems to have that just a court seems to have misinterpreted that particular factor saying that that  defendant did not show up because he did not have an attorney for it for the majority of time during which he was reported that's ten we no excuse if we were to sanction that as an excuse the whole system you could go forever just failing to come to court and come to court and say well i don't have an attorney and then we would be required to say oh well that's good let's start off again for five years later to hire its lawyers is it worth defending that's the thing that i think a corporation that says we're in a business of money and he doesn't have money to hire a lawyer who cares about
preserve your client and you get another attorney if you want to but i think you'll be a waste of your time and i asked are i go back to live in about three years later i'm reading in my local paper and are you saying that none of those things happened really looking over because some of them are confusing the court made several references to the talk about some of these patterns but those are clearly had notice prior to that they that they had they believe avery and rendered have wronged them they had discussions with a reason runner and there was discussion about that and what the supreme court in texas is that  person would not have known about their injury known that it was a information that was this was in discovery that indicated that there was at least some reference to a fear of malpractise there or there could have been although i'm sure with the basis of had beer would have been in any event although renner autopilots position that it never  back dish what we're talking about here today are the defenses of limitations and the lack of causation on the thing that's the only think that that really matters or for summary judgment have retained other counsel they presented no evidence that they did so and in fact the only summary judgment evidence on this point is the evidence that appeared in at least three the second example
think we're trying to figure out a way to get a cap on a two without using any metal so to save money on that take place of me ask you a little question what's the idea of the third degree you know perfectly well what the idea is and don't try to change the subject i asked you where you were working well we couldn't very well work at the plant on our own stuff so we went over to mike's grill oh that's great i suppose you went to her apartment afterwards you had plenty of time apart talking about you crazy don't you believe anything i tell you i don't believe you were working so hard mike going to let you couldn't even call me up in fact i don't believe you were working at all who were you really worried that that little blonde secretary from the office lockwood were going to get the jealous wife factor i told you that i was working i told you what i was working on i told you where and went home and if you don't believe me it's going to be just too bad i've been watching you lately you know the same thing you come home late almost every night from the office you know how hard i've been working recently when i have to work hard if i'm going to make a success of this thing now please try and be real i don't want to be reasonable i just want to know what you've been doing lately and you want to day by day account of everything that this woman in town why she had to work reputation some of the women to go to her beauty shop and everybody in town knows what they are now look you've got the rain all right we're working on wear your dinners in the garbage can i threw it out and you can get out to maybe your girlfriend will beat you i won't use to straight to d c and how could i have even thought about it for a minute because i'm not as honest as five years after  was serving with that new boy in the care that's why i twisted everything to make it seem that dan was bad i wanted him to have the same thoughts i did then i got to believing he really did have them maybe it's too late you can't go on for maybe i can find him bring him back i'll find him i'm sure of it now doing it again i'm thinking all the bad things all those nasty things are got me into this trouble how can i think of the other thing let me think of other things he's my husband you know i need him to come home i ten thirty you'll come home i'm now i know it wasn't fake i know it was just me my imagination building things up the didn't really exist real nasty green eye i wanted to be just of you and i want to be like i am now loving him and believe
not i'm a little bit  looked at it we agree you're wrong we're going to reverse the order and you have your section that would be one way of handling it another way of handling it would be to say well he's agree we're sending us back you to reconsider your practice that in fact you know a large number of people and it doesn't pass the power and anyway how those people might be affected then presumably until we know more all those people that's all on the table in th about your what you're talking about is adjusting the amount of controversy to compensate for the fences that the that the founders had of going to be able to assert at some point down the road but i think that's improper at the stage of looking at the don't get any other than ok but then you wait and get more evidence and then it becomes really clear then they're going to argue that you waited too long or at very dangerous correct number one we there's always the question
fundamental fact here is that the proceedings actually started in this case with the filing of the order to show cause in one nine hundred ninety three and then the case was knocked off calendar for several years till  mind if we could hear from the government why was it it appears that you've already worked out a reasonable solution  and why doesn't that just completely that's not the government's position the government's position vector congress repeal twelve c and it's no longer available for vision under which any alien has to apply are based on the fact that rely on the immigration judge's decision that's the basis for which the aliens application four to twelve feet was preaching that the board for this matter without opinion and the government's only concern and could affirm it without opinion because it's not a law that in this case mr alpha lark went to trial here but if there's any ambiguity and what the board then you're saying that in your view the answer is start yeah thank you you have an infinite amount if we don't start the current one what's wrong with the government's argument that under the real i d act that current law applie across the board now period unless there's a constitutional problem with with applying it goes a little bit surprised to hear that argument it wasn't raised in their briefs at all so i hadn't really thought about it looked at right or wrong  governed by the real id changes the real id changes control but not for all the other things that were changed in iraq iraq or the preexisting law for example the real i d act doesn't change the procedures for you know adjustment of status
performing engineering wondered without anything resembling man francis or plumb line pattern or blueprint without any tools except those with god as fashion as a part of her b balloons blankets and cushions in making its web first throws out a strong but narrow bridge becomes the base for the entire structure to his great aerial highways of steel and concrete requires the combined work of hundreds of engineers and many months or even years of planning but the spider is in doubt with the ability to perform an engineering feat that defies man's ability to fully comprehend the spider's construction is accomplished without any previous training and without any evident blueprint  typical insect he has no wings or antenna now perhaps you're wondering how the spider avoid being caught in its own trap about the reason it's not hard to find the web is actually made up of two kinds of silk them the web is not the only example of spider engineering great skill is exercised in the construction of the exact itself can fall which will protect the eggs and later  communication lines lead to them descending line providing with a cumbersome but reasonably efficient means of remaining submer to add another dimension to their line cesium the problem is to get in and out without dividing the house into a duplex and stay out without drowning this is accomplished in a most ingenious bank the spider the they not only make it possible to capture the large bubbles but also retain sufficient air for unhampered work and scrabbled removes the surface there is no need for the argument as it's been a web to capture her  to baby don't block yes that last man has solved the problems of limited ventures beneath the tide apparently accepted by this strange family of creatures that move so we have hardly begun to observe the diversity of skills by those present each day we see doors of every kind of every size and shape and for every person actually none of these is remarkable as
successfully satisfy the case yes well in this case there are a number of actions that were taken by the defendant against judge morgan that satisfy the standard of dissuading a reasonable employee from well it's in and you're correct that there had a number of these allegations in the past and that actually informs why this was retaliate tory because the is those allegations that you're referring to had by and large been investigated and warning to employees if you make a discrimination claim that and then ask whether there's any investigations about who will tell you whether there are  the change in the answer it's when she on the one hand first before the flame discrimination says no there's no investigation then more amazingly discrimination and then the next thing that happens is church sex comes in after launch she says no you are under investigation she good morning your honors may please the court my name is sheila sawyer and i'm here on behalf of the defendant apollyon that seabury health i think that the question that the last question that your honor church had opposed to opposing counsel was absolutely spot on what judge morgan wants this court to hold is that under the rubric of burlington northern that it would dissuade a business employee from acre sustaining a charge of discrimination by information that the employer suffered quested that the employer believed to be true at the time it was communicated and which by the way the employee believed she was entitled to under a collective bargaining agreement we submit that would be untenable under the you know the burlington progeny and burlington northern and its progeny and then just stepping back context matters as the supreme court said in burlington northern have to look at the events in face of being told that she was her conduct was being scrutinized and so i think that when you look at all the evidence in the record in context it's very clear that summary judgment was appropriate in this case you know  awful i i would agree with your with your honor and unfortunately historically there's been this tension between the agency and the jake work because there is precedent out there that says that they have judicial independence and discretion so the agency has to walk a very fine line in enforcing the policies that it puts in place and many judges comply and some don't and