MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
on march twentieth nine hundred seventy at that time he received an eight year sentence and then a fifteen year term a special parole to follow as i indicated before he was paroled in his regular term regular law against him as to detain him he's not in federal custody now he's in california state custody as such the only live case or controversy before the court today is the last wholeness of the convictions violator warrant which is lost against him as a detainer the issuance of the commission's nineteen ninety nine supplemental violator warrants bar the expiration of the remainder of the special for one term and preserve the commission's jurisdiction to revoke walters mandatory release violated i mean that's a factual question but he has a claim that they can no longer issue this kind of one because he has he was paroled some time in eighty one and then it was by the district judges analysis was mandatorily released in december of eighty five her point was that if the guy had been since he was paroled before the so called mandatory release it could be mandatory release i think this was that is not a yes that's what your honor that is incorrect when there are two types of release that can follow of any release from  a prisoner isn't highlights released at the expiration of a sentence less good time credits and that's what happened here in one thousand nine hundred five when the commission determined after his after he was in the community twice the commission determined he should not be released into the court a copy of the rich remarrying bill decision which is the second circuit decision regarding special parole for the commission has not taken any action in wallace of case with regard to the special parole issue  in my in the characterization of my argument what i was arguing is that you cannot have both mandatory release or for and in raleigh you can either have mandatory
her hi i'm david the purpose this is the creative good where we celebrate all things in the creative commons today we're continuing our series on the woman's march january twenty one two thousand and seventeen the day after the end i get a ration donald trump so many people worldwide couldn't believe that he had been elected that the united states through the electoral college not the popular vote elected donald trump oh my god yes people were very concerned about human rights what did this mean in terms of women's reproductive rights what did it mean in terms of immigration what  mean for families what did it mean for human rights throughout the world and they marched about those concerns now we have ten episodes ten episodes in the first one we talked about getting ready and the second one we shared the speeches and in this one episode number three we're taking a look at the music every demonstration every be no possible way to get them all in one program let alone record them all so but we're going to give you a good spattering and i invite you to sing along chant along yes or just bring the march right into your home you can do that you know so here we go without any further ado let's take a look at the chants worldwide from this phenomenal event called the woman's march on washington here we go now i know you've been hearing a lot of talking and we all have so much to say inside of us we just i just want to thank you so much so you can reach thank you so much for you want me to lean in thank you so much  doctors leaders of industry and technology our potential is unlimited we were we will continue to rise until our voices are heard until our planet's safety is not deferred until our bombs stop dropping in other lens until our dollar is the same dollar as a man and we continue to recognize that yes we can
thank you your honors i would request fifteen minutes for argument and reserve if i please for a vote thank you others this morning up i would like to address or focus on issues one l but it doesn't there's no testimony as to whether the previous whether shows a crime offense being committed whether there could have been probable cause for something else to to arrest the prophet so that's the problem that around the you're going round sure that's so that what the testimony says is or what some testified is is that he saw his previous footage and he saw someone wearing a similar jacket again that's the only only thing that matches that arm and there's nothing else that what so says that you used or he relied on to match the fender n and whoever is in that previous footage then that doesn't seem to me to be enough eyes if you look at the record if you're honest look at the record there is right testimony shows is that she didn't really have a good opportunity to identify him from what we see in from there should have been maybe a motion to suppress the complaint id as to what unnecessarily can suggestive didn't violate due process although he hasn't made that argument i'm not quite sure what the heard someone saw someone come into that office and looked directly into the face of a person she later identified as the defendant and then she was hit on the heads of all times with a claw am and testified that he identified the defendant in both tapes and printed a photograph of the defendant presumably because the photograph and that he printed was better in surveillance tape number t hist the complaining witness once the plough station two vans and impersonal lineup and picked out the different all of those things happened before she had her fight him in open court as the i don't see any problem here i'm sorry i just it is it me
these are all large laws that folks have straight additional laws and it's not going to be out of character with that area peters so staffs recommending we approve the of this year starting with the parking lot and then finish up in order to grassing window by september of this year and will put up the range god willing next spring so we'll have we'll be fair to the project and it's been dave mentioned me as someone who's going to be away for a day put their garbage out but they don't come back that next morning maybe they come back another day that it's not going to be seen as a violation no
is a daughter and also barbara his opinion that this disclosure was essentially can mean that seem been sexually abused and then the third instance comes from the guardian a feel because that between august ninth both three and february of zero four which would have been consistent with her initial claim that she was abused every single time that she was  that's one example of just a bizarre story and this bizarre story is coming from sometimes clearly has serious mental problems she has in all her personality lives with a predator on this completely different thing which kind of brings me to the lecture issue regarding the state screw the specific towns it's just not they didn't prove just the number of instances here from testimonies to incredible to base support th a factor in only putting inconsistent powers rather than just throwing it all out there and let the whole world talk about whatever they feel like talking about what's on i think it's that speculation and when you look at it closely we have to look at not only the trial testimony of the victim's c m we also have to look at the fact that the trial judge said that the major corroborative factors that can syria was also the testimony of the treating the mental health issues the attempts at suicide attempts at harming herself were all found to be completely consistent with ms type of offense and the psychiatrist broke strongly to i actually believe that's an error and again i apologize i don't have the record with me i do believe that the judge specifically at school didn't want and i don't recall if it was the guardian or grandmother when the judge specifically said i'm not so that the more specific question is numbers just briefly about the pleasure issue
harmonize the parking capacity limitation to previous comments this decision said without valet or parking attendant assistance there was a one to twenty five vehicle question all in favor i
time to go talk to her son in private and then and then him when they came back the mother said i've told him to tell the truth here on the phone the officers she goes and talks to her son she comes back when she gets back she doesn't say we want a lawyer she says i thought until good so at that point is it reasonable for the police officers to believe that they are not invoking the right to counsel either of them anything either or either either the defendant on his own behalf or the mother on his behalf nobody's invoking the right to counsel that point the miners  i think he was on the other the last point which is that even if she can't go now and even if she did go counsel she relinquished it by her and your conversation with the police even then the police don't have to stop talking to the parents and so in all three of the instances which in this article were in
uh that's the second slide
the lawyer continues to negotiate without informing you how that in your mind is not a he substantial misrepresentation that requires  in that case what's the difference between what you're talking about and just the word lie simply lie to clearly in our ethical world you don't see any consisten so the only thing that i saw in the briefs is that you were involved in the estate in july that i'm sorry i did so he died in january and so i'm asking was it from obligations and aside from moving on this case it's been there i mean if we get to did to get to the heart of the matter this was not something i relish this was not something that i took lightly so you didn't tell because you wanted to make more money in the summer months obviously you had pain and suffering that you could argue in the settlement that you didn't have to die but might have had if you had a specially administrator into the court you know the right it looks like and you started at least the claim is you started negotiations in september is that is that your is it true that's correct  how long did you wait then to the point that statement i have my clients dead and informing the court this december thirtieth twenty thirteen that you have a special and based upon what you've told us here in the last few minutes you don't believe any of the failures to communicate that to the defendant was a misrepresentation under our rules of professional correct ok so let's pose i agree with you that from january of the time of death until eight twenty seven twenty thirteen when the representative was appointed and nothing was going on you weren't negotiating so there was no duty right because that's what you are sir but certainly in september when you began trying to settle the case and you had the authority from those special person appointed in missouri you don't think you have an obligation from september through november when you're negotiating to tell the other side that your client is dead i did i have already disclosed from my client
although careful use of force is permitted under certain circumstances but the necessary use of force is contrary to the law and that is in the plastic counties ole man states that the that the  hospital is that they cannot close the and it's easy to talk about these cases by mash up of of of cases and legal speak and kind of make it a little ambiguous but what the court really is saying is that and i'm not an officer needs to understand what he can and cannot do in a particular scenario in the he use case for example which was cited by the the an officer who faced a person who would not put my down after being asked but it might be out several times it was within a few feet of another person and whether an officer should have known that shooting that person someone who was not allowing the officers to do what they needed to do and in that case in all of those cases the use of force was substantially less than he was at myspace the think about this case is that in this him being under the influence and he was arrested for disorderly conduct which is a misdemeanor however the officers had already arrested him he was already under exist for d us because he was in the custody of the officers he was in a detention facility where there were several other officers one other officer was was behind him but as the assisting deputy hodge they had already made him take a shower he had already come out of the he didn't want all of us the officers to touch him which i suppose is not is not good however he was not one of the answers to touch him should not is not an
know my client is this he was a poor girl the child's mother had been the child's mother sometimes they lived together sometimes they did find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt which is ultimately for the trial back to decided the whether there was sufficient evidence there was evidence  potential leg back sheer lipper something wrong with his liver and so it wasn't just one instance they can both be convicted on the same thing because there are multiple injuries that have been over the seven weeks s evidence that even if he even if the jury didn't find it he did it as the principal he was to be counted for the actions because he knew what was going on and he was around
case clearly struggles to make a
issues to be sure the court in reno does say that claimants and social security cases should raise all issues and introduce all evidence that the facts of that case were that the claimant trying to listing and the judge responds no i determine the relevance i think the judge is right there the judge is the judge's job to figure out what this means social security wise i guess what i would ask the government to tell us in its argument is if we are supposed to articulate the arguments if we have to specify the issues where is it that we are expected to do so is the court to simply go through the record and look for articulations of othe that's right it's certainly the system it is intended to be one in which clients could be pro se that can be represented by representatives who are not lawyers there's a variety of possibilities that's true of the burden of proof they have to show that she is in fact mentally retarded only what i'm trying to argue is that it is absolutely meaningless to apply the listing for mental retardation to a person who on controls here and if that's the case then we don't even get into whether she made a list and if she didn't make the argument before the
and i'd be happy to answer that question robert doesn't quite reach issue of whether or not there is this timeline to remove based on and a defendant's own investigation wow i wasn't able to find a case that clearly stated that defendant roth that they took excessive time after reasonably determining that there was a cafe jurisdiction before remove it there's nothing in this record that would allow us to make that determination is there there's the
percentage basis on the on the jury pool in this case and i think that is quite fair to something that the statute does not address that we cannot culture or social justice is becoming more and more a concern that the court used to look at a statute like this and say  however with this county out the population in the city of alton is twenty five percent african american on a lot of towns within the county some of the bigger towns i believe that would still granite city
available to the pay her outstanding attorney fees that pay off most of her credit or not all that which puts her in a higher rank just ability range that most people go through divorces so in this without considering your s
medical treatment for a doctor for his knee did not miss any work because of his knee but that take any medication for his knee was working full to do as a police officer without problems of any type or kind and then he had the accident but the statute says any salary compensation to the injured person from workers compensation or any salary due him from any part of shrooms which may have been carried by the important public entity
on the highway on the farm molecules wanted and changing their sizes and shapes as required to do those jobs for great storage tanks to maintain a constant supply of crude o larger molecule molecule of exceptionally  itself remains on  catalyst which again joins the flow of it coming on miley with proper volatility complete there is no way you're trouble free performance at all times tested out on the road as well as in the laboratory and all types of engines and other all of the different gasoline molecules have not been improved on or controlled by science they are hunting down on what to do next actually takes place in about one five hundred seven second greatly slow down you can see that with this gasoline combustion was uneven and uncontrolled and at the end there was a jarring violent explosion enough that pounded and shut the engine now we shall repeat the action completely under control shall repeat the action watch while the combustion proceeds as it should smoothly and without the interference caused by not in the modern high compression engine modern gasoline gives a greater performance required another to make sure that
court is aware that the california supreme court is considering a narrower version of this issue and sheen versus wells fargo case and since federal judges  argument the california supreme court has announced this argument scheduled for april may or june i had hoped it would be heard one of those moments i'm not so sure now but that is  complaint was balanced by the district court judge properly because i think on the quote district court's own review that it didn't allege subject matter jurisdiction and that plaintiff hear absolutely because that is who is is is frankly one of the we need to touch on regardless of the contract and the reason is because the only allegation in the complaint i think is your honor touched on is a conclusion or allegation that they says and they said in looking at a tally of the facts in that case as in this case you not only look at what the allegations were with regard to the materials that were submitted we also look at the information with regard the application is complete you have not provided us with the materials that were sent and you have not even told us what you sent in it to allege that the application is complete so as far from the facts in the lion chase where you had evidence opportunity to lead it they have not told the court fundamentally what was submitted how it was submitted let alone that all of that was the required material at the end of the day they could  the nation started didn't have to comply with consolidation and and it didn't have to ever say that a application is complete and one other point before it finished this
why why did the doesn't work i can't even call anybody or i've got somebody who's calling me back tomorrow i hope to retain you know but he can't say that it appears to be nothing but open ended he said who wants to do this so where's the abuse of discretion while he was explaining why it is that he was denying the motion to continue he says you know something i you know believe that he said he would spend two months and then he deny the request for a continuance and then proceeded to go for en that in hindsight we now know what the true facts were and that you have an inexperienced party who's trying to be diligent has not explained it well but he did come up with a very very legal term that it's unlikely that an immigrant from southern mexico would use use the word continuance and that's the way it gets translated in the in the train in the transcript so there was something going on there because he get you the circumstances or if you go back to the april th preliminary hearing he waved that was a valid waiver of the right to counsel the of the immigration judge in the beginning explain the process explained what was going to happen and he said you know you can you have the right to have an attorney she even mention the northwest immigrant rights group that could represent him and he said she asked him if you if you want to turn your want to speak for yourself and he said case the facts of this case and if you look at what judge five he said about what happened at the next hearing after two months where was where he didn't have an excuse he just said oh my family's dealing with that he said you know was in front of the immigration judge on june th two thousand and eighteen was an application that was already filed two months before it was attained alien point blank the yeah yeah you know what but you got one explain what you want are you in the process so that you have a more fully informed decision and that's the difficulty i'm having here is that it doesn't appear in your back exploration was undertaken and it's what i think that's that follow twenty a j about that case as well and i would disagree about what that case means for this case i think that's what the impressions of his responsibility is for developing the record and i think
upon a decision of the district court that had been filed and ruled upon and two different cases off here involving the same the same juvenile offense and involving basically used the wrong vehicle to bring in the district court ruled the best whether or not there was jurisdiction he could not bring it in the context of a challenge to the probation revocation proceedings be challenged at any time according to the case law can act the way and given the fact that it can be raised to any time it can be waived i don't under the what i would disagree with with the district court's decision is imposing some sort of requirements procedural requirements upon just trying to raise this issue through some sort of different vehicle if it didn't have power initially that power cannot be somehow the michael r decision really recognized that fact and so what they did is they looked at the effects of of juvenile and current position on possession in the aggregate on basically  if at the time that the information is that the liar who was was he in a position to make the same arguments without the inadequacy of the information that he's making now petition fails to state and of finance under the law now why isn't that available to him and then i would have had in the case that if you rely on that says he cannot attack it that was simply simply on whether or not the district court should have ruled on the jurisdictional issue when it was presented instead of stating it cannot and at the same time would it so you have previously or this court has previously said that is the district court has previously
the talker who testified that her son arrived at her house that night very upset and said that he couldn't believe what it's father had done and that he saw fit to strike and that the girls felt tired  on the victim and inside the victim which was conclusive proof of penetration as the trial court stated in issuing its very guilty so for these reasons and the reasons stated that people