MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
so the it sometime in march that mr calhoun was in form he doesn't have exact knowledge of when their contact was made between alright but it's some time between february twenty four incarcerated he was found guilty of the federal charges of april twenty first two thousand and six so that's that is what eight years ago yes so i mean it most looks like we're talking about seventeen days but the thing that makes it real for significance is a conversation with usa when it appears to have been in march yes after that point no one was informed of hit his sentence that that expert that it had expired the judge was not informed similar to the case of abi nor there was no lag particularly when the trial date was pushed back from before i mean in light of the fact that the trial date was originally supposed to happen before the state sentence expired but then what's change our i was there some reason for it was in getting ready and preparing for this argument that had been digging down to figure out what really went how what really happened and could we find in the record or qualified immunity to the prosecutors in this case which is the ground for decision as it is it because even if one assumes that she should not manage should not have had the conversation with both right it's  that on the qualified immunity analysis as to both problems that judge buck author was cracked he was cracked first in finding that there was no constitutional violation alleged based on the conclusory meter of the facts in the complaint this man was referenced twice mr goldstein was referenced once and even if we were to take the allegation which provides more detail about miss me and not with the time frame other than the march timeframe and not with the context me and had some kind of conspiracy with miss bell write a few things number one and it as i said you can look at that in a vacuum that here we have a number of things that would would go against that  defend criminal defense attorney who was representing to his clients you were being held you're being held not on federal charges you're being held on the state to tina and that state the team has going to keep you incarcerated until the duration of the criminal proceedings that's one thing out there another thing is that the point that judge buckwalter i think very correctly makes is that if you look at the criminal court docket here this wasn't a period of an end in activity as  now it was in the case of terminated as we had an odd person in the lead this is between the june twenty ninth two thousand and five indictment and that the trigger date that the appellant's relied upon february twenty third two thousand and six there were no less than fifteen entries on the criminal court docket there was oversight there were other independent entities involved here so i think to answer your question i don't mean to be
well the first case today is number one eight one six zero two gene at all versus the face cool that  discrimination brought by the young student and his friend the record shows that the family brought respectfully to the attention of a very costly private school that their relatives and sons and daughters had been attending for many years court said it was purely aspirational and if you take a look the contracts provision in the handbook the provision does say some things are aspiration that in fact he suffered from this and that was dr who was excluded for very good reasons by the trial court so all remains now is the retaliation the british contract claim and the misrepresentation claim that these have anything to do with whether this difference i think it is semantics because you end up in the same place given the utter lack of factual support for any of the misrepresentation claims but i can't completely reconcile in closing i the the fact that something is outlawed by a lot does not mean that the statement that we will give every student the same rights as every other student and specifically privileges programs
ninety three april two thousand be the first superseding indictment in this case has i believe fifty's six various counts the count i want to focus on i abetting count count number twenty eight could include all transactions involved in this heroin conspiracy and those transactions are on a timeline from november one thousand nine hundred nine through april aiding and abetting account i'm sorry if i'm going in a roundabout way to your question the aiding and abetting count as written in the indictment focused on a failed attempt to smuggle ninety grounds of heroin from los angeles to molly and as the evidence came through a trial the evidence to substantiate that count in the indictment but my problem is with the judge despite the fact that rather than making it a very tight instruction saying that the defendant aided and abetted these defendants named income point on this particular day the jury the jury clearly was following what was going on the jury came small distribution of drugs that the defendant had done that she had done at the defendant's request when he was laid up with a broken leg she had done that on maui with we're talking quarter gram half grams amount not anywhere near the end not necessarily charged on match day i marched on march thirty first the the other transactions we've talked about which were undercover sale to a steve a couple of comments the government has mentioned that it attempted to focus the jury in its closing arguments but we submit that the weight of the closing arguments cannot match the importance
personal jurisdiction grounds it is an obvious question to ask how does the circumstances wipe out where there was a single transaction one exchange of money and one delivery of goods to oregon i haven't read the case recently but i thought it was a purchase from oregon and the court went into some detail about the consequences and are going to produce the but the buyer outside the state had ordered now i were going to check that but i mean i may be totally wrong i do stand corrected already purchased was from the manufacturer in oregon to florida and then the court as i recall went into some detail about what it meant to manufacture something in oregon in the consequences economic their case because white field for us when it comes to personal jurisdiction question is whether interacting with your online service provider could you just put the context for me your your client's you what you quoted on and how that fits into the whole contract that for was working that it's clear that placing a telephone or having a fax for significant contacts in work and it's important that you know that it was not the actual production so much as the fact that they made the order and it would have significant
for even though he had been physically deported already at that time this court's decisions in those two cases held that where that deportation was invalid because it was based on an invalid conviction part of the country is the same regulation that would normally say if you're outside the united states you can't file a motion to reopen and that's not what he did you keep saying that you see that's not what happened it seemed the appeal withdrawn invalid about this deportation well there we hears from this record well there would be because if the original deportation could be all if there is nothing in this record which shows what you're getting to the merits now but the merits of the same issue as the jurisdiction in this case that's that's that's where i'd is where i'm trying to focus you keep saying that but it's not because while the appeal was pending he departed illegally which is a basis of removal now he came back in a legal like the record it's not clear what exactly happened because the service couldn't at that point go ahead and just remove him again administrative briefs saying what probably happened was it was reinstated that's the best language that they use in their in their briefs that were filed for the board and what reinstatement is this it's a process where if someone is hiring counsel in the country to bring the motion vacate the conviction on base on which the removal is vague correct that's right and if a court then grants three commission based on the constitutional basis what's the next proper step for the removed daley what should that person do well let me first begin by saying i think the they can't move to reopen right that's true because they're not here that's true conviction that was the basis for the removal it's been set aside on constitutional grounds they're outside the country they haven't reentered but now the basis of so upon which that they were removed is gone i understand you're on what what's the next present the reasons for that a nine and a nine i think within those provisions because there's a bar you know obviously if they're deported there's there's a bar now that they would have to go and make their  consideration there also your honor finality concerns that are at stake here that i'd like to point out one of the things that we do emphasize in our great is the timeline and that seems to be another consideration to sort of  was valid under the law now what he did was he came back in and he sought to challenge his prior order based on the fact the law had changed its somewhat analogous situation here whether the law has been changed but his very quickly we heard that there must be jurisdiction to reopen even after the deportation and there's nothing in the regulations the says that if you come back that also buys you from reopening and arriola this court held that there has to be jurisdiction somewhere if
court expected to think that it's reasonable for an enemy to give up objective control of his or her case to effect to retain counsel and that's what happened here they believe that this person was her counsel she represented that she was an attorney and then they let the court were in charge of their case  to open the door there that they would have prevailed and what do you think the chances are that they would have provided have three minutes and twenty one seconds left
to the board of immigration appeals status and i got into this case comes to the court with a very interesting foster responded and the petitioners agreed that the credibility determination negative credibility determination made by the agency is improper vigorous as it may appear that it was in the context of after having gone through all the various testimonial evidence it was in the context of his legal determination regarding the elements of asylum and then he stated that this case comes down to one  determination as to whether there was any well founded fear in this case there wasn't even determination as to whether he and whether the treatment rose to the level past persecution whether it actually was on account of he did make that one statement that if what he said was true it could be an on account of of was it on account of he was a traitor he was being deemed a traitor because he had disagreed or or badly about the police was it on account of his of a political opinion or was it a kind of him being on account of him being part of a group that was being says the adverse credibility germination was wrong and were find him credible at that point needs to go back for the board to analyze whether in fact this treatment rose to the level of persecution if it
people versus susan missing and counsel statement included just a vague term of art legal just haitian that the jury may not even have understood and further this statement was not linked in the defendant and the defense counsel's opening statements to the concept of victim who was legally blind who was attacked in a darkened room and identified her attacker only by the sound of his mumbling and the light from the television and who had died consume a pint of micro three digital shots of liquor and some unknown amount of beer on the not prove that this robin evidence if presented would not have created a reasonable probability of for instance there was an evidence presented at trial that problems was out of town that night or something that there wasn't evidence that this
list versus a yes i mean it's a question of how do we get around that what distinguishes this case from now on which if there is no distinction why wouldn't it be binding well i would say that it is a distinction considered by the judge into not that this was recommended by the magistrate for the judge that consider probation recommended a a a reduction and the justice says denied an item arguing that in this case that heard the comments represent haitians and your clients representation is all we know is it but there seems to be a conflict there and are we now  judge listed three reasons because he was relying on three reasons you know fully is there a problem with that third reason when on he says as well as his contact at the bureau of prisons to watch  but it's but it's ok for the judge not to even mention or on any of his positive conduct well because in cars well that brings me to the other interpretation which is you could easily read it's my concern is that when i read the prosecutor's statements there it seems to suggest that they're just getting two examples and they're also suggesting that it was government made its move which was slightly misleading at least to be charitable date information about defendant's violation so includes a mailable to you excuse me you can get to the date information so that you can give the judge an accurate indication as to whether it's pretty or opposed and whether it's one or more  the papers the memorandum in support of the motion or the opinion of the government or the probation officer if there's reason to think that the judge may have made a decision without having all of the information from all sides that would also certainly be a closer case but that's not misleading statement that was also material and in this instance i don't believe that it is because many such as sure it's hard to determine if the judge gives three reasons you're telling us to disregard one
subsequently they didn't mind that other planes of the pre were in a later time so all the result was that we wound up having this contest apparently where she might have been a contest at all preamble discussion goes out the window however we would then have the senior party we would have to have an actual reduction in practice because you would have been predating the correct doesn't the rest of it all flow from that question it does but on the other hand as a separate completely separate matter you have a situation where we actually have an early on a annie we duction practice forty five which is the paper that led to it i understand that caption at sixty four and sixty five that's why they raised it there that's in response to a request for a comment on the count as i understand it right and their response was we will think this is a good count we think the count needs to be broadened we think it should be claimed seven here are the reasons why how how does that possibly be untimely when the world actually is asking them for that information well sixty five i don't really have a sense of why the four rejected their motion and since i don't have a sense of it and because i don't have a sort of understanding that there is something wrong affectively with seven and it wasn't materially different from count two and therefore it was also obvious over axim and therefore there was no basis up is that what you're saying i don't believe that
conditions prevented her from receiving health care reasonable rate she was on food stamps and had no health insurance because of her praises to a medical condition is argument that you can't change a settlement or property settlement agreement that now or in the back he's going to make less on his pension because he's continuing to pay maintenance out of the pension what about that ar
see that so now she suddenly goes from not seeing him to if he didn't do the shooting to ok maybe he ran into the house but then on her own without it and that's something the police officers clearly couldn't know anything about the conversation and between her and other individual about how come you left the showcasing in my house  shooting this is a totally separate ancillary matter which i would suggest she really didn't even understand the significance of well as i write i believe that the police were aware of where
a constitutional and i think one of the when i picked up this brief when i first looked at this my friend the same thing came into my mind that came in to the winning him cour is not there it is as my theory used all the time in all of the circumstances the united states supreme court has said that when an arrested individual is not receiving probable cause determination within forty eight hours the burden of proof shifts to the government to demonstrate the existence of a blow by over the sea or other extraordinary circumstance  that it cannot have a deterrent effect in this particular case to say that a crowd would say i want people to know that if they break if they dr if they go kill someone that they're going to go prison that's a pretty good deterrent if people know that it will be fewer people getting behind the wheel of the bills when they are and he didn't do that to say that there are that justin's actions in putting some gas in the car and i answer here is an extraordinary circumstance that says that the defendant should not go to prison for causing just that just to me by life that i cannot find defense counsel says is ever there was a case that was extraordinar circumstances it's this one i say to you if ever there was a case where there were no extraordinary
prejudicial i believe it's because they were which the government is referring to how he was acting in the context of the video or audio recording it's not the charge same here in this courtroom you did not hear a series of crimes actions being set up otherwise you have a situation like the defendant bennett brothers just being beamed from mars and just magically appearing in the midst of a drug transaction conceivable error in a refusal to order bennett test fire is clearly harmless beyond a reasonable doubt for several reasons number one you have overwhelming evidence not just with respect to the growth of drugs but when in respect  testimony it should be the defense attorney who says my client has told me that bennett told him unless you buy their garment you know x y or z are going to happen or the agents are not going to go through with the point seems to be from the government's perspective that what the jury sees as the defendant doing the way he wants to avoid actually handing over there because he can try situations where if you focus on that video frame the way the prosecutor did him in closing argument drawing the jury's attention to it when you see it's really almost miraculously fast paced measures to do it you're almost can't see it happening and so what the in the sense in this case which is i understood drug use or i don't know anything about drug dealing you know i'm not a drug dealer we have to be able to combat that argument in our clothes and we have to be able to draw the jury's attention to just a meter user and saying it's not his st rodeo he's been doing this a while is just another way of saying that same thing it's another way of making the point context in which he makes those remarks now if the prosecutor simply made a closing statement without discussing the evidence and made remarks and that kind i would agree with that would be problematic for sure  crying them to the evidence we would be in a different position but here the government is focusing the jury right in on those clips and if you want to look at the clips you your graph should because then you'll see just how comparing the argument is  it's really amazing really fast they can get krug's into that one console and it does seem to indicate that this is practiced behavior just as we argued to the jury so unless the court has further questions will rest on our brief
he had an interview in two thousand and six so there the government has approved all the qualifications for him to have a lawful permanent resident he's been waiting fifteen years for that but by declaration and documents and he showed change treasury conditions and also change personal circumstances which in our briefcase twenty three b list the statutory section to a wa state sponsors of terrorism so those are changed conditions and also under multi for instance are it's whether the information was available at a previous hearing he never had a one of the services that the court offers to the parties is a way to get together and try to resolve the issues you know an equitable manner and we've been fairly successful confer with the authorities who make these decisions and then advise us whether the government is willing to participate he would have had to make an argument that what did the board what excites regards to why he never appeared at his initial deportation hearing the hearing where he w that is correct however when it's just decision with regard to the second most injury open also the border in order to grant any second motion to reopen the board would have been required to to make a finding as prejudiced and the board did not support how that there was no prejudice and in order to show as a disposition of what is needed is still a even in the context of the second motion to reopen he with regard to could you tell me what reasons that you gave on the record for the late filing in two thousand and three the reasons why you rely on reopen and then its explanation is not rational it says there's no prejudice well he was eligible to adjust it i say well he couldn't got the case reopened he got it real and it was you know maybe jurisdiction of the