MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
he cooperate with that inspection and it is the employer's immediate reaction is to take away the key take away the pager tell me have any contact with his coworkers he cannot reenter the premises and he must accept an immediate meeting the following day transfer to toledo ohio on either a permanent or temporary basis the district court concluded those are essentially it's agreed that that occurred that he could not  both because what the court didn't analyze i think they could've given him the best deal in the world as far as we'll give you a million dollars to go to washington d c i mean they could have given him the greatest job offer in the world something that would be fabulous for him fabulous for his family but if the option is take it or you're going to be fired and he doesn't want to go along with that because he thinks he's trying to they're trying to secret him away from the ocean investigators and says i'm not going to cooperate wow it would be great but it's not something i feel comfortable doing and they turn around and fire him because he won't i think it both goes to the factual question in this situation did they discharge him and was that discharged wrongful the court analyzes that to factor or the two questions was he just charged and they stop there because they say under the disputed facts we're going to find it wasn't a discharge i mean ultimately the term discharge in this act is pretty broad the first edition charge of constructive discharge or any other terminations employment any other germination employee including resignation elimination of the job layoffs for lack of work failure to recall the higher cutback in the number of employees all of those things and it seems to be an exhaustive list of any type separation from employment within the definition but then ironically the district court found it didn't need to look at the factual issue of whether this charge was wrongful because it is not working at that company more isn't correct they said immediately bar you from the premises an increase in pay and an opportunity to move across the country away from the family and that actually mean because they made an offer they're not doing it in retaliation for the ocean's faction and the facts that we put forward to get to a jury or that they instantly when they found out to the inspectors to
prevent or at least more so if you look at everything including the fact that there's a whole party and to relieve the defendant of a duty as a common carrier would be setting an extremely dangerous precedent then the best fish ruling where it seems to be a duty analysis and yet the duty analysis in this case the judge focused on the evidence and normally duty is a question of law for the circuit court or for the court to decide and we do it now on the basis case the risk is getting in to announce an elevator that has been vandalized that might put the passengers at rest and the question is where should who should be the responsible party should the passenger
for the reason which is supported by it's true proves our case because the reason is we were too busy preparing for trial which can't be an excuse because every single lawyer prepared for every single trial is too busy and destruction of records that's a three day long thank you
implies that you have to proceed on a motion you know because it's the you know it's the contract theory that you can't let the state department's part in not the other part of this part and so they don't they don't i'm sure the rule does not anticipate a meaningless gesture of right in the law says anyone any concessions made any concession was made it's not to stick the usual concessions it can and this is that the defendant makes that point is absolutely true this was not the usual case they did it differently here it was in the law the law informed his appeal rights he knew what he was giving up and who would you know as to whether or not the assistant state's attorney forfeited the claim of waiver her appeal time after time judge she said judges as she said you know she hadn't done that defense counsel didn't to the defendant but the defendant was argued but the judge wasn't persuaded to what he agreed to that is our
president is wrong that his appeal is not moot and just constitutional claims of ineffective assistance of counsel take precedent over the state procedural rule relied upon by the only supreme court rule that says an illinois never fear with the governor's sentence sense imposed by the governor so we would be raising you know in faery all the issues raised in the state court arguing that you know the various ineffectiveness is what's the remedy that would be available prison so the federal courts have held that as long as the national life sentences an average choir there is a benefit to the defendant for for being granted a new sentencing hearing because he could be sentenced to a term of years which would have him now be a probably a remote chance a chance to be released from prison before a guy and as i said mr mertz only convicted of the one murder so natural life is not mandatory so the federal courts would provide you know would consider his issues to possibility however it doesn't receive in part precedent has applied in cases where that was also true so when people verses shown which is to a seven l second forty seven it was the exact same situation as we have  this court is bound by that president finding it if the court has any questions regarding the merits i would be happy to answer  thanks to the three of you big cases submitted he had the court
shall address the defendant openly informing him of the components of the world today in determining whether he understand he or she understands those components on top of that  of the body's precisely why indeed courts have said or allegiance or so forth because what happened with him was he received a form he signed it he was asked if he read it he understood it he answered yes but we don't know the the problem with mr god recently here is that when it is a situation where you don't know what you don't know if you do not understand how can you possibly articulate that he in you feel understand how can you possibly articulate that you don't understand he would not have but guilty and that's reinforced by that is his testimony that he told his trial attorney repeatedly he wanted to go to trial and his attorney didn't agree with it now whether that that happened or not either way it reflects that he did not understand that the right to plead not guilty was his right and his red zone and his decision
immediately terminix is a version of what's called
he may be correct that it may be out there but that doesn't mean that it was not not happen a lot of things happen everywhere in the world that they seem odd from distance but that's just the way things are done in that place at that time i mean we're talking about a testified that it took place in january and actually later testified that it took place in her brain as i read her testimony i just want to be inforced you said on this point her testimony was that there was training for the raid in january and evidence you were recall that your client testified she wrote a letter to the prosecutor the forming of the bride and the i j a asked for a copy of the letter and she says i was not able to keep papers with me i kept but i couldn't pick them up and bring them and then it turns out that she's able to give very very detailed copies of the records of her hospitalization this isn't that a discrepancy that really goes to the heart for making you know we deal with these cases all the time we understand this and i talk about the actual case we have in front of us with you and building sure i've seen enough to see if you through this court which don't seem to understand know the i j a otherwise been in this transcript starts out impatient and hostile and finishes impatient and hostile you know undoubtedly read the same transcript he hardly lets the attorneys for either side ask beginning to end what am i to make of this and how might a feeling that into what are obviously a series of just factual mistakes that he makes about what actually was testified to in front of him with all due respect with us think thinking prosecute violations i'm not talking about a look process violation i'm talking about an i j who couldn't let the lawyers try their own case after he asked the questions he complains that the testimony is destructive and uses that as a ground for finding adverse credibility she saying that she was fighting the armenian national they are man and any of that and this time they were no longer in power their president had resigned the party had broken up this is all in the reasons are not supported by the record let's just say we don't go through the record ourselves independently and find that it's credible are not credible we look at the reasons given by the i j a for his finding of incredibility
all it shows is that he went to the hospital it doesn't show it doesn't show why it doesn't show who are ok and with respect to the five it just shows that he beta five it doesn't show for a an incentive to help him get asylum as to those could the i j a say well these people can't be cross examined in their obviously supporters of your your claim so i can't give much weight to subject to cross examination and they come from your mother and your friend and because i found you not credible for good reasons or they don't kill the needle very much of the other direction because of the obvious incentive petitioner was searching for an answer as he was having difficulty answering that question about why he didn't mention this trip to the northeast of china in between the days he was supposedly having to meet with  the chinese authorities and i think that's a very a that's an important part of the immigration judge system because you have to st remember that the petitioner's primary story about what have been when he was interested in it as it may not be terribly important in this case because the hospital record doesn't show why he went to the hospital and this fire record isn't supported but it doesn't necessarily demonstrate that he letters i understand was a letter from the mother in the end of the phone churchgoer that if they're produced it is b has to not subject to cross examination you might not give them as much weight as if they were there but with respect to and i think that that's an appropriate you for the immigration judge to consider in the overall determination of are these documents that the immigration judge has just ignored because they don't meet the criteria certain sort of criteria for admission into the record i don't i don't think that's what the agency did here i think that he considered that yes these are documents that purport to be what the image with the petitioners claiming them to be chinese prime minister came and testified at this hearing and said yes he was fired four thousand dollars or four thousand dollars whatever it is for attending a christian worship service no other evidence of beating thousand dollars for attending a christian worship service would that be persecution well i think it depends on we don't we don't know what we don't know doesn't say anything about whether he was incarcerated whether he dollars so he was hit with a monetary penalty for going to church is that persecution i don't know that i would say that just  as he's arguing now that well he just wasn't very good communicator and that's why he had that difficulty answering the question but there's no evidence on the record that he had difficulty communicating any other messages was the reason why the the the e mails from the fiance were produce was to show to show that there was an actual relationship there so it wasn't in reading those e mails that's where the immigration judge
that is where we really want to address the issues raised in your petition for rehearing you persuaded us that we should give you another opportunity to come before us and argue with your position but we don't want to go for the entire case you want  for example the continuing jeopardy by doctrine that we applied in your case and that wasn't raised by the state i think you are your title for that option and i think and i think that's all that's necessary because before the circuit court but i don't see what are you please tell us what could possibly go on in the circuit court that doesn't already exist in this case after the first day just an oval and unless you're talking about expanding the record adding information to the record that doesn't exist in the record now i just don't see the purpose in sending it back to the circuit court because really what is presented to us is a question of law that is complete as it stands before us why yes i think i think that this case does present a question but i don't think that means that it can except that the year the supreme court addressed not only frivolous factual allegations but frivolous legal theory right and if we find as a questionable as a matter of law that this theory that double perhaps all right let's go let's go to why you think the i plead guilty is binding on the court immediately upon the trial there's arguable claims on both sides and i would submit that that position that the sportsbook of the plea was not accepted as it's wrong but i don't have to show that it's wrong to state it i just have to show that it was arguable  well no that's part of the problem here with this missing this of the first stage because this is the first time this courthouse and there's because there's no case going the other way either there's there's no case that addresses double jeopardy in this context and holds that the court can then carolina be pierced that the double jeopardy clause protects a fine from a second conviction after a first so if there's a guilty plea that's a conviction and then the that guilty pleas vacated and the defendant is convicted again of the same exact the fast and i back to where we started and appellate counsel is only going to have to raise an issue that has a sound legal basis for it if it if we find that there is no sound legal basis for the argument that the defendant is claiming to me and to make it his post making petition it was simply changing the terminology to coincide with the terminology that federal courts use and it was nothing more to it wasn't subsidy while doing so was clarifying i think and
didn't understand that if he decided to not speak to the police because that couldn't be used against him a day later a later point it's has to do with what  misunderstanding of what would happen if he decided not to talk to the police and that's sad i as a matter of law requires suppression o there so you're suggesting that a conviction with regard to the details of the interrogation and the trial court was phil aware that the defendant who was only two months shy of the sixteenth birthday and had been previously advised of his miranda rights wired to th i'd be more trouble we have to look at that statement in contacts that statement is made to the word to the defense expert the paid retained defense expert who who was evaluating this planet for purposes of that's exactly the problem howard is different it's feasible it can be done it was a case handing in the circuit court cases coming on direct appeal it's just simply not feasible defend it was tried convicted a couple points concer relies heavily on the video doesn't share whether he believes he could be punished if he exercised his right to remain silent we can't read his mind from the video so all we can tell from the
part of an ongoing investigation it is surveillance to maintain the security of that room with respect to the point where before you leave that corey it's it's my understanding that subsequent question of whether or not he had probable cause to search the room that becomes an objective test where we can excise from the warrant any possibly tainted statements use of the keycard eyes not something that the district court relied on and it's not something that was dispositive to
not a false to pursue it all the way to the commissioner and obtained the final judgment that you told us in your brief this is a prerequisite to falling under four or five g
running the fourth amendment so dell specifically stated in hell that privacy expectations are not supply or liberty expert cations are not the final touchstone under the fourth amendment i'm asking you to tell me what is what was what requirement even where a legislative council has already determined that the property is a nuisance and would in fact have authorized the demolition of the property when the legislative determination do legislative legislative legislatively declared property that that has been declared a nuisance in this case had been negotiating to either improve the property or to  practically understand that what they were really doing was not i thought the one of the problem too in terms of privacy the difficulty was all kind of people were getting in and out of there i mean people didn't belong there where there a against any individual is that correct that's were only against the city and so whether whether mr durham personally violated city policy is not a force be only question here is one of the city of long and mr we did this deliberately and there's no deliberately avoided the code in order to tear down these buildings without troubling themselves with getting a warrant well i think they're intentional the expectation of privacy against the supreme court finally and so no made it clear to all the courts who were wandering off thinking that the privacy interest was the only thing in the fourth amendment that it also protects property per se you don't need to have an expectation of privacy me if some is going to come and destroy your property strikes me under the fourth amendment question is does the fourth amendment protect property destruction without a warrant is not the question well that's the question but also i don't i don't think that sort of necessarily  s but the distinction between this property and the property in freeman which is a fifth circuit case which is on all fours and in this case is the the the connor property  who's his boss mr weir smears my guess is there any evidence that the boss said go do it without a warrant i know that he did it without a warrant but is there any evidence that  not the final decision maker being able to establish foreign policy thank you thank both council for their argument
number one seven one nine nine zero zer a person's constitutional rights when he was a child and in such a manner that he grew up to be an adult who will never have those rights back i submit the obvious answer to this question is no and on that basis i'm asking the court to vacate my client's removal order and order that he be given a constitutionally sufficient removal hearing the supreme court has long held the aliens are entitled to due process regardless of their status in this country you know  present in the united states has these rights and he when he entered if he didn't if the waiter was not valid right because we're talking about prejudice on the order was not valid and that certainly my argument to that is rocking around one thing that follows ok if that's the case you're down here and the government as just let a person develop ties here they're an actual human being because this person came as a child you can't save that person made a choice at the border for country as a child subject to your parents where you were but this person did but that's not what this statute says ok so back to her you must see for says that all individuals actually go and try to be so waiver program mark ineligible says on a basis of a cylon but then there's also other portions they can check out to say i'm not the person that they say that i am i am actually have confided in him within that period at the ninety days and there's a couple of there is is there anything apart list of things and i believe it  yet i mean the whole purpose of coming under this program is i shout to travel here to not have to get a visa that it benefits the government it benefits our country he's our relations with other countries and makes it easy and to say that a child and basically process calculation changes when the government for ever reason permits an infant to come here if it lives here for thirty five years develops an entire life and then one day when they walk into i see that side of things but it was put in place that that is a temporary and ordered to travel here and not to make ties not to stay here because tesla now a lot of prominent resident parents that should never have the proper channels in order to emigrate here and chose to bring if you make sure you address her point that the raid effectively establishes a condition precedent such that if you came in under the program because you're both the parents find out the application sure you can get the adjustment so even if i don't believe  and that he was entitle to a hearing and that in other cases there may be other avenues for relief there are all kinds of claims and avenues towards adjustment or residency in the united states that may arise in a caring thank you thank you
way to avoid a two year limitations period the limitations period or to fourteen a one is not a jurisdictional threshold it here to the court said there are exceptions to the two year period in the person
same mining district which has been terrorized by hostile indians under command of a mysterious writer known as the wolf man the settlers have been incited to believe i am hiding this message in randy's car because i know that my reports to headquarters have been intercepted by the look man and he told me so before he shot me and that me for did his name is show he also notes on every worthwhile mining and ranch in the district if the owners don't meet a much he takes over the property oh well let's have a talk with mr we've got to catch a can before we get to his indians and bring them down to wipe us out
to read but you actually have to prove it before you can have that tree it's not a matter of simple pleading it's better having the group prove it so the question is how did you prove that the union u