MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
speech criticized ice however made a tactical choice not to offer any evidence to meet that or instead it argued as long as it can point to some objective basis that could justify its action our case the government has failed to cite any havey is case where a rule like in the us where the rule of hartmann lies and our research has basically turned up a couple of immigration cases like the rubber case that we did in that case is apply i mean there's  case but but just to pick up on the point that your honor was diverting to the the this context does not involve probable cause that is not the standard it is involved the highly discretionary as that or of where whether to revoke is the problem has been the evidence in this context is when discretion is as high as it is it tells you very little about the causation for the enforcement action in the us the and it ended hartmann the court is going to probable cause as a proxy for determining what drove the officer's action and it basically says probable cause is this thing body of evidence is going to tend to prove or disprove retaliatory animists but you're of course along and it could use that as a tool used i was dissent among people who are the that is actually what they've done here and they could do it again and again and they could do it expressly in order to retaliate for speech position is that you can revoke the or the bond whenever you want to it's a matter of complete discretion if that's true then the then we would still be in the same place with the sleeves argument i so the causation issue is quite different also protecting the st amendment rights of individuals through its jaywalking exception if an individual can show it to the evidence that officers routinely exercise their discretion and bit slowly situated supreme court specifically rejected the idea that they would immunize officials was kinder is quote objective lee rep valid regardless of you can't just invoke an object of the valid basis as  of other prison cases and i think that's significant because prison officials of course they have a lot of discretion about for instance transfers of the detainees that sort of thing and yet the discourse applied not healthy so i just want to sort of put to bed the notion that men healthy doesn't apply the law enforcement that there's no support for that secondly there was a colloquy about what justification ice might have had for the timing of the arrest and i wan this record credited our evidence on that and said that it was highly suggestive of retaliatory intent on step two and none healthy the government came forward with zero no evidence to explain the timing of his actions so our view on the remained of this case is ok so there are certain protections when diminished imperiled the fabric of our constitutional democracy one of which is the right to criticize government without fear of retaliation the government's position in this case well is down to a claim that
court is reading his subsequent communications with police can reasonably interpretive events a desire to open up a more generalized discussion relating to regular and directly to the investigation which  pretty broad interpretation of initiation in this context it has allowed three innocuous questions to support the inference on intent to engage in a broader conversation about the case whenever you news clear and unambiguous assertion that he wants to talk to those who are without any further conversation with the officers at that time the conversation should've he wants to talk to the police with his lawyer present well that's one interpretation of it obviously yours but i don't think it's a necessar that doesn't mean they came in just wanted to you know discussions about the case that means they can begin the process to get a valid miranda waiver but barack purse question does i think take us past but grandchild question which is question to go on for several more pages of transcripts here telling him you have a choice you don't have to talk to us you can call a lawyer and then goes on and on for some time until the pentagon has finally decided that he wants to talk  argument about that but i think we're to take that fact in conjunction with all these other facts this conversation this may be better practice would have been to give him a call earlier but they certainly made clear to him in this discussion if you got the ball there if you want to make that call now you can absolutely make that call and he chooses not to and i think from a constitutional perspective that's the important point here though no one this far as i can tell has held but that's not coercive it's truthful it's providing information about what will or will my happened and even though that may be not the information that if anyone wants it doesn't it doesn't cause him to give him a true statement about what
my friend on the other side has indicated that there is a presumption of coverage that has never been a law in california and it should not be the law that is applied by this court my friend is also suggested that there's some standard about conclusive evidence a clearly  practice enclosed a loophole in that practice the california department of real estate indicated that those who were charging up these for documents preparation services were clearly attempting to skirt the that law him i do not your honor i believe that the settlement agreement on its face fails to allocate any amount of damages to any liability or claims in the underlying action  fact the court can find its analysis so lead to the settlement agreement but an insured should not be able to manufacture insurance coverage by making admissions in the settlement agreement given a conflict between the insured and the insurer once insure decides not to defend the hole that otherwise would allow an insurer to manufacture insurance coverage to the insurer did not purchase in fact in no case including the cases cited by my friend on the other side that the courts can bind themselves the pleadings alone which is all that we were allowed to consider on the duty to defend because that was the information we had at the pleadings alone did not show that all claims would be uncovered now we are at the duty to in liability now we're looking at indemnity what was the actual liability and for that we look at the nature of the claims that were being result at the time of the settlement so my friend cites for example the in re theatric case in that case the court unavailable they could not find out what what was determined in the underlying action was it four million two hundred thousand dollars of revenue was received by st one they couldn't find the consumers who paid that revenue because the records  only find those number of people because evidence was destroyed by the st one is bound by judge order and it's in the record in this case your honour's i also want to emphasize that t basara had gone into gordon connecticut and said i paid the settlement as restitution for homeowners and that was coming to this board and his attorneys were arguing none of this was restitution or it was all compensatory we argued a low and we
out that he happened to burn them as well but so what his intent was to harm them you're right he executed a number of steps before he did that in order things that she referenced in her question plus asked to borrow a weapon from a border officer in addition leads me to conclude that the insured was in possession of substantial i would say overwhelming evidence that the acts done here were intentional criminal acts which i think brings that within the exclusion of the homeowner's insurance between his first run in with the mexican police officers and his setting them afire and conclude that it is virtually impossible for any reasonable fact finder to determine that this was anything other than intentional criminal conduct and thereby properly deny coverage you know your honor i think they could not because once again i the insurer then just simply take the risk if they if they make a determination that there's no duty to indemnify and they therefore claim they do not have a duty to defend and do not have an investigate further if in fact they that the danger resulted in harm only because of accidental conduct including conduct in gauged on the basis of self defense as to the we haven't really gotten to the  first on the issue was was there a potential accident mr goldstein has argued about theoretical hypothetical possibility it might have gone down this way this might have happened california law is very clear ok he doesn't recall that as nothing actual picture he said he didn't recall and that's a few hours after the events in question he recalled very clearly and he explains to the federal agencies that what happened  with respect to the possibility of st michigan did not receive a policy limits settlement demand from the plaintiffs michigan rejected the demand it would not have settle it didn't settle when i had an offer there's
sure things are are smooth but in many cases there was a criminal complaint and this court found that this transformed into an information after the state's attorney signed it initially given that interview to the court so if the state wants to ensure that it has the capability of legislature thought this was somehow wrong wrong interpreted it certainly could have acted and it hasn't so we would look at johnson and argue that as far as that question is concerned the state should  against him but he doesn't know about it because he hasn't the rest of the search and so in that instance this person even though he is unaware of the probability or  certainty that he will be subject to mandatory sentences is not aware of that fact and therefore is not able to conform possessions to society to the extent that he's getting r listening to this i think i heard about four or five statutes cited here and they all suggest you do the same but they're different and it would be nice if the legislature decided where the courts decided that they should be the same and not is required so i think we have to be give the position bill was granted would that make any difference
did you know these six major corporations control ninety percent of the media in north america who is a public access t v run by the people for the people who is maui county's agent of free speech and community media federal laws require cable companies to provide financial support for programming is your public access resource and we're open five days a week community members can learn to use the equipment and tools needed to exercise their free speech it's easy to now you know
the language is used in the california information and it doesn't in fact charge any sort of trespasser he answered so there's no implication in the use of the word unlawfully in the california information the success in any way that the  privileged that pretty much takes care of almost every one of the cases the side in the government's papers because they all either rely upon the view that an unauthorized entry is required as was the case in back or particularly as this court later explained in the p
before he was drafted into the military which occurred in march of two thousand march of two thousand dollars which was for an hour and she also testified that he was that her brother resumed his studies when he returned from the military in march of two thousand and brother was not directly harmed to this day as she does if i later there her brother had trouble in the military but not while he was a student that the university the university was before or after the military world and he to show what the country conditions reports show in general plus the individual application by saying that her father and her brother are still live let me let me use the example of the father because the  if it were sufficiently individualized but they did not overcome the presumption you would do you could be determined your client communitarian to be eligible for if on the other hand as you're no with formed the opposition to mr milosevic had the government had demonstrated no capacity or actions to persecute former opponents of mr milosevic such as the petition or  on account of their political activity against him which is the claim that the asylum african station or makes in this case no evidence from pelicans contrary conclusion you know the country parts are  department report here your position is that and now is this how it affected her family the father or the brother shows individual application of president milosevic before he was because i the subject have a well founded fear of persecution and they were certainly longer term opponents and she was they were just as active as she was and again after the change in government they remain safe and sound working going to school with no problem and again the state department report does not indicate that former opponents of mr milosevic had any problems to the contrary the specific examples given by the immigration judge from the state department record show that that is in fact not the case that the government was in fact taking steps to ameliorate the problems of former convicted the record of the reveals he was convicted of anything but people who were convicted under milosevic there was a bill pending to grant them amnesty there was pardons of several human rights activists there was pardons of an anti milosevic journalist enough there's other evidence in the record which wasn't referenced by the immigration judge in which the government steps were recognized by articles it's accurate and others noting that the government was committed at this time as late as march of two thousand and one committed to moving  and that a number of officials in the most of the jury regime had former officials removed as an effort by the new government to ensure people that they were serious about serious the evidence regarding the father and the brother and certainly implicitly if not explicitly again remember indicated that she did not have a well founded fear of persecution on the face of absolutely no evidence in the record in the state department report or elsewhere in the record that people had been persecuted or there were complaints of persecution of beatings by the government or my any other party
we're interested to know what you rely on and what we should look to you when you point me to the language in twelve fifty two from which we would define that it's not particularly strong  so the word deadline and must be filed in your view would leave kind of a small but nonetheless existing i would call it a loophole but some area when you speak up a little bit good thank you for your given your site has about two minutes for a book i think you will hear from the government at this time question the district court would find the proper place for concerned that their if they filed it in state court you have to believe that somebody would say wait a minute you're in the wrong place they file it with the immigration service who cashed the check keeps the money what would they think this was a contribution for the betterment of society or something like th you know i'd be willing to bet that if you went to the first year constitutional law class at harvard law school and excluded anyone who had a actual personal experience with  that it's permissible to just remind assumed your honor and there is evidence in the record on the documents that people situated and indonesia have that are of most of the chinese in indonesia are christians and those that are persecuted are the ones who have obviously
received a deal with the prosecution in exchange for her testimony in this case but of course that doesn't mean that her testimony his own words you believe as counsel said i think she implored the score not to consider
any kind of education his brother has fled his other two brothers have fled his brothers files for asylum in the united states denied also the same form of education in guatemala the formulation of the social group the judge was aware of he used the insult indigenous people in guatemala and antigovernment they came looking for him he made allegations that you have family members that were killed which he hadn't mentioned before department but an individualized understanding and reading of the
at no yarn i didn't see any sign of it i didn't see any any indication of a personal examination it seemed that you cack hire a staff psychologist to severe limitation in term of social functioning in term of concentration persistence in pace because she she if you didn't she say in her notes that he appeared alert and capacity it's a lot less than the ability to do for time medium what ya know so so i did not i don't i did not argue that it would miss the listening see where that is part of the plane a person can i follow up on that because i'm i'm not sure so i know i asked that question but that would just be consistent with evaluating the claim and what statement did she make that is consistent with actually treating over time which is what the ale chief said and here at most i thought she met with the claimant once or twice i'm not even sure how you treat someone if you meet with a moment once or twice well i wouldn't i wouldn't agree with that your honor because i think that that dr ning did the claimant in the in in a lot of the a girl you're part of his current set of treatment with you pack he had treated with them back in two thousand and one and records at twenty seven as they are very consistent with with what dr link but in the beginning the claim of limitations are relatively moderate and then if you look at the message that examinations of twenty seven up they are very well i think that the l g addresses you pack in general and i agree with you we could have been a little more clear about which sources he was talking about and take your time but it is permissible for the agency to five and they did they do not document the anywhere near the extreme allegations that claim it is making that that he was incapable of leaving the house that he can't follow simple directions these these reports are are very benign for the most part and it is true the claim it has to get the effect of disorder but he has been treating monthly withheld the the the any testimony is very detail that goes into really into the weeds of the treatment record and the illogic gave a lot of weight to doctors and testimony so i think you're right but you know dick could have identified specific doctors if you pack a little better but i don't think it's possible to say that you pap wasn't a treatment clinic overall and that if you look at what's actually in the records from
and started his own bakery started out as just a bakery pastries canola news and then it's turned into a pizzeria because there was no good pizza places to eat when he moved down there so he decided to go back up to new york and find someone who needs of their whole life so i brought him down here for the weekend and the man showed him how to make the pizzas what happens to buy the baker yes we make our own dough there's no preservatives or additives everything is made fresh every single night out of the gulf a location that's the commissary and we just have great routes that we service about fifty different restaurants great in sarasota in venice that  you're not going to publix or any of the grocery stores whatever the people want you know that's what we get that's what we do and that's the most important but you see you the people we love to talk he's a great politician and so i've always told him he was in politics in new jersey years and years ago but yet you know the customers love him he's you know he's got an ear someone you know got a problem become an event and you know they've lost a that's when i stop because we can sit here and be friendly with everyone and they like that they definitely have a full service catering any amount of people i have a catering menu on my website that i can do the biggest thing that you could say to me is by just saying that and that's not a fake because this is what they
just one hundred percent of the cases be satisfied whatever you're dealing with the construction industry with the general and so because by definition the general was hired to
based on the evidence presented reverting to the initial aggressor rise had the jury not in promptly we could the mr headrick testify that he had been convicted of a crime of dishonesty it may have credited his testimony over mr c supreme court has repeatedly held that there's nothing more damaging than compelling a defendant to testify that he is a criminal or has been convicted of a crime to make matters worse in this case mr headrick was forced to testify about  from nation of his guilt forcing him to testify about his prior conviction for a crime of dishonesty in a case that was completely determined by his credibility affected the fairness of his trial and challenge the integrity of the judicial process and is reversible a during that particular case there was one question on cross examination by the prosecutor and the court said that because the  you may not cross examine to defend about this that's what tipped the scales against him for looking at the scales of mr cohen's testimony and mr hendricks consumer which is the only evidence that was presented on the issue of who started the altercation who was the initial aggressor i know
within that framework whether it fell into that small category and i'm trying to work my way to see how he's the very statute for together and there seems it seems to me that the board to consider the second circuit to ok so to which they have referenced they are but they would be able to spile another motion to reopen with the board to see if if the  cheers want the board to look at something the proper procedure is not to come to this court and say there's been a two thousand and six decision that we that we would like the board to look at now the proper with another motion and and and see if the board would reopen based based on the motion but on but but petitioners have done that's on review now if the question is whether they fit refugee convention and under i i and i to await and to forty one these three particularly the country has an obligation to give safe haven to refugees and  in this case however what we're talking about is the exception to the to the procedural flaws in the motion to reopen and certainly in this context petitioners really don't have anywhere to go are very legitimate policy reasons not to not to broaden the the availability of the exceptions now this court has although this court has not addressed the issue of the
of our response to that acknowledgement and instead it is an argument to backtrack a concession and raise a new argument i could or should have been raised at all in the opening brief moreover it is seized under either scenario and is not free to leave whether it's an investigative stop or an arrest the proper focus on determining what point the defendant was arrested is on the nature and scope of the investigation and the length of time for which the defendant has been detained however at the suppression hearing defendant injected any testimony relating to the nature and scope of the investigation where the time for which defendant was detained in this lack to the ultimate or rats here we have no evidence relating to those factors meaning that defendant building his for the burden of production and ultimately his brain to prove that this is not the suppression hearing in the court therefore properly the of rule thirty four thirty one is not required for compliance with the rule of the trial probable law as the potential jurors whether they had an issue with their would have