MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
the request from the council the general problem between the lawyer and the thing and the problem here is we don't know exactly what the problem was the problem concern communications make i understand but you give up if i'm right on that i think you don't have an argument if if that's some human part of my question stands we can we can talk about that or you can disagree about it but i  the position that somebody can bring amanda before the magistrate judge months before the trial and then wait for the morning of trial to to raise it with the district court just wait the prior time when you c g turned out there was something significant to be uncovered out wasn't done covered i take it there might have been a problem but it's your position that in this case there wasn't anything to be uncovered that hadn't already been put on the table in front of the magistrate judge in this case the district judge was told the motion had been denied he had not been told it appears that the motion been denied without prejudice correct that's correct and other and he wasn't given more details as to what the nature of the the time today to deal with it any further was anything put before him later on behalf of the defendant indicate that there were other difficulties or to describe exactly what the difficulties were that the defendant had with his lawyer after the second motion counsel for appeal however i would like to emphasize that the defendant did have the opportunity to request a motion for reconsideration to that master a court he did have the opportunity didn't have the opportunity and the time this case well if you know you're going to plead in that one you may not care about the attitude your lawyer has but in this case is i understand the concern was that my lawyer thinks i'm crazy you know  stand to put in the record or defendant on the record whatever there was that that might have added to the discomfort the defendant had is there anything else that's been put in front of us that suggests there were additional reasons mostly made portions it was for the visual reasons you know the judge may not have known it right but as far as i can tell the universe of reasons why defendant was unhappy is in the record there's not something outside the record that we don't know about or the
how do you get around that he doesn't say convicted well before they asked him this question they should have put him on notice this is the law what cases they have to put him on notice under these circumstances but it comes to the united states he has he  doesn't know anything about the law all this that and they're asking him all this question and he's being honest so basically what you're doing is we've punishing him for being honest now they're punishing him for admitting using drugs including methamphetamine  not being punished he's simply being precluded from entry according to the law i'm not sure how you get around that section discretionary call and apparently the be and he decided that this was an appropriate exercise of discretion because of his admission of having used methamphetamine is that right that is that is correct your honor but i would also like the government also tells us that his failure to depart is a violation of his voluntary departure agreement that somehow bars all of this the reaction to that is what are there was a case decided by the ninth circuit on january eighteenth two thousand category variations but we see this all the time where someone is not properly invited by his own counsel he may also not have been properly advised by the government but because of his own failure to take advantage
even more clients something that would be true then and true going for it that's what they represent and that is their new normal we found out right after very very within the year of the divorce and the year after mr trump was paid three hundred and seventy six thousand dollars is that they were going to true it up later so they represent that's one thing we could not know prior to the worst judgement right we could not for example let's just say we took that we took the fortune one discovery in two thousand and eighteen and we found out that we confirmed that they some point in time his income was going to go  instead of using scrubbing softer that is a distinction that has a difference to the trial court that was an eye opener for me i mean that is just not the way it works and that is it that is critical to the to the trial court's ruling and again not only give us the know all the facts relating to those r negotiation for her she proved up the case signing a marital settlement agreement and then rough week true years later relying on that information she found the trout were that april work team asked if the she received his tax returns during the discovery process she subpoenaed the records from the independent neutral business of a waiter who had all of the business records of the morning this is not somebody who wander she accepted the benefits of this somewhere and she'd walk away without the subpoenas being answered so i don't think one can sleep on their rights and then come and complain i didn't have adequate information haue which was true that she had already through subpoena received about ten thousand e mails at the time that the hearing was going forward i'd also circle back to justice enough comments about evidence yeah comes before it as part of the settlement negotiation that is not related to the proof of the actual claim that is being made for some other purpose under their theory under
as the revocation by divorce statute revoked ellen's bequest to thomas as a matter of law due to their divorce counsel for thomas bland read the statute the result of the couple's divorce the court held that the current revocation by the or statute is that you were talking about today not the statute that was analyzed and de plainly designates the status of the parties at the time forrest no exception exists the test remains the marital status of the testator at the do that if the testator's divorced any legacy to the prior spouse is revoked as a matter of all now this court looked at this issue prior to revoked the ex says bequest or inheritance under the under the will as a matter of law it did not matter that they were you know remain friends and they didn't force or cohabitate it as they did and people now interested in date does not apply to the matter handprints for several reasons one we talked about this a little bit marriage and divorce are opposite by nature but the army you look closely at the statute the revocation by marriage statute that existed way back in  consequently we refuse to apply the analysis of the day to the statutory provision in hand the court went on to know that no exceptions are in the statute and the statute has not changed the court's stated and i quote to adopt the
questions yes now the second component of that is first it's going to be question of law and secondly it's going to be as to which there are substantial ground for difference of opinion right now the cases that you cite i don't see how th
appellant to point to where in the record that's listed i do know that there were times if you read the record where the government had actually published exhibits the jury and judge saying i actually said is there any reason that you're not publishing these publicly so i don't think the record reflects an effort by the government to have sort of large naked women hiring over the screen and if you look at the record the government did it through this ad and rather efficiently it did not and you know the money that this defendant was paying to his daughter as a result of the sexual abuse and there are really two reasons i think of this record true this was correct for this is a court has already know the motive is a question for the jury not for a particular the day sometimes upwards of almost five hundred thousand dollars a year in caps to his daughter that there had been some particularly compelling reason that he would have been this way particularly given that his book keepers were telling him that it was going to bankrupt him considered the entirety of the story here and had discounted it is allegations too quickly given that he knows that victims of sexual abuse can have a history of lying so we would argue that they're also goes to intent well the government never three problems and hearsay problems because there's all sorts of related information that is for the truth in other words how spending the money part of recent deal last case which talks about the three three exception and it's not really  a very damaging cross examination she said multiple times that she had been a liar throughout her entire life the defense was able to probe very specific instances of trying think times that she had to fire her own father jury and only after she was caught did she indicate that she had been sexually abused ten singles three rolling on that for a transcript we believe an absolutely correct given that the jury was provided ample evidence to c medically possible when an expert testified that it was just the ct if you read the e mails even to a layperson what he is describing does not seem possible and he is a trained medical doctor he never visited his star in florida despite claiming that she was on her death bed but bills could only be paid in cash and that's why he had just won the money directly to sas who was apparently on her deathbed but was nonetheless making the cash payments to the doctor the prescriptions he's not consulting with her treating doctors apparently while he's making all of these questions it's our position that they're absolutely it was no use and this is the evidentiary rulings and that there is no other area of law that has been identified and we urge the court to affirm thank you
and analysis of the language of the health of the ability to play in question the nd policy is a much broader concept involving the d application of the department of labor full and fair view regulation probably gave in two thousand  submitted d an additional two thousand pages of medical records documenting additional treatment that she had received in the meantime the medical records documented of her russian and her symptoms for cervical spine with two moderate two thousand and thirteen plate in this case there is no dispute was issued on january st two thousand and one so as a little too early there's less specific renewal date in the plan of january st two thousand and twelve and then the in this case the language itself of the plan includes a renewal date the language itself specifically references the right to change premium rate after the st for a new all the plan itself caught in place for us specif clear based on the face of the players so this is a this is a contract and why are you limited to what was and i mean i understand that normally review of interests ministry of decision is based on the record but when a plaintiff is claiming something outside the record shows there should be dunno where review i'm not aware of any rule that says you're forbidden to present additional evidence are you saying the district be reviewed by health care professional in the field of medicine involved in the medical judgments and that that person will be independent from the original position of the just reported cases interrupting that provision  on our time well could you stand again why you think rule one on line that you quote would mean that if the policy is nonconforming then there would be no deferential  narrow question then of what happens if it's not conforming you say that implies no deferential review and i'm asking you to explain again why you say that is so because the language rule or don't want to see that as it shall apply to will fraught difficult when i'm in a briefing of this as you say you just pointed them out last week and if these are the key to the case we'll have to study them but thank you for your duration where limited to renew ability but he's referring to the next clause which refers to the duration of the term of coverage for which the policy is issued and i guess you're saying th was it definite mind my understanding that the job required constance city and as best i could find from the c e you know only concluded that she was capable of frequent sitting similarly the job required constant use of her hands and i didn't see any finding in the f c c about constant use of her hands so i'm wondering if even under an abuse of discretion standard d where the substantial evidence in this case to turn down or calling her at i think that there is because then it wasn't focused on
terminated number one the allegations do not have anything to do with his the form is actually on the job of the white air national guard the allegations that were raised against him concerned an allegation of you know i know i've seen it but i can't point you to the number right now i would have to get to the record but i'm sure it's there and then i have  page the proper management of security clearances once granted is so important that after their court martial involuntary separation actions of officers and airman have been  civilian removal actions under age f one thirty six that's seven zero four may not even be initiated until the clearance of florida so authorizes this means that a notice of proposed when an incident occurs or allegations the belt concerning an individual's activities and conduct or behavior or failure to comply with security programs requirements in relation to its security standard criteria set forth in guard may be proposed to suspend they are required to spin that information on to the proper authorities at the air force to get their take on it before they take any further actions like firing the person in this particular case they didn't even  discretion with regard to security clearances however they are still required to follow their own rules and regulate it when they do so and when they do not do so in a blatant matter then they have second eleven fourteen and there are numerous others basically the court has the jurisdiction to determine whether or not the hawaii air national guard how to discipline military people who should be in the military service are our by cosmos constitutional definition committed to the executive branch and not properly subject administrative remedies this is not the type of case that a civilian court can review in terms of a constitutional claim under newson versus wisconsin air national guard i believe him in so far as a violation of due process if it can be shown if it can be proven it's certainly a violation of title seven and an indication of however that discretion is limited by ideal process requirement that they must follow their own rules and regulations when they do so and in this case they did not as the air force itself has indicated in their letter counselors argued that your only really was go through the process which in fact you get the remedy you ask for retreat yesterday and there's a surviving due process claim above that
is final agency action court could not have set aside to see him is if it had done the very unusual course of remembering without vacating and we have a very specific task for when courts are allowed to do that or or and b what the agency said on remained so we don't have a case here where the agency said we're sticking with our regional point of view but we want to make this district courts point of view so i'm wondering as to procedural requirements ringback what you have in mind my question is you had full lotus because the trying to draw the distinction between is the district court said not only is the policy ground a problematic but there were other issues that th is the type of situation where a district court expressively says i need the agency to address to matters wanted earned good morning your highness mean please the current tennis confer on behalf of the pension benefit guaranty corporation i would like to state emphasize a few points that were just discuss the district judge really ended it simply to give an opportunity to the d j s to offer some new explanation and so the supreme court found that  they did have to start over because they were coming up with they had to come up with new reasons here also there was no tamilians so you peel unremembered then mr fisher can challenge that decision for really all of these issues were before the board it was not something of your your position simply is not to contest appellate argument about the proper procedures have to be followed but rather that the record here shows that the issues had already been fully briefed and appellant show or has show nothing to indicate that he did not have a full opportunity to get his before the agency well that's sort of the point of my question you know where it's hypothetically had mr fisher himself not raised the regulation and didn't come up only ringback for the district court then do you agree that he would that would have some procedure on remand to give him an opportunity to get his views before the agency so the question right anything furthe all right thank you we will take the case
him the power gave amaranth the authority to trim or remove trees that interfered with the power line basically or was there any evidence submitted that that involved a certain distance from the house or anything of that nature i mean how do we know whether or not it interfered or that it did not interfere just based on what was too close to the house based on the fact that you're alleging that the defendant started their case and therefore would be an appropriate you're assuming your but at the time that it was  to make sure that we're clear so you know who did this issue in the post trial motion and you also made an objection at the time the motion was made were but i'm not talking about in your motion to reconsider i'm talking about at the time of the trial we were talking about the fact that you need a contemporaneous objection and including it in your post trial motions so what i'm asking not well mr barry would say it's part of the facts case i would say it's a matter of public policy i don't know the amur listens to you but wouldn't it be a good idea to continue that level of communication  it sounds to me that this was a good part since apparently earlier in earlier times mr johnson was able to get along with the utility until he was able to get along with him i would agree with you
involved he changed his mind and when you know you are witness the fact that he was making this product ruling at the beginning of the trial not reading the facts that in opening i started going through the back they would actually come out so when the trial concluded i was a bit confused as to what had occurred in the motion for the rulings because one it trial and i go to my you know i asked the only thing and i raised the same question in front of attorneys have been doing this a lot for a long time and you can do you can get a notice in one or two  more of a mortgage payment plus she had every opportunity to refinance to a thirty year term and she would have been able to afford their mortgage but she stopped paying mortgage and she had dissolution petition was filed and what was your explanation again as to what happened to the sixty five  allowed her then to bring up for the first time a trial that she was receiving checks from other friends may go to catch this is why they make records didn't help me at all all of this came up after all of the preparation and all of the urging that we may to the trial judge to rule so that something like this surprising this prejudice and not being prepared for this testimony would not occur then used its discretion not to grant the motion for sanctions which would care which within which we asked for a penalty proportionate to the willful disregard for discovery procedure  that's why i'm here i i don't i don't have a real explanation trying to get movies to address the discovery problem that i was having and to no avail so when i was three weeks you know that weeks i don't know it was
studies after that there was basically an immediate recommendation for surgery so based upon that chronology i believe the evidence supports that you did suffer an aggravation but without a patient you would have needed surgery is there a medical pinion symptoms got worse and whether it changed had it or had a nerve started the day before the accident where those numbers would have changed i don't think anybody would say but the symptoms were so that caused him seek medical treatment he had the falling on his hands there was no denial that he had contusions to do his hands which basically it was out but is there a permanent seat on the computer she's that's the thomas you can't do both you can't have them both in front of you and behind you and he didn't know until his deposition when you had to go back and look in the medical records which are in this file with this man and given a totally different this wasn't surprised examination  accident he would have had complaints right then and guess what he did he didn't have
is why why is he more qualified that therefore he is his view of the causative aspects of this condition should be credit so he did a review of the literature and the literature consistently says there is no evidence that it's more likely than not that this exposure would cause the existence of
p programme statement that the liberty interest in the in these other cases we have been in court it was a little bit different because it was a retroactive application of a new rule here we have the same r effort and willpower on the behalf of the prisoner and yes once a determination is made they have to completely their their requirements what they have to do but they have to be given that opportunity to complete those requirements and the way the never take it back well and only on the grounds that force is either by rules or regulations and the grounds that forth are nothing in the regulations by the way that allow them to rescind anything the only thing that even touches on it would issue before the court question is whether you're splitting hairs when you make the statement that there's no determination of early release there was a determination of eligibility correct and that's so he has no recourse basically you're saying you know unfortunately you know these men seen your money ask you this is what was bothering me and we see a lot of cases where immigrants are confused one for another particularly where they have
the the law provides that the tax the proceeds to convert conveyed merchantable title but it then leaves the owner of the property in this case one here as a guest pay taxes in good faith and would not have