MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
way that the board characterize changed circumstances in the country to those of changes personal circumstances and so in order to reopen the case looking at the t moving target it seems like every time she gets report aboard the the nature of the argument the person whose names are at one time she was asking to stay in the united states at the same time that her father was asking to say in the united states a problem i thought one of the problems why so the same attorney that would put them both in the u s now and he's been sent back to mongolia her great nest i can't go back to mongolia because my father is there so there's a little bit of i'm just going to act in the to she's not going back to a country we're persecutor is out and so that is the difference and the difference in claim and why the being brought in a motion to reopen now that the father has been removed and when it's not i i don't think it would be a fair characterization to call this a personal circumstance as the government has been doing and in its documents because a personal circumstance would be something that the person period has control but that she has control over in beyond the personal circumstances into any change circumstance in the country is the fact that there are persecutor is now out in the country where she is going to be removed to where he wasn't in the country when he was going to and they had some sort of falling out where now she's afraid to go back but he's always been there i think that ties closer to a personal circumstance but the fact that he's now in mongolia where he wasn't before it is a true change in circumstance in the how could we could how could we find that it's illegal in this case when the same lawyer was representing her i was representing her father and it looks like she's got and the whole basis for her going right now is yeah i was being persecuted by my father country and i think it is important to concentrate on the language because there is a lot of talk about change country conditions and i think oftentimes when we talk about the phrase under conditions we think about the evidence of how the country you know a though the regulation requires us to show a change of circumstances in the country and having the persecutor in the country is a change circumstance in the country and it makes sense to read it that way because it's not
injured person liens will be adjudicated and in that case in essence jurisdiction is obtained by certified mail so why should there be a difference in personal service
oh sorry yes i can  court i've reduced a single issue in this case that my client's conviction for aggravated dui should be reduced to a simple class a misdemeanor d because the state failed to present evidence to the jury to prove the egg of eating factor that he had to prepare dui abolish it's undisputed here that the state didn't present felony committed as an adult and it reached that conclusion by looking at the organization of the statute and seeing that that particular bank factor was spelled out with the other elements of  maximum ethical such as for a class a misdemeanor and that concludes my remarks and opening right now but i'd be happy to answer any questions that you just that you have at this point hour included the prior convictions in order to raise the classification of the offense and they included that in the charging instrument a prend he only requires that facts that must be proven to the jury must be submitted to a jury improve beyond a reasonable doubt prior convictions are an exception and that is why those other cases which found those elements within the  elements of other i'll turn it on and so that of facts and we see the same thing going on here now the state never really accounts for in this case i think the fact that other but i don't quite see how the state gets to interpret zimmerman a way that allows you to sort pick off the prior conviction and say that there's a different rule for that even though it's place next to elements i'm not sure if there's what the legislative history specifically says but i think what zimmerman did is that if the court found the illinois supreme court found that the plain language of the statute indicated that intent to make the prior delinquency education an element of the offense by where placed the that factor withstand a statute so i think the legislative i
mish manufacturing around that time this this case is needed to find a piece of description
right to trial by jury three other tags so i mean i think is probably some
a means of getting to it but that doesn't mean that that's the beginning of the crime because the crime doesn't begin until three days after my client is in new york because he is allowed to be there he's holding leading up to cars holding suggests that there is a limiting principle involved when you read the sign a statute starting with reading it sequentially which does not go all the way that's right car was necessary to decide the question of either the travel had to count before or after s and there are no cases where that would in fact occur but the bigger point of it is that the statute is designed in a certain range and there could be ways to enforce that sachi to suit contrary to its purpose and your example i think is one of got to register somewhere that doesn't solve the problem of notice keeping all of them knowing where these people are the statues design the people here normal people so that local law interstate commerce with an intent to evade registration and it doesn't say that it has been with within a certain amount of time and i think your honor's question is really with zero problems with treating this as anything other than it should have happened and it still perplexing to me that now the prosecution went forward in this arena because i think actually what happened is that they thought he had to register in massachusetts and that he failed to do s
case itself mr brumley admitted three times that he was completely disabled and unable to work in a job and that is in the writer and it's just a spur that is in his deposition and it's in the raritan said pages for forty two of the record he did two thousand and sixteen record for seventy six through four seventy nine forty six to forty seven it's also in who gets an employee sick and if he has the gall to call attention to that they can fire him for that and get away with it if they get him sick enough that he can't return to work he's out about how this  principles of judicial stop that also will live to be social security administration documents in the workers compensation when some settlement agreement that were cited in this case by mr brown even system with what he said in the social security administration and the worker's compensation commission and falls to admissions that its claim in this lawsuit because again i didn't give any support to the claim she filed a report already in her deposition that mr brown met was terminated because he did not provide updated medical information just and was repeatedly asked to provide current information and when he did didn't do so baker had no choice but to terminate his employment for reasons we believe that the circuit court's decision
our first case is smarting will be wilcox against the veterans administration i believe nineteen ninety eight there was his statement of the effective date and he did not object to the affected determination at that time or oh for the first time on this appeal right you didn't raise this issue or didn't raise this dog you know with the v a or with the court of appeals for veterans we raised the issue without that requires revisiting in this case the earliest time you applied for benefits is ninety two you had the benefits of a good bet for a back if you want to go
lots of ways to commit the crime not all of which would require the subject of the crime being held against their will at all or that they like him thanks and doing so so we're talking theoretically and the crime itself does not include a lack of consent i don't mind the various components that indicate that there's been no expressed determination that lack of  in france all it is is just to find work said wife that's true for celtic one point two three actually then did mirror nearly exactly one of the instruction the cousins were confined against their will and her response was well that was the conspiracy charge and you had started to mention that do you think that's a good defense to to the argument that the that finding wasn't made in the basic charge it doesn't carry over from the conspiracy charge i think that's where she was going if that's where she was going i think that that's not a reasonable p that simply by finding these people guilty of kidnapping may not carry over through very a finding of guilty of conspiracy may not carry over to the find  guilty of that but your point here is that having found it is specifically in her overt act is something different yes absolutely
because of this court decision dalzell i don't think there should be any question of dazzles controlling law here careful to distinguish cases where the court found more salt to apply to agents of carriers and the docile courts that those none of those cases involve the dual or common agent of multiple airlines including at the most the carrier say you have a company that furnished this kind of information or maintenance or that would add a fifth place a venue i guess that's right around probably that the worst or conventionally applies to international transportation between signatory nations doesn't apply to all flight so when your honor was saying well it's a security company this is flight ok but it's not solely international flight its domestic none worse off  flight do you drive that for instance the air controller because they know they have to depend on that for the flight does it include maintenance does it depend on the history of whether this is normally done by the airline itself or by airlines traditionally do maintenance or whether they traditionally have had people of an airport who are hired by the airport what does it depend on where do you draw the line i think all of your examples involve the district or below found that this evil was involved in services in connection with the pageant occurs i agree with that but i don't agree with that they're not the exclusive agent to your only argument is if you have to be exclusive if you do it for two companies instead of why these countries are not covered by the convention you made a lot of arguments and they're very well the only thing i would say about things where your honor as please somebody look at the developments in international relations after those alleged notes from indonesia nine behalf of economies now why would you have that in there if it
rebel supreme court for twenty from combinations of twenty five percent additional time the ral supreme court denied order matter of fact he goes into the word supreme court with resents three times in his petitions right judges judges say a lot of things we don't have the record we have you're i'm sure are sincere and that's suggesting that you're misleading us but you we have your perspective on what was said about which we have no record we don't have the context we don't suggest of ambiguity but even accepting that he said some i think many things one of them hearing argument my decision is the decision that i could write it and it was a decision on the merits
all of your employment the question is he's getting the glasses that you forgot number two she never got them going looking for the grasses you get me out of something that is included within your employment duties it's the issue record that she left the employ one of the cities so the spill and went to look for her glasses was there any approval or direction by which the employee might reasonably be expected to perform incidentally his or her assigned duties now was going to look for her glasses but she didn't bring with her access role for twenty two years i may not be the sole she may have other choices she could pay and why somebody would pay if they didn't have to i don't know but the she followed in the end but to dismiss the usual route the issue that's who we were talking about we knew what was in your group with the debate we were having was did she asks not for permission or did she just tell smith she was going across the street to get her glasses i
because he said he would not he wouldn't get anyway the problem from the petition his point of view is the immigration judge never lets the attorney at the time put on his applications for relief they were basically prevented is a controlled substance as defined by the state of california we would concede that there's no evidence that it's a controlled substance under the federal schedule which is the burden of the government to prove there is no evidence on this point the immigration judge looked outside the record of convictions to find it was no longer controlled substance conviction because it had been expunged under the california statute the board considered that motion on the merits which found in fact that since in their estimation and the government argued in response to the motion yes and there would be a new trial you know sometimes the board fashion's how he manages to be heard as far as what applications for relief if cetera briefly the third conviction there's an eleven five fifty conviction that is brought out by  also the only information that goes into the record is what's commonly called the rap sheet there's no complaint there's no judgment there's no transcript of plea and most importantly once again there is no evidence what the controlled substance w so that conviction also cannot be used to support the government's argument that the petitioner was convicted of a controlled substance the faster you have three convictions none of which are proven controlled substance offenses burdens on the government it's our generic determination is not we're concerned about was the conviction from nineteen ninety five which they were the three charges driving under the influence being und six to an american citizen with full her horses and children and and stroke what i'm concerned about is why we're not talking about the i just kind of status the discretionary crimes yes that is possible and that could happen but in again as we as i believe the immigration judge skated in page seventy one of the ministry of record given his criminal history which again he doesn't spell out but he had done in the previous paragraphs we're not sure exactly what he's referring to but he already has made a row in his findings that these are controlled substance offenses and based on those that criminal history i'm going to deny relief indiscretions certainly
below the st was the district where permitted the government to introduce reams of character evidence about mr holmes on charge conduct most notably his expenditures and personal tax returns from two thousand part of nd the district likelihood that the jury did exactly what the government wanted to do looked at evidence and the star has passed misconduct outrageous expenditures and conclude he must be guilty of something because the government cannot meet its burden to show that the difference between  government's trying to have it two ways of it here which is that when they're looking twenty two million twelve thousand and eleven they want to calculate his task efficiency we look back to two thousand or two thousand nine hundred and they say look there were these shareholder locks that was it that mr coming in improperly i think it's also important to look at the jury instruction so mr hahn had asked for an instruction that said he reasonably believed so i know that he recently signed that you believe that the funds he received in two thousand and ten could legally be treated as nontaxable his testimony of his then wife is particularly telling he told her hey i got twenty million dollars from her is a sale of my activity i can do whatever i want with the money and he asked three dollars specific lee asked her can you let me know what the you very much if you put points on trying to address here it would be awfully convenient that the only way to show the conservative conservative nature of your calculation is repeatedly mentioned private jet
open guilty plea to driving aggravated driving under the influence and section g is the only way for appeal to be possible and legislature included sections  and the judge and jones had basically adopted our position in position increase which was that because he could have filed you know well he had thirty days from the day you sentenced to file tell you what i why why i'm worried about it if the judge made a mistake by striking emotion because it didn't have to be filed within thirty days it could be an on line legal that's denying that the report of proceedings you'll see that the judge said in fact make a decision and said that the excuse that was given in the one fifteen emotion was not sufficient to mean that his absence was as absence was w ball whether the motion which should have been granted well the defendant was willfully absent basically the first issue that we've argued and then also reach the merits of any claims of merit in the
file yes court for turning but very honest all right let's let's limit ourselves to exactly what does the verdict that were made by the issue before the court and i think the court recognize it is whether i grant the trial court's granting of the post crown motion for judgment as a matter of law was correct and is obviously  record shows that all of the information that author might say had also mostly a rose from the victim but he had other information that he was relying on in this case we have to remember that officer monte was out on the be patrolling he got a call to go to disney star protection agency because you're back up there could be a situation already he's on alert there could be a situation he goes there and he's met by the person he believes is the manager he testified that he thought mr shannon was the manager and mr sharon said i thought this guy in my office and he showed him the reports that he had often that morning he didn't want him there so obviously shannon felt that mr al hoffman was a problem and this is why they called off something from back up because shannon they had a report of an incident victim there are several statements from the victim and he knows that the manager of this company is there to fire the accused and that the manager of the company for backup because he's afraid of something happening this is what officer montaigne's is faced with so i think that looking at all that he didn't speak with the accuser but he testified off for months he testif i was trained not to do that i'm not the judge we have to assume and i think it's probably a good assumption that our one would have said i didn't threaten him because that's clearly how he testified to trial i didn't officer months he was trained he testified i wasn't trained to to be the judge between these people and i think that it makes it reasonable that he would follow his training as an officer and do at that time what he thought was the proper thing to do which was to make the arrest clearly the jury's bell there was no probable cause that doesn't mean that officer mancini was not reasonable  and based on everything that happened that morning on the circumstances they say that yes that was a reasonable action process for months he'd pay and that's what the crux of the qualified immunity i  he had to make a decision he had to do something with the facts and circumstances he was faced with did he act responsibly and resubmit yes he did he did so the qualified immunity the
section that also uses the term section and it's clear they're talking about of all violations of the whole section of a driving a book license so when you look at them that does it give the states even a little for three days because the same to modify your behavior so i think it takes care of that problem as far as you know the there are some examples like the school bus example those that have it i don't know it does not actually learn itself to your audience so there is a progression a a two x not one not not three to one i quote could be a touchdown but maybe in this instance it's not really a touchdown because if this instance it's going to go back and there's a there's a reasonable probability that your going is going to serve more than one he said here
and look nothing for young people like me
this looked almost like a king came in here and it didn't look like a hearing to indicate recovery is there any practical difference when you're dealing with these issues if you have the burden of proof both times
have to explore back particular point when the defendant comes into court and as as he did in this case your honor i disagree with my lawyer i don't think that he's doing what i think he should be doing clear that the district court did unlike the district court in the smith case unlike the district court in the walker case and on monday rather than a trial and that and that's how it was transpired
not be objective didn't pieces opinion based upon mechanism of injury has nothing to do with what you do for a living either you have the medical condition or you don't and can sin city haven't seen says he did
that speaking for myself i think that's what's going to happen i think that's what's on the table and have i think that's the only question that's on the table on shallows in the united states supreme court and i don't think you've got a three year gap all in question here you've got an equitable t hey we could talk about that one you say he gets the transcript he needed or he says he didn't get the transcripts he needed to make his case that's his problem specifically wh has another paper i got that transcript so we're not talking about the post trial advance whatever they were he wants in his petition he cites several things that he wants and only finding the  mcintyre january eighteenth judge mcintyre january eighteenth judge tank barger january eighteenth judge human and has three judges on one day this is real important to me because if there was a marston hearing and he stands that's his counsel said that i don't have time to do this case i can't investigate like he says that all happened trial day and when i was in the trial they made it there was things happen in court shows things happen in court that doesn't necessarily mean it was a marston's hearing and then he later sa nine two thousand and march first two thousand i another he got a copy of what happened on the eighteenth and  trial court said appellate counsel falsified transcripts of the events of january eighteenth dates were changed to make them appear to be january eighteenth when in fact they were from september fifteenth so he got something going to be about my ineffective assistance i can't do what get the somebody at the criminal defense panel to do it and they can do it and then says there's a later hearing at the time of the well exactly and i'm not no let me just jump then ultimately it's a hypothetical and we don't necessarily have to go there but even if there was a transcript and i stuck fourth of the logic in our brief that  circumstance let me ask you this though and i and i and i preface this by saying i want to get anxious i think this is purely hypothetical with respect to this case but i was trying to educate myself i've seen cases where the hey this application to the state court is dismissed for want of proper documentation and basically the master dismissal without prejudice but it's a dismissal assuming we have a case where he needs documents he reasonably anticipates that is his application of the state court will be dismissed he doesn't have them is should there be equitable tolling in order to allow him to get i'm assuming the reason he doesn't have them is not his fault you want to watch the trial but he's worried that he's going to get dismissed unless he has the supporting documents well the problem with that obviously is is this not this notion of requesting documents and meeting that could