MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
throat issue so i'll try to mute myself as i have to clear my throat it's been a problem the last couple of days miss franco is here to ask the court to reverse and re man the merits and protection board's  error and opining that because miss franco no longer works for the defense it just takes ages to see her claim was necessarily moved and because she immediately secured other employment and had no measure well that's so that's a rather subjective measuring stick not to be not to be flippant about that but it's rather subjective and and the cases in which print pay is awarded again as an equitable remedy there's no question it's not a matter of an element of damages but it is allowed under userra for a court for the board to use its full equity powers and work from pay cases under various other for economic damages in cases against federal government brought before the board shall be in addition to other rights of benefits provided by the shopper and shall not diminish any right or benefit provided by the chapter so pay when reinstatement is not an option necessarily has to be in monetary compensation it's a subtle distinction but they're not damages because she doesn't have any damages the courts and which side are many of them the courts have and like in our case it would seem to be left holding the bag and there  as an element of equitable release because she can't go back to work then we get to a what is that number as correctly pointed out we don't know that at this very subject of determination to be made by the trial court in this case the board to determine what the element of front page would be and it's usually a function excuse me honest it's usually a function of the amount of time that the accountant plaintiff had to deal with a hostile work environment and what ultimately resulted because many hostile work there have been no circles sir there have been no circus they have found equitable powers under forty three twenty four dollars for ect that that is absolutely true because that would be the circuit only because the only place you  don't see that you're making a compelling argument as to why we should read together these two different sections and create a link that's not there i three twenty four dollars as the court has already recognized applies only to states or private employers and not the federal government ms franco did not raise the argument of incorporation under fo put forth any argument that shows that the administrative judge is denial of that motion amounted to an abuse of discretion thank you
they were getting therefore it was perfectly permissible for him to be and there's not much either way i mean we had t
where all the individuals living in would be a county wide area are these have this particular ethnic identity being here in these strong cohesive social group leaders claim which i'd like to point out his half brother and his father and stepfather and all of his five sisters continue to live in the village where he was raised he one of his half brothers in particular who was forcibly recruited by the guerrillas was then released and  the article who was killed by his testimony was killed the reason was that he refused recruitment and that's it the record page one forty eight one of his half brothers who testified regarding the forced recruiting recruitment actually returned yes one half brother who continues to live in guatemala another half brother who was in the united states one of the united states actually returned to guatemala for three months that's it page one hundred nine of the record this record is overwhelming and that's stablish saying that the recruitment was solely for the purpose of augmentin their ranks getting and they demanded food that's pages one forty three through one forty eight and finally i'd like to point out  that this department of state report specifically addresses political claims by indians and in doing so a page one thirty three of the record states and i quote since the signing of the peace accords we have seen no claims by indians that could be attributed to political motives and i think that's rather  recruit fog met their ranks it's specifically defeat the notion that it was this family also the fact that the family a large portion of the family remains in the fairy village where he grew up  and and in summary i would say there is there is no evidence that the guerrillas either believed or iranian sleep believed that this petitioners that the guerrillas who operated in the mountains they lived off of the indian villages in those mountain areas that's how they survived it not because of any particular indian group such as this petition script but merely that circumstantial geographical and that's i would close by asking the court to
your honor the v a concedes jurisdiction that this is a question of law when cousin c drew is to i understand your honor the the courts have jurisdiction because it section seventy two ninety two provides for review for rule of they explain that it was a natural progression of the disease right that is part of the issue your honor of the first issue is whether the v a can immunize its pretty nine hundred ninety decision whether or not something was a natural progression of the disease if there's an underlying determination that there was an aggravation in the first grade and there absolutely was aggravation here and clear an that there was no retribution and under that standard i don't know how we can assess whether our reasonable fact finder could only conclude that there was no aggravation if we have nothing about  military service when there is an increase in disability during such service unless there is a specific finding that the increase in disability is due to the natural partners of the disease the v a must reserve rebut the presumption of aggravation by showing years then he gets hurt he gets hurt and he develops pain so severe that the navy recommends a bone graft surgery which fail and then this charge for his right bill and the military found that he was disabled in the line the v a pointed to davis in a spree and said that you know this is a temporary flare up under the base first of all there are several reasons why davis doesn't apply which which we flare up you don't lose your job over temporary flare you lose your job when you are disabled and his discharge records say he was discharged for a physical disability and because of this the reading decision is clearly a product of clear and unmistakable error the veteran forward tries to wake the can of th made a specific finding that the increase vision was with due to the natural progress of the disease it did not get the exact language of the regulation but it was clear from that are with the decision that the surgery again we're going back to the factual decisions i make that what they found was that that he had the preexisting injuries that any surgeries he had during service were to help them with their preexisting injuries and that the later discharged for disability so if he didn't have the disability that would stop him from participating in service and actively participating so his went came in but he didn't charge for disability how can that not  the disability or a preexisting injury or disease will be considered to have been aggravated by active military able or air service where there is an increasing disability during such a service and that is thirty eight u s c eleven fifty  and without the attachment of the presumption of aggravation there can be no requirement to have any rebuttal with a specific finding and since there's no requirement to rebut all there can be no q because of the f injury got worse and was aggravated by dr d and because of that we respectfully request to the court to reverse the veterans court and revise order the secretary to revise the ninet
i am asking the court to reconsider the subsuming doctrine which is president in this court and which basically permits a later decision in a case to for instance if a veteran file original claim for benefits and it's a night and that decision becomes final because it is not appealed and then there's a layer of decision that the ny reopening of that earlier claims than the subduing nocturne provides that that earlier decision can be consumed into us was essentially by that later says that the veteran is no longer able to challenge that earlier decision under thirty eight c f r three point one the free i don't know that there's anything else to add to the argument is strictly a matter of it is a legal one as i understand it you're basically saying that there are precedents in brown versus it's not looking at whether or not that earlier decision was right or wrong clearly in the stable only iranian is looking at whether or not that or that is new evidence that raises the possibility that i may be now in titles that is based on th new evidence so therefore it is not i am not based upon an error in the earlier decision it's based upon whether or not there's new evidence this material to the earlier decisions and in light of the evidence that was in the record later raised the same argument that was that was raised in the earlier proceedings very question in this case that the argument that you're raising now is different from the earlier decision well in fact a human has never evidence submitted by the veterans at or substantially upon the earlier decision and it deny it deny the claim based on the merits of the claim it did not deny actually a reopening it's not an american based hire new evidence that has been nine but the board's decision was not based upon whether or not there was an error in that partition q is a specific claim it is the civic to the decision that is being challenge that earlier decision have to contain a that however i would say that if the court was to say that it did then that overcomes the finality of that earlier decision and the better had better words and he should have got an effective date back to the date of that original claim error there was no specific allegation of you with that later that was a reopening claim there is a very distinct difference between a q claim and a reopening claim a reopening claim does not consider t air in application of law to that or whether there was a finding that was contrary to the evidence of the case for instance acutely and would be the result of the fire the fire didn't have a diagnosis and in fact in the evidence at that time there was evidence of a diagnosis that to the later decision they're reopening has an entirely different question the question in that case is has a better now submitted evidence of diagnosis or evidence that relates to the basis for the new evidence the reopening is based on new evidence q is an entirely different animal and that's basically well i had a very good thank you because the case is submitted
what is being proposed is for changes down to the traffic impact the program and one of the things that that you will see going forward is that this is going to become any signalized intersection makes sense here and we would like to incorporate that as a potential project for the future the third projects is the value of the intersection originally  you do that traffic study that it's a true reflection of the number of groups that are going to the commercial side as opposed to doing it as the business is is developing its clientele
that case is controlling here your honor although it may not be directly controlled because that which was particularly only with regard to the injunction i am aware that i did make findings with regard to  position let me rephrase is that at least the i g has to ask across a applicant whether they have a fear of returning to know whether there is a parent's eligibility because if they don't ask if you have a fear of returning to your country the process african may be too afraid or not even you know to speak up to the question that's not even asked and say yes i do have a fear or even voice of fear in this case especially when she's already been told twice that there's no relief available that's our whole it is something you came up but she still petition to reopen on the basis of if there was a change country conditions she could otherwise she could ask the like you stated thank you question government counsel if it's not raised with i j the issue they can file a motion to reopen because there was evidence that was available at the time of the hearing if you can't do all those out up because there's no turning so the only thing to do is to remain and based on a advised deter against frivolous applications so that counterbalance with a person who may have a fear of asylum and their safety is not is in jeopardy certainly counterbalances the government's concern and maybe they'd be better off not being advised to join or if the if the person is for sale and i would be concerned if the person is president and they do have a fear but they haven't had the opportunity
and also i'll make voice where they made a decision and they did not give me on a schedule conference under federal document store he refused to receive it and then when it came back the postal said did you send this man something and i say yes did you have his address i said i have it and he sent it back argument for him are and then also the district judge on may air as far as all of the federal rules and procedures are fifty go i'll be right back are to make sure that the courts follow the authority and the federal law of the procedure in this case these are professionals in a lower court and it seems like that the law was violated also district judge the circuit judge of this court robert came in acknowledged that the judge's got it wrong
didn't realize the complexities of this in the seriousness in relation to mr situation he said this is a very serious complex case and i only got to  office told me that he was out of town your honor and i asked him to get in touch with him they said the couldn't reach him well i mean just by the very name of here i'll put attorneys on call about eight weeks ago perhaps as recently as six weeks ago but certainly in some time in that timeframe of that there would be oral argument in his case this morning at this time is there any explanation that you can offer  i first got the materials tuesday and that's three days ago yes but they contacted lawyers on call two weeks ago so they would provide the materials and soon as i got the material as i realize know i got is a paralegal she told me that she said well this is a very complex matter and this is very short notice to do this she said well you just victim but the fact that property that she alleged to be stolen from her was recovered from appellants mother with whom he lived through a parole search issue in this case there was there would have been a parole start at that time i believe that i stated in my brief that had counsel moved to suppress this damage and that motion very likely would have been well taken under the law in california at the time i do strongly believe that after looking carefully at some of the pretrial proceedings that counsel knew this and had good and sufficient reason for not filing that motion and that he used the evidence be the credibility of the victim's testimony and to explain why he would have been there that day he used some of the evidence recovered at his apartment look i had this marijuana in my apartment i got it from her i was there because they are my marijuana connection mr chairman is there anything in the record that you indicate whether at the trial that there was a little problem with her credibility as to her prior relationship with the talent that in fact there may have been not as to her relationship with with appellant but as to whether or not there was drug dealing in the apartment district attorney knew that he used that in his final argument and it may then a minor amount of money but under the circumstances when you're dealing with questionable witnesses well these people were involved in drug dealing so this could be a fatal thing and i think that should be considered in conjunction with the unlawful search thank you counsel f
reasoning for the nile given by the judge basically rested on a few adverse credibility factual finding of peru had been motivated by by this criminal nation or persecution on the basis of either is religion or political belief opinion  however it's really misleading to characterize it that way because that arrest of detention led to a series of events that it can be shown that there was actual suffering or harm and we submit to the court that there are clearly can be inferred from the events that took place state department reports and finally this country conditions information is bolstered by the testimony in the record that his younger brothers all of whom would be of fighting age at this point continue
post petition advice pre position they sought advice about whether to file for bankruptcy and were given advice around out and it related to a of receivership motion that was being heard in state court and whether they could get a chapter eleven on file in time to stop that action they make that they are alleging that the advice they received was negligent and they went to retain different counsel and don't file for search after eleventh's and for both entities but it is that it is that meeting and and legal advice they got about a week or two before they actually filed it is the absolute only thing that is the issue when it accrued at that moment and well on the majority member and sole manager of both a little series he's a long time member of the california bar the coal plants of his wife is a lawyer and actually worked at the firm that is one of the appellant's as a bank bankruptcy why why are we here today i guess is my question st of all you represent the defendants in litigation litigation that has to be concluded someplace and you're saying it was wrong for the bankruptcy court not to administer this asset i'm not really sure why why it matters to you in other words when it is your client standing to say this you are not going to benefit by having it determined in the bankruptcy court you're not your client is not a creditor and you know it has to be decided somewhere so it's either going to be decided in the state court or in the bankruptcy court it doesn't really matter to you where you're going there's going to be a resolution so that's the st question why do you care what does your client standing to even raise this other then it's just a puppet for policy reasons bad sure  and agree to go to the forum is and that's not why we're here with some form selection kind of argument or motivation but in the state court the some incidental question two things i would say the it does we've read it more broadly than that partly because there is language in the in the order that says the court guess right i'm just saying i don't think that's your best argument you might want to look at the major claim a claim of litigation but i i would be calling  of being laid out here that is like saying hey there's inconsistent positions somebody should be allowed to get away with inconsistent positions right that's right but isn't that something the state common view that we're dealing with a dismissed case so assume that that's fair that's my there is not a state there is not you know ok great they did as a technical matter they added it to the schedules of some creditor was interested in it i suppose that creditor and the kind of them moved to set aside the dismissal no one  scheduling seems like that's a bad move on citizens that's just it just is impossible to me to assume that occur in what's apparently a standard order and similar to one that's probably judge in effect determine the open ownership of your assets and in effect saying whatever it is it's not the bankruptcy system's assets and if that is the decision flowing from his from his or her that's what we're feeling
puerto rico this brings to this court the question of the district court's calculation of the criminal history school or in any criminal history category to which he was signed here he was signed to the criminal history carrick category three those minor cases but with that said i think we have to look at what sort of you know i think that there are asked to be some sort of room in the case law for some sort of view an error that influences now as the challenges of it absurd where this is and this is a case that is distinct from those where the work courts have failed to talk about that particular issues you know whether or not they would still make this determination but i would still urge i was  so the question is whether the variance of twelve months versus fifteen months could make a difference on substantive reasonable correct correct that is correct on it so that is what the differences in this case and that's why we were arguing heartlessness because the court he indicated no matter
something but we didn't really know what to do so we try having like shows local bands and shows her to raise awareness for charlie cancer because other cancer gets the least amount of funding out of all the answers i prostate cancer breast cancer ok that way we can we know that it's for a boy or girl and what kind of a train it is easier so that we can use like you know it's a five year old boy he doesn't want to bore and how do people get ahold