MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
of that notice that is what experience has explained to davis that it required more documents of course in looking at the face of that notice calls for documents that she already provided them with and call for clarification  scharged through bankruptcy chapter thirteen never late was there is there some convention about what ever late it's well the status reporting of court and others have found that the sub that reporting an account just charged in bankruptcy with out payment history following the discharge is neither inaccurate nor misleading so long as it's reported  to experian and they the account discharged in bankruptcy we also know that the plaintiffs never disputed that information and on top of that we know that all of the information that the plaintiff provided shakespearean thirty four that if there is something else that you are disputing here please let us know what we were either are able up on are a portion of your request and then it identifies for ms gave us the information that she needs to long as the the debtor continues to make payments on their home mortgage they can continue to live there and the bankruptcy essentially has no effect on that obligation i've answered your honour's question well i guess what i'm asking you is carrington provided what appears to be ambiguous d or erroneous information to your client it's untrue well i don't the account so if we were to determine that experience were to make this legal determination that the account actually wasn't included in bankruptcy despite kerry actually and reporting that despite the documentation submitted it with the disclosure letter confirming that then not only would the plaintiffs not only what they could cure a twenty four month period of payments be reported but the one hundred and seventy thousand dollars balance on the account would also be reported so it's not a reasonable to think that mr davis did not want to dispute the bankruptcy just charge and zero balance and experience shouldn't have stepped in and made that determination for
focused almost entirely well actually entirely on the fact that this defendant was the focus of the investigation he was the one that they suspected of th offense because the victim named him all of the trial court relied heavily on the back and this defendant was born he's a military family served for years in the south of the military  thought that that had some relevance to this but the initial determination of custody depends on an objective of what reasonable person he came in during the front doors and in in after the lobby it sounds like the record isn't exactly clear but it sounds like there is a laugh tourist coming into the community then your building and then you then there's the door into the  and that is one of the things that i think is very interesting in stand out very clearly what is wrong with his ruling was that the police officers  didn't know anything about the defendant having any military background at all and they're the the interview was almost ready to be concluded after he had me his statement  in the cases also reject that as a factor to be considered that the court relied on people versus savory  no matter what is there no matter what happened that he was going down and then later on you know whatever was said would be related to the state's attorney in the state's attorney would make up their mind whether  times which demonstrated to the defendant that the door was locked so he could have gotten up and left and he was well aware that all the focus was on the defendant and the police were questioning him because he was named by the victim nobody raised their voice or otherwise threatened him during the interview they just encouraged to tell the when the motion was file
wonderful affairs of politics of india or elections and didn't know or care about the elections the second this one time he says that one cop held the sand while another one slaps them and another time he says he was feet with the fam who stiffed in a leather strap a big difference and the third thing is even after even in the us for a while and had no longer had to fear what indian police would since birth and since then he was wearing a turban that's absolutely completely an incorrect statement on the part of the i g to raise that as an issue it isn't an issue he felt safe once he came into this country to basically grow back his beard in so far as he cops there is no testimony of what you stated in the record on his april ninety seven hearing where he just misstated what the police ninety two he filed his application in december of ninety two and he had a veered at that time he read through it he was about seventeen eighteen or nineteen at that time you asked why he didn't know about the politics and he stated basically on our he was a young man who was involved with the s s f primarily because of police brutality in helping before before you were in at the time there something i need to ask you thank you i may have misheard or misunderstood you i thought you said in answer to my question a moment ago the end of the year in december of ninety two when he on what the judge was inferring because the judge didn't make a credibility finding the judge didn't come to any kind of credibility finding who had this hearing and if we assume that's what he was some flying and the implication is just because an individual doesn't have a beard doesn't make him into the issue was he was concerned and what the judge learns that a raise what happened to him does show past persecution and it does show also well founded fear because the police did come back  for him to step back on what you said a moment ago yes if a man tells me he's a jew or a moslem while eat the ham sandwich i don't have any problem with that as long as he doesn't tell me i'm problem at all means they were saying he has a beard you don't have a beard people are free to have whatever level of servants they want united states but if he says this was a really big part of my life so much so that i was part of the s s f then i have more  problems he was sixteen seventeen when he joined us as to his beard you have a problem with that as a member of why he never had a beard he did have a beard he cut his beard when he came to this country because he was smuggled through various singh had the burden to present all the evidence he could course he had heard and i was wondering whether it came out any time i mean was it just scare tactics or did they actually take them to the other room and
with the testimony of the other witnesses which  really or permanently forgot the name of the newspaper that doesn't go to the heart of the matter your honor ten years ago he wrote in a newspaper the court has long acknowledged that people who are for  the point is that happened in sochi or but it didn't happen in russia which is a large city probably at ours but we don't know how hard it is maybe an hour's drive there there  agree that you don't have to remember specific instances but he based his past persecution claim on his writing articles in this newspaper but couldn't remember the name of the newspaper until he came back with the hearing and we're not talking about later in the minute thank you rana precious one of the only countries where having a passport doesn't mean you have a right to live there most of the people from the former soviet union have russian passport that doesn't mean you have a right to live there and russia has been trying to really relocate all of these people forcibly that are moving there now georgia  that they're on the issue of the judge thomas addressed which is about sending them to another country based on prosecution in another country would be i know you've cited one to us in your brief but if you've got them within fifteen days send us a letter very just a done a fine the names of the cases no argument just the names of the cases ok thank you very much i will proceed to the next case on the calendar which is m
investigator had interviewed for some reason i don't know why it was never pursued that he had in fact come by the house earlier and had it apologize for the mother's actually said this mother said that she came by the house he can buy the don't know because there was would have been prior consistent statements and they get on the stand they testify no i really don't know who did it and no where i told the police was not true and then they play house reputation and through the system generally and so i think it's important that we if you're very close to the record in terms of what is alleged as ineffective and what's actually established and and from the court questions i see we're discussing whether or not there should be removed from evidence rehearing and if i might focus on that for a minute i would suggest that there's a difference between the need for reading and and the threshold  there was no other possible way for counsel to handle this case that there could be no conceivable reason why he's recalled i think that think the defense based on the cross demolition of the gang witnesses who did testify was that a murder happened the petitioner wasn't there and i don't know anything about it it's a little different from saying i was home sleeping i know where he was the the the othe not known to counsel but the fact is counsel was present when the investigator interviewed the mother and sister she was present when the names were revealed and the declaration we have doesn't say that these witnesses won't have tested for one
whether the auditor who did the compliance investigation and made the recommendation for terminations knew about these comments or whether the human resources director who i take court concluded that what was complained of for comments but not necessarily she didn't make clear that the comments were about her age derogatory comments about age is not wrong that's  oh he just laughed at her when she complained so that means the human resource official who made the decision to terminate there is no evidence that that official knew of the derogatory comment yes  interview conducted by the human resources manager the one that was i do love your smile yes and your quiet cold human resources manager they've made derogatory comments about my age to us to me just so terminations claim is there any evidence similarly situated people to her not being terminated yes well she was the only one terminated at the time as i told you i was  right evidence on the record including her own admissions to support that conclusion the totality of the circumstances such as they were evaluated by the lower court do not show and cannot support a finding  and there are there's plenty of information and evidence on the record that indicates that rather than just me on their oath that she was treated the same way for example she mentioned that when coworkers in her same we're not achieving the goals of the sales department she also had me did that the same way that she was placed in a performance plan and a final performance plan that all her coworkers were received any information from playing to hurt her contention though as i think i thought she made that follow up contact because she had effectively been invited to do so by the person she caught with that and then the auditor concluded human resource person does the courts can not see the super personal harm it's in terms of the to tell any of the circumstances analysis the lower court conducted the proper analysis of the circumstances and we have to  or the comments have to do with her the comments have to do with her old car and a phone that had twelve years she admitted that her car was old she admitted that her phone was old and the comments were to  specific dates when the comments were made any frequency when the comments were made and she had it's under oath that she did not report those comments in particular not even to her supervisor and the company did was the one who did for her for her insurance company license he was the one who brought her in and he was the one who supervised for the entire time and have to impose corrective action due to and every time she goes in there people approaches and ask questions and you go to
the court concluded that you'd only had thirteen employees statute that's an issue on appeal whether the district court was correct in entering summary judgment as i understand it the read issue on appeal statutory standard as i understand it it is is your client stayed in that position many thought certain individuals were there sometimes he gave  that they say establish what the payroll records are so i mean saying that what they filed were not payroll records or i'd point out they should be sanctioned because let's talk about what was described in there there's a description of thirteen employees a rough estimate of what your client believes was their time that their time of work but that was there any detail about interactions with them on a daily basis and i was left wondering about what time periods where the people actually were there and so on that is if i had been counsel the questioning would have  keep them off the record that type of employment fraud is actually very common i said yeah i think maybe you have a bit more of a burden the specific cases you'll see that all you will find are incomplete references to certain employees with known without giving the fact given the judge or are giving anybody  possibility of actually determining if in fact those people comply with the requirement set out in the federal statute in terms of having worked for the for the defendant and it is his burden to establish  are what happens to part time or is they're not they're not counted and you're honored on paper that this is on the appendix is the list that he provides it's on page three thirty four the jury let me put that question to the jury that's for the jury to the side thank you thank you
i submitted my complaint to drop sent to the president of the bank well that's what the president of the bank but all facts you set than email to them complaining or telling them about this problem the sections problem and what you or your employer says is that we didn't know about your claim about his complaint right and so how can we retaliate  against him for something that we didn't even know about general response to that and if you don't have a response that's that's ok but i just want to know if you have a response to  behalf of the pelly national bank of pakistan the bank is a predominately stayed on commercial bank with branches across pakistan least twenty one dollars international branches including a branch in new york city where mr shaikh was was employed the bank's chief compliance officer reviewed that transaction and determined that the transaction was not required to be reported to ofac subsequently on april th mr shaikh yelled at a coworker and manager of the payment  receipt department regarding a work assignment that manager then complained about his behavior to bank management and asked that he be removed from the office because he was being disruptive that was memorialized in a memorandum ended on that day the bank memorialized that decision with a memorandum and a separation agreement that they prepared for him then on may nd which was the st business day after the pac rim it department closed mr shaikh was informed  determination as your honor noted mr shaikh did file a complaint with osha on the morning of may nd but there is no evidence that anyone from the bank was aware of that complaint and mr shaikh has not provided any evidence to the to the contrary i'm writing this to most in that this is sold under the bank secrecy the whistleblower protection provision yes your yes
isolated quote joke necessarily more a sentencing hearing a judge must take all factors in aggravation and i think it should into account so what in the i can i don't want what you know is that in this case the trial judge was so inherently prejudiced of all of just the mere presence of an attempt bribery or the mention of a bribery or  do remember that but the fact that he didn't open it does that mean he didn't read it or does that mean he didn't open your copy and had a prior happy that's given to the courts going into course i don't believe that this was mailed to the courts  errors let me start off by agreeing with just this problem i have never seen a case like this either where someone made a hundred twelve thousand dollars after him got arrested for dui i think he would have been better off taking some of the money and running a demo to go haul and then we i think i have the biggest problem here about the record and what the record shows and what it doesn't show i know yours reviewed the procedural history in and it's an objection to the  what i may have been hearing for the first time now is the allegation that perhaps a judge would take he had a policy that a universal policy of not giving supervision if he have several other issues but i think that they're covered adequately and in in the brief unless you have any further questions i think i can conclude that thank you very much
i think even if you did not admit i think this particular court this vision if he hadn't did it absolutely a whole different approach would have been take for them somebody comes in and the judges to just do it or not the person says i did it well then you go  that you commit to the parties an opportunity for simultaneous briefing on the issue because really wasn't raised by the parties but if you're interested in the issue i'm happy to to to do briefing on it what i'd like to do saying i want to brief that first issue but i'm going to discuss today why really the first issue doesn't matter because even under the modified categorical approach the immigration judge his decision as a form of opinion by the board must be  my category what evidence do we have in the record that allows us to determine what actually happened rather than what scopes well i'm not so sure it's to go to the question of what actually happened the question is whether or not the additional documents in the record in that section of the hawaii revised statutes defines domestic abuse as physical harm bodily injury assault or the threat there of all violent matters the statutory scheme authorizes issuance of a protection order after in this case a hearing and an opportunity to be heard and a consideration of the charges to protect people like mrs diaz from domestic abuse as defined in the statute physical of the protective order thus the domestic abuse component of the order of protection clearly includes protection against credible threats of violence or credible threats of vitally injury  as it protects or against physical harm bodily injury assault or the threat thereof so then we get to the question of whether or not there is evidence to show that he was convicted of violating members yes the charging well let me have him right here the domestic abuse order is adds administrative record one twenty three to one twenty seven and the charging document as it is with a combination of again of all three documents you had look at the statute you look at the conviction record and you look at the charging darn you draw an inference there's nothing there i don't think you need to draw an inference  he didn't get that he got it because he was sentenced to probation as i just discussed probation he's in lieu of sentencing and the statute also provides that the that in special circumstances of the  judge need not sentence to the jail time so under either of those possibilities he was clearly sentenced to he was fined two hundred fifty dollars which is the statute provides for a domestic abuse charge he was he got a suspended sentence assembled not a suspended sentence he got the probation in lieu of a sentence and he was charged with the violent act putting all those matters together it is clear that he was charged lawyer prosecutor but it seems to me that there are a lot there are a lot of mandatory minimum sentences to which judges sentenced to probation in lieu of watering time event the statute also provides that in special circumstances the judge need not impose so clearly that's what happened here because again he was charged under the statute clearly mine two hundred fifty
somewhat confusing factual elements of both cases are can be understood by the course i think where the court has read the briefs carefully i think we pretty well understand the vacated and the case be remanded to the district court so that the process of getting from a to b can be followed according to the rules and so that testimony evidence can be submitted this court in for us to understand what motivated the district court to make the decision that's being made in each case so that it can be understood when whether some conferences between counsel in a search that  rough the record unfortunately you know there were a number of conferences that were off the record the most significant one was the october thirtieth conference which we have no way of knowing because they were off the record we have no way of knowing what went on if th problems there again we can't tell whether or not the district court relied on the x party communications he had with dr a stand and so it's part of the underlying problem with the record what were the and that we don't know where it's the still on board as far as the transfer of the case in other words did vacate his that's correct why don't we hear from with the record i can't understand clearly what this is all about and i suspect it's counsels some of this is off the record discussions just last year under their if you want to the world off the record injunction the court after ahead of enter the stipulation we wouldn't even be here because that wouldn't presumably  conforms to what he thinks he should approve he made changes in correct they you know they have never fact i think we understand the case a lot better now thank you the cases you'll be submitted