MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
thank you welcome thank you i have the brief inner dockery statement to make it shouldn't take longer than a minute and a half now i intend to reserve the balance of my time for  number one being the transfer of younger employees out of the planning department prior to layoffs and the hiring of younger employees to do planning work the simple contention advanced by going throughout this entire does comply with federal law why wouldn't that and the matter if it's a binding agreement i don't know if it's still a matter of a private contract and i don't believe that  there adequate remedies to test the viability of a contract in state court and i don't think that the contract constitutes a waiver of the substantive right to appeal i gather two separate points one if you think that that's correct i don't think it's jurisdiction because the settlement agreement itself is void or the waiver clauses void i believe that they're both void even one vote i guess my problem is just one flow from the other are you making separate arguments with respect for your position as i understand it is because the statutory provisions themselves under which the claim has been asserted are not recycled then the reference to the claims made in the us for geisha is insufficient under the statute that's one of the grounds yes or the other ground being failure consideration the other ground being he did not have an opportunity act but opportunity to younger players were transferred out of the planning fire department in advance of layoffs and younger employees were hired to do planning were work that was formally performed by the laid off employees in fact i think it's page but they were they were let go under the terms of the under a procedure that was approved by the collective bargaining agreement after they removed the younger favorite employees from the layoff pool that's correct for any evidence that this occurred he himself could not identify any younger planner that was transferred out he was unable to identify any younger planner that got a position which he felt he was entitled in at your three twenty three and thereafter goes through a benefit various people by name that he thought such as mr leonard who is a younger man are transferred to nonunion position and he was asked about boeing is the one who has the information largely on these folks so what he was as i understood what he was doing was done to find people that he understood that the younger and that from his information by virtue of the trial court for that reason i think it's not necessary to refer to the claims because they no longer existed ye s at the time he was pressured the tiny agreement and again as we sit here today we have no legitimate nondiscriminatory business reasons for the transferring of younger employees out of the transfer pool or the hiring of younger employees to do planning work
people to his home and he proceeded to get extremely intoxicated but that was at his home and on his property there was a complaint made to the police in the police arrived at his home and i'm really just came they got up and my client was a very unhappy place to come into his home without a warrant and he asked him to leave they refused to leave and he refused to discuss anything with him as a result he was because he was intoxicated and that you're not always logical when you're intoxicated everyday i would have to say that as far as the assaults are concerned i think i'm wrong in claiming that the officer daniels could have stopped it because i think it happened so quickly that there was nothing she could do so i would have stayed in that regard i agree with the defense attorney representing of sudan however when she was told to leave by my client that there was no emergency and they didn't and there is a big dispute as to whether it ever did anything to threaten the officers that's denied so after he was handcuffed and the officers manual of westport says you only use mace  were but i don't know who it was but anyway i think that i'm qualified immunity the supreme court has made some comments about it's not the traditional issue of fact we don't have a procedural motion that really addresses qualified immunity the plaintiff has never presented any evidence to you that when the officer said somebody had started told me that somebody inside needed help isn't true they presented some evidence of people other people that claim that that's not true but they don't we have any evidence on that i think what she said what she said that if you're to her that there was fighting that has just gone there are people very emotionally upset and that there was an indication that there was fighting going on inside the house and somebody needed assistance that's why she's here i in that he didn't think your degree and think that they talked to anybody they went directly into the house the door was closed down as i understand the manual westport is you don't use
that's right wrong and and you're telling us that it was an unusual practice in the l a immigration corps to perform background checks was unprepared to proceed on the merits and i requested time to consider certain terminating allegations and this was a master calendar months later and the priority take case took precedence so that continued for another four and a half months and and you requested a short continuance to submit this decision based on the fact that it specifically told you that he think your presence and that there was no reached him excuse for you had a number of problems with our court for not following rules right that's right quite a few it's part of the record at page forty fine that this application is for assignment and for withholding instructions for form i find eighty nine asylum and four she felt that application out and she signed it the spanish well requires fingerprints partitioner is absolutely wrong in stating that that was not required one need only that was on september eighteenth two thousand and two when the immigration judge reset the matter from september eighteenth two thousand to two thank you or a fifth two thousand and three stating at that time will be considering your applications for withholding of removal and convention against torture at that time you must be present with your attorney ready to proceed please make sure you're present because i must warn you if you are not as you know i will consider your claims and applications abandoned and enter an order of remove all they have been warned and tol said they didn't do it
to deliver hearing to an undercover officer officer testified that he received three packets of uniform substance for ten years each then after forensic tests showed that the substance that whether or not the chain of custody was sad and whether there was contamination along the way there was this really no explanation as to why it would test positive for that  ultimately i believe that it was incorrectly ruled upon in that case the court didn't get past the point in language of this amendment in question which basically just as for multiple convictions for multiple types of controlled substances an added contention is that if you look actually look into the statute the statute to find the substance such as this is a single substance so we don't really think in answer to justice specifically defines the mixture of cocaine and heroin as a single product also the preamble for section four one as to the wording for the purposes of this act a case and really rights commonsense rise that contention is that the statute doesn't allow for this but as if you think about this common sense wise it just doesn't really make sense the best example i can think of and if you you know submit this cake to through advanced scientific testing it would test positive for the presence of flour but it would be better stress to say that you still possess flour in this case you've got a uniform substance you can use the hair one of the cocaine separately and just based on the definitions of the statutes we would argue that this is a single substance therefore that amendment doesn't apply which then brings the case back to people for  stipulating to that evidence kind of from adds another layer of waiver which but in this case that that didn't happen so  johnson has to things have to be met in order to establish chain of custody with a unique identifier that's both ends of the chain testifying serious condition and the use of this number  up and then the forensic scientist is on the stand and says in order to test this evidence i had to break up large terms ok so there's something there on both ends of that we can link this chain back up with you know with some confidence  we don't have anything to assume that they're anything but uniform so it would be similar that if you have three bags of just coke you could only get one conviction you can aggregate the amount those types of things with regards to weight i would just suggest that i do admit that the trail head did not have bad evidence in front of them when they made their
expert or accountant said according to the gap principles that they were supposed to be normalized so he calculated the well made up of items proper to exclude any normalization for sale so those aren't even issues if you put their testimony or the evidence mr gerber  he throws in there and most importantly if you look at his initial report and compare that to his exhibit he and his additional report he had even under the rules of this camp or he wouldn't have been able to do that trial you can't change your opinion for a trial much less after i think the legal principles are pretty clear i think there's no question you can add to that there's a three ways you can proceed under twelve o three that's if there's new evidence not available at trial if there was a chang if for some reason the trial court improperly applied for love and you can demonstrate that none of those facts exist in this case in fact if you look at the trial c second issue is a contract interpretation and that's the basis of fire appeal and request that the awarding of the interest be reversed its  places it doesn't apply and secondly they wanted three hundred thousand they pulled out of thin air because the soundless they never offered any explanation or rationale for that you should take more off i don't think it mean changed our opinion in this case we still believe that the very first professional opinion that we rendered in this case is the correct one but it was clear the judge was not going to let us pursue that matter
pieces is incredibly broadly defined doctors have so many things on their plate they can be considered professional services the patient relationship in this case appropriately thank you sudden health care clearly the reason he had access was there were birds in the southern maine health care group the reason he could access the records was because he was a doctor who had access to
introspection it sounds like they cut off their next sentence was actually the one year patient but are they under some obligation to give you every pertinent he said the policy that talks about the lawsuit and they were their purpose in that letter wasn't to give you with the idea that the one here last but short of that what's the i would like to go through the timeline as to what happened we have sinus faces accident that have been signed june ninth of twenty a lot of bad news and this is all from the record the releases it's all in my statement of fa against the company provision is included in those two pages
but if i guess what we're all driving and needs i guess we're viewing it as a conclusion that was alleged rather then the facts upon which we might draw that conclusion in other words in the conversation the victim said she you were polite and knocked on the door and quietly answered i mean i'm going to give you the extra dance of factual allegation in the petition rather than the victim would corroborate my defense counsel was full of the full conversation you give her and that to your allegation made its way into the evidence in this case by way of the defense investigator she apparently told this to the defense investigator that the defendant didn't force his way into the home so that most this frantic phone call be cumulative impeachment evidence but this most i mean if you're going to scale of evidence of guilt in the evidence of there's testimony from the owner of the room and he said you're not welcome here you need to leave they still can he still came in there's evidence and try to conceal his identity his identity before coming in my car and impede home if he thought he was authorized to enter in the is that question is yes because the state's evidence was not the only evidence in the case mr rathbun testified that first of all the door open for him he didn't open the door
at this point and this was subsequent to the briefing everything has been stayed in the state quite but this is what he's pled guilty in two thousand and fifteen in the supreme court decides under the the second as they represented to the supreme court was that evidence should not that falls at the falsification of those records should not impact the underlying convections and baird was that when they when they finally met the three individuals but offended snub was that these proceedings before the supreme court may have an impact so did their right and there was no  about this in two thousand and sixteen it happed as an apply them the statute runs in two thousand and eight if they're wrong and in fact the state says ok that that in fact officer dennis had all the records did not address any due process implications for those defendants whose connections were tainted rather they saw the extraordinary relief they want of the new jersey supreme court of the conviction but it certainly can happen and packed on his arches is due process rights when she was charged when she made the decision to plead guilty when she weighed in defenses that she could have happened if she could have challenged evidence that evidence is going to have no impact on the twenty thousand dui arrest because it really doesn't impact the accuracy of the appetite us so that is a situation that we're given and i think the state i presented with matter how extensive the evidence was against the person suggest that they have a freestanding claim to pursue because the prosecution presented  and that's why we're going forward because justice process and the state group proceedings to determine whether or not this this had any fact on this due process violation that would be in any case it was also included i think it damages and like i understand i think that in order for her to go forward on her fourteenth amendment due process violation for fabricated evidence she needs to prove th to happen you to have conflicting results in state criminal court and federal district court in a civil matter and then just can't be so that's read stands for extremely we status matter and even the supreme court's decision and certified question i think that  overturn your criminal conviction before you come to federal court so she's been damaged and that's and regardless of what the supreme court says so even if they were to say ok when she has a bond because she's she's served her time as i said  because well it's good if they say you win the hand at nineteen eighty three you claim would not necessarily imply it would be another question when a state actor used fabricated evidence in a criminal proceeding if the plaintiffs assume the actor could not prove the elements of a malicious prosecution here that it was the conviction was overturned the language
finds a police officer credible i mean quite frankly that videotape doesn't corroborate anything i mean it's fuzzy it's dark it's very difficult to see anything and if the court finds the officer that i'll accept what's been written in the motion as being an accurate representation yes and then he says but looking at the video itself the car goes right on top of the right line and then  to say that's what troubles me and what's to say dad that video corroborates watching these tires cross that line at least twice stretches football field during the day that a football field at night needs lights i mean any lights around to help him see that one hundred yards up to a one hundred other than the lights that are on something and his own life on the back of that car beginning regarding the negative there was no video in there is actually helpful in this case i think that there isn't any help because without the video you just have the officer's testimony and here you can see
does not say does not allege that they received or read by rodriguez correct and it doesn't say what the content of them of those letters were correct if the district court concluded do we consider that a factual finding by the district court that you're now disputing or is that a legal judgment you see what i'm saying well to the extent that there's no evidence in the record of responded by letter on january th and bill rise of communication written communication by mr norton after the incident after substantial risk of known to undergo a serious harm known yet to me it's hard to read the district court's opinion as if it did show that understanding and then in my quit if that's right then what i'm wondering is how do we have jurisdiction to hear this maybe there's a reason we still do when threatened him and this time said if i can't get to you one of my associates in the gangster disciples will be administration searched various cells they found the knives they found mr norton's property  we would have no such other then it will be all there is more than you must observe either about that so that seems hard for you to win on the idea that merely being there with a gang members that rodriguez testified was in the internal perimeter security personnel your opponent you've made only a jurisdictional to argument to us under great that's right ok so your opponent says i accept everything you're going to say right now on those writers are true they just they were  disputing any of that so given all of that your jurisdictional argument depends on the contention that he's disputing some fact and i'm trying to figure out with respect to the writers are you asserting that he's just reading any fact with respect with knowledge that when asked why did you put him in g ron with these other gangster disciples members two weeks later he said they were inactive well i would suggest that data is a critical factual disputes that were appropriate for a trier of fact and that's that's where we are i'm asking you to dismiss this based on jurisdictional reasons and return it to the trial on this in the district court thank you thank you
under the career offender guidelines you should not look to the commentary there are times when the courts can look to the commentary there might be times when there is genuine any ambiguity in the guideline conspiracy in this instance not quite to the same groups or parody hasn't treat the completed underlying offense but then it doesn't seem to those far as you would suggest who should rea out disorder have not follow guidelines in situations that go beyond that we explain the circumstances under which the commentary is binding and nd point the federal drug conspiracy statute passed the effect of hindering the distribution or manufacture of a controlled substance and therefore it's perfectly compatible with the text of the gu because of a conspiracy allocation without any allegation or can grow conviction as to the underlying part yes i think that was the question that it meant to be answering and the answer is yes indeed anybody who is charged with conspiracy
going to be permitted to say goodbye to his son when he was told you are under arrest and he was told as a courtesy we won't handcuff but that's i think a fairly straightforward question i mean i get we have two alternatives one is how they did it the second is the example i gave you about how they could have done it and how  doesn't answer my question to answer which should society more  imagine this is not a trick question because we're right addressing the area when you're making here aren't we providing guidance for the police and what to do so that if there was testimony given officer dangler on cross examination was asked of question and you never physically restrained the defendant or he took off running answered the fine restraining being controlled by the officers as they walked into the front door mister what makes you think that he was going where he wanted to go and not where the officers were wanting him to go when they were leading him from house  controlling his movement doesn't in fact indicate that he was is the freedom was being restricted at this point to come down the stairwell in such a way that there isn't one for them one behind so that your freedom of movement is restrain you have to follow the officer that in front and move fast enough if you don't get knocked over by the officer from behind you taken downstairs you've now been told several times you're under arrest or we're getting ready to put the cuffs on isn't that a restriction of his freedom freedom of movement and multiple indications that you're not the russians we are y short of that there's no circumstance that you're suggesting here that would constitute lawful custody it would require that the individual put his hands behind his back to s
the ground of wa
the scales of justice the circumstantial evidence contradicted his testimony where his wife was not able to because she is dead and the body of the world shows considerably more than just an unjustified unjustified and body that it would have been sufficient for the jury to find the defendant guilty of first degree murder even without the letter but it was the way it was able to clarify for the jury exactly why he was acting the way that he did