MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
again i guess the question is why wouldn't somebody making the benefits decision want to have a qualified physician actually examine when disability from your own occupation he's never made a claim there's never been a decision whether he's disabled from any occupation so there's literally no decision for this court to review there's never been a claim  position as to what should happen then should be sent back to the district court for it to conduct a hearing to determine and then that's that from disability should it go back to the plan or should it go back to the plan with thirty four now what are the legal principles that courts use to decide these cases involving rational activity and amendments the plans of legal principles are principles of contract lemonades discretion does not provide seemingly with any discretion shouldn't that standard of review remain consistent and i think helping guide the outcome of that question  performance of their duty under the contract that triggers that contractual obligation and still they have actually reviewed it and genaro ride the claim that contractual obligation does not is not thank you your honor there's just two points i really want to make first going to this question of whether this course should concern itself with whether benefits are payable beyond twenty four months which is a couple things i want to point out yeah it is a great thing and as just heard on pointed out it's a very very different issue you're right all of the medical records to the extent that the doctors who found disability from the back to work in a year where we train him it is retrain of all he will work now i don't know if he's working today or not i i don't know i don't don't and that's pretty good information but in fact i probably should be asking you to go ahead to reach a decision beyond twenty four months because i'm going to win there's no evidence in this record that he's disabled from any occupation but the fact is the reality is the issue has never been presented it's never been an analysis by anybody what's wrong with this court to get to that issue have a situation where i could come in here today and say last week the plan was amended and so now that applies but i have a hard time explaining why the amendment that occurred after the decision at issue should govern but certainly the plan that existed at the time the final decision was made for solving this crime seems to make sense that that be the one that determines the standard you apply to the subsequent judicial
our only carry some the call today the three of us are reasonable about time limitations but i'll tell you we have all read the briefs and we're very familiar with your case how much time w brother bringing people there for drugs so those are my thoughts i haven't made up my mind because i think this case is quotes like i keep saying how stupid could he be to be there because that the presence of that other stuff doesn't provide enough evidence in terms of constructive possession in this case again there's no there's no testimony about  enough to sustain conditions on a basis concept possession and for that reason i would request that place conditions be very sound thank you in this so that's killed ability to maintain control to tell me the intent and capability to maintain control when when he is either sitting at the dining room table or standing in it the senate and he runs when officers use a battering ram to break down the front door have to intimate knowledge of this residence to know where the hidden crawl space was and to find a blanket to cover it so that you could conceal yourself in there is it when you run from the dining room to the kitchen
when you think of one it's been a long time since that sails on the water i don't understand it myself but they say that any country that has it would control the seas in the event of war c and i presume the dock to do it as present in this country has something to do with his invention or more than th to the case of the biggest weakness meets the problem was an obvious one the good your own had been kidnapped and now is time there is no question that with his sons and life safety threatened paper was made certain in writing paper is almost as distinctive as writing itself its contents method of manufacturing construction differ enormously from country to country now watch this any attempt to freedom at this time would be for them disastrous i offer this alternative when dr gerald giving me the information i ask of him he and his family will be left on  i see what you mean how this oh
find out where the training exams were by other means whether it's calling the department of natural resources asking chandru to solve directly i do this is so so certainly three years after the certifications expired  going to schedule the tree but regardless of what their motives may have been or whether it was just an action i don't think we can reasonably say that they were high doses of what it was at least
or read out then they must be around here somewhere must've come through here or this log or run across that bridge i don't know which way to go if i could just find robin hood's  crime and now everybody's after me you join the others and take care a little john fight for justice still goes up
child i mean he does recognize by virtue of that that that is his son it is than some way now to act of his yes it is concern or his you know that that is something that he is related to it is true that that was in the well yes the import of that if in the face of this him is it doesn't convince me but we must remember we must concentrate on on what we're doing here we're not decid he left a dollar this guy in the well that's the argument about the album that's not what we're doing today this is neither you know the after the trial nor is the on a motion for directed  in federal court where there is a much larger burden on the player to lay out his his whole case in response to a motion for summary judgment only it only takes one and we only have to win with the jury although there are that have to be given one person now and i don't know for sure but i would think that when you're doing an affidavit on personal knowledge that college just or a professor of pharmacology she pharmacists that delila you that somehow he has the capacity to determine when alcoholism has impaired a person to the extent that they  know the natural recipients of their bounty yes is the term that we use most of the time and i am wondering if that undermines your to say that as a general rule one could expect these types of side effects from this type of drug oh i'm i don't know that all pharmacist would be able to say this particular is a result of alcoholism in this person and i don't think that that i think that your affidavit attempts to exceed think that alcohol is a requires a medical diagnosis that any lay person can label someone with certainty an alcoholic i do not and i don't believe that
condition of the evidence it doesn't appear to be linked to this particular crime because of the condition it was in where was found at cetera and there's nothing about it that contains evidence that would provide a basis for us to conclude that notwithstanding his condition it is linked to the crime so in those conditions for those two change your view on that look at the f b i do you know what i don't quite understand what is what is going to provide a link between this evidence and the crime in my view this is the rejection of that it can't be that i don't really understand the point about the test a gap that doesn't seem to be related to why the f b i is saying they're just saying there's nothing about it that  but in the statute says they have an obligation to upload it this this case is not about whether they had an obligation to upload it it's about their specific determination that was ineligible so that so it is critical to your argument that the tax nothing in the tax structure or legislative history of the d n a or indicated that congress intended to papen the f b i s discretion regarding what must be included in the database and says that the f b i have been in so instead what they are urged the court to do is to sort of ignore everything that's in the statute and look straight to the manual that's not what the supreme court has instructed courts to do that's not what the district to do with often the review that question into i mean underlying decision is discretionary you know anderson what you're saying now and i think the answer to that question is no because there is nothing in the statute that says  purpose of trying to determine if the d n a matched the defendants it's just curious that given their history with the evidence they would put in writing to the f b i once there's been a court themselves well there's a couple of points i want to make in response to that question and the first thing is that every crime scene has unique conditions and law enforcement may conservatively collect many items which are later determined not to be friends with connected to the law enforcement to the photos and determine that the condoms physical condition which is something that the panel alluded to in the other half of this argument the physical condition of the condom right was breaking apart there was really no for deciding the question of arbitrary capricious and or stand you think we should get to that question if one were of a different view what is the process in district court for building the record that would be relevant to  and finally return to the d n a act itself it is not simply to solve crimes it's not a law enforcement statute it explicitly provides for criminal defendants to abscess so information so that they can defend themselves in criminal cases thank you
well i know this is not the precise point that's raised but i was curious in going through the record and the facts how is it that in twenty thirteen this this amount of six thousand plus is considered a loss by the the company you bought it from but in a year later you reactivate that debt i suppose that's an i r s issue as opposed to my issue but just curious how   satisfaction there is an important test fact situation here and that is not laid out in the record at all in fact the only mention again with regards to her subjective belief in her affidavit regarding fan yes sir it does however in this case i think because of the leading issues it has become a question of procedural law because here in the affidavit this is a war that  somewhere down the road because they don't have the money and that the way it is you know ok so that's not why our country is in the credit card debt they did this and they just choose to use a credit card payment because you are making a payment per suing to the changes that have occurred i mean it's the same thing it's just you're not buying something you're giving something back that you know isn't  well doesn't the card represent the credit that you have any you are paying back on that credit the period limitations starscream you use the car that's the date there is no agreement counsel thank you this morning for your arguments and now we will take the man under advisement we're going stand in a short recess and getting our next case
at least in on in practicality in a criminal sense it carries eight in addition a contact with persons of similar social criminals statute being a bit iffy was these conditions were generated under a civil injunction one that he was served he was served the summons he came to court but we know that just the officers who responded to the scene testified that the defendant told them on july fourth two thousand and thirteen that he was not aware of this i don't know if you want afterwards after he became aware of the issue of this before  of help diffuse the situation also implies that he has some power as maybe a possible leader of this gang as well as the fact that he was what are the name defendants on the sill the fact that he was trying to he was trying to your tory scheme that would allow this type of conduct by mr berger yes i know there is no exception because he was actually order not to be there and i think that that's what makes the difference when you've been ordered by a civil sabrina the rest is just the body of an officer who testified actually two i think that believe that saw them together in that car and the trial judge made a specific credibility finding that he did not believe the other have gone in to the civil court if he wanted to in fact challenge that arm and see the extent of it somehow a simple injunction is less serious on that than a criminal order  i would disagree from the standpoint that this is somebody who knows they've been ordered not to do something and then they go out and do it it's equally serious and we have orders of protection which would also be civil we don't want people just saying believe me i guess my question is not whether or not it is in fact unconstitutional my question is the worst thing in the constitution and we cannot challenge in the criminal  to order itself was unconstitutional but he would have to prove it no not really no order but he's challenging the criminal statute that he was charged under right which was based on the underlying order if his problem is with to the person against whom the order of protection is entered in this case there is some question i believe created the record that mr barrios might not have known because he was  else and he served him here i mean i think we have to trust that we have noticed that if this thing was served on him death we have it in a court file saying it was it was
to the fourth chapter is about reputation and integrity of the court so i would submit that the analysis in terms of the substance is largely overlapping and when you put it in the framework teter that you're not going to force an appeal or you put in the framework of playing to the substantive analysis is the same result is the same and the reason why i think that the
think that the court appreciates the fact that you all are now getting in to us the electronic record briefs i know the clerk asks for them and when we first started asking the public public defender in the state prosecutor we're not giving it to us but i see them coming in now and i know on behalf of myself and i think justice chapman feels the same way and just as full of hers we really appreciate that that this was just one test that possibly could have been that one officer didn't do and
well thank you family friends for joining me today in a musical journey you'll notice a little difference between this week's program and all of the other programs this season and i don't have any alphabet soup behind my name as you might see next week fact i would like to make a shameless plug for noreen walters because he will put together a very spectacular program i'm just a village organist but it's quite a privilege play today about because we want to have today's program we wouldn't have an instrument like this we're going to have the cost of on frere's organ that is currently under construction and nearly complete in montreal canada that will be installed in the jackets miller cent
just a threat to show over to the wire and i know but then you have a credibility issue that kind of in the twine there but let me ask my question if you would please so let's suppose that he sees the blunt now he goes back and he sees that the guy has a prayer criminal history he doesn't go back to the car to talk to this guy to to learn more he immediately calls a dog so now l suppose that's ok too here's what i want to ask you he asks the indifferent defendant can i search you a stand simply to protect himself and the guy says
september two thousand and thirteen letters came from spurious command chain of command readily admitted at the march two thousand and thirteen letter which is nice because it was his responsibility to put the treatment between his mental health provider and d
hundred congress replaced almost the entire provision with a brand new provision that covers the entire subject matter and was intended to stubs to pay for it for example it a felony deportation ground shall not apply to convictions on or i shall not apply to show only applied convictions which take place on or after the date of an act which would be no benefit doesn't that render the rest of  you a direct answer and i will give you a direct answer i apologize if the fact that if you present here we don't it is not necessary to reach that conclusion what what effect that has had on other individuals who were convicted after november one thousand eighty eight and prior to the firearms deportation ground is its own self contained provision i get a felony deportation ground there's different temple reaches three different parts of the disability provisions to the good moral character provisions through the restrictions on who must it was perfectly within reason to find that it reached between x and conduct and do not i believe in child they may have addressed the fact that seventy three forty four b the nine hundred eighty eight  that that's true or if you didn't you didn't it's not that i don't think that i don't think that it matters because that language it's clear that language clearly is evidence of you i think it's i think it's still clear that the congress intended that amendment to apply entered into sweeping the and that felony definition i think if you can't read the first part of that sentence without reading the last part of the sentence and when you read it all together it's clear that congress was that deport ability as a as a fire firearms offense and to portability for an aggravated felony are two are two different grounds there there is a difference but in the context of this case considering the retroactivity question the differen isn't meaningful because the analysis still turns on sixto tuesday and section two thirty seven formerly section two forty one of the immigration and nationality act and that's where the announced us really  happy if the court with like the supplemental briefing on that issue would be more than happy to provide that teal and any particular questions we could address in writing but i think that any other provision of law including any effective date the term aggravated felony applies regardless of whether the conviction was entered before on or after the date of an action of this paragraph now if you move to three twenty one speak in the men's made by the section shall apply
used to obtain the defendants plead not because the court asked about promises during the during the plea hearing which was another point of their claimed by the defendant but because the ask you a question about that because the defendant in his brief sets out various admonitions that should have been given that weren't and in your brief you knock each one of those down separately citing this cases you know even if you
report that included his name and address and his insurance or half a day in the affidavit he claims the defendants were taking extreme measures to evade service yes it was there ever any evidence presented to
medicine clinic prior to the first hearing in two thousand and five that rehabilitation that's the clinic is also known as marion to a medical center and that would cause her going back to merion choice to be within the chain of referral the time i think that the pharmaceutical industry actually put everything on a computer so they could check databases to make sure who was getting what medications she got caught up in that the man patient that she was receiving before and director franchise records from where dr branch i had received a phone call from dr cynthia couch and that is when they discussed the referral to dr ok and she didn't go to him prior to that was that in the
and on the theory that less is more i intend to restrict my arguments in this presentation to the question of statutory interpretation here of course i'm pleased to answer any questions you may have consequence because put yourself in the situation of the divorce council ok right and people wrestling with what you do with my girls and make sure that we don't know all the until they were eighteen is there and is correct is there any way that he would have been permitted to receive pension benefits before they became eighteen or virtually zero eight or some other stat been drafted more clearly probably but the meaning of the statute has been clarified many times by the courts by commentators i did mean the straight of policy statements from the department of labor and the internal re questions that came up in the main argument the first is that is that counts for the plan stated that this quite grow aggression is only the pension benefit reason why they stay there and all the cases they relied upon it designated beneficiary for benefits are payable on his death and that is a death benefit and that's what the children playing in this case and i should say that when the children submitted their cooperation the plan each of the plan drove back and said this lump sum benefit well there are two statutory requirements requirement number one the statute says that every pension plan must provide for the payment of a quadrille now it specifically east talking about plans pension plans  and and handle not surviving spouse children see that then it would have been better if the father of it said that but it didn't and of course have recognized that that quite rules don't have to be that well or that artfully drafted in order to be question is and still the question you posit has not been decided by cases but the lump sum it's already been decided if the quadro has signed mary a survivor immunity the plan couldn't pay the whole annuity to mary because that would a is to award survivor rights to a former spouse that's the only way very hamilton can lose her benefits in this case regardless of what other language may appear in the  here we do not believe that the children have overcome that very stringent standard of review thank you very much thank you thank the council for your arguments and in the case of hamilton
just for the sake of argument the marshmallow exception does not apply and i think i think you recognize problem here even you can't just wait forever to do it and you can say oh i was this is minus four years ago therefore i get to feel so that's first reason the second reason is that you're supposed to do having been found guilty to challenge the actual condition then that is a major due process fail if the if you are hurting who is responsible for
issues in this case probably most easily understood if i just briefly recap the individuals involved in the relationships in the first course we have robert in june lacking has been only going to great fortune within the illinois good faith and the highest degree of it's also been described in that the court will not suffer the remotest possibility of a conflict of interest nor the faintest appearance of impropriety images of that amount was remitted but the appellate court came back and sent it back with instructions i do not know the ultimate result of that at this while the wording of the trust has been set up to shall we say in our project that certain things might occur we believe that the filing of this and yet another lawsuit went far beyond anything that might  apples we made an argument which had not been raised in the trial court brief we noted that as of that date we didn't find anything in the record sure enough prepared for this argument i found exactly in that argument had been made so we w need to looking at the at each of those tests here wish for their beneficiaries interests to guide us at the time that they passed away albeit with robards the beneficiaries she the disease beneficiary was really the main issue in the you the court is correct however in a practical level here we are in fact looking at a true indefinite conflict of interest