MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
responsibility and parenting time at that time called custody and visitation to grandparents on the facts that are very similar to this case but we think that it can be distinguish found requiring a stability there are no such needs in this case i think most of her in that case the father was granted substantial parenting time or ten weeks sole decision making responsibility over this minor child this little girl way niamh decision making responsibility historically no only was determined was termed custody and she was also worried a majority of the physical custody of the child which the legislature now has called parenting time we're asking the point to a family judge decision in its entirety for several reasons  i can't imagine going to a hospital senior child in critical condition and never having any contact with your child again for four years which is exactly what mr wilkins did in this case he came to the hospital while his direst critically ill got into a fight with the biological mother and basically testified he didn't do anything come around until the state of missouri filed an action that was seeking child support for this child so i do believe case the due process rights of the parents cannot be violated because neither one of the parents had custody physical custody of the child a point since she was three months old i do not think that the magical fire can distinguish well i opinion the board even wanted to strengthen it hurry and try again because knowledge but he had no involvement in this child's life for five years and then to come into court judge incorporeal a completely separate statute to make findings in this case in other words as you say the adoption act was somehow thrown into this come out pretty much stating that there are other factors it's who's to you know when we're looking at who's had custody of this child it's who's taking them to their doctor's appointments their education all those things i think one step further than the court is just supposed to look at those thirteen or fourteen factors  proceedings at the beginning of these proceedings there was a restraining order entered preventing either the other three parties from removing the trial from susan great risk care and i think that that went to the way toward changing all their minds and in fact the trial will testify that if not granted primary themselves it should be one of the other parties and instead of her that they had spent more
iran statute says the court may after considering the factors and thirty five fifty three i modify the conditions of supervised release at any time prior to the expiration of supervised release pursuant to the federal rules of criminal vacation officer thought that it was in the interests of justice and interest of this defendant to undergo drug treatment and because the students faced limited the probation officers authority to increase the number of
focused too much and attention on this conversation and not enough on the full set of circumstances not just that conversation but also the lead in your view which followed in the time period in between the two  came up regarding chris we don't have to like the fact that the officer had conversation with the defendant in this case and we're not saying that there wasn't a conversation i don't believe that the state has ever said that there was not a conversation but that's not what is at issue here the question is if the officer crossed the boundary between information conveyance and coercive tactics in reference to his testimony of the motion to suppress regarding the s
asylum and if asylum were denied to have a full deportation hearing subsequently where he would be able to apply for suspension of deportation but three weeks after he did that congressman acted i he had no expectations that's first of all i had no expectations whatsoever of being able to pine for suspension of the protection because of that he didn't make the claims we make here he did make the claims that he gave up important procedural and constitutional rights when he filed for suspension nor does make the claim that he had to settle expectation that he would be able to file for suspension of deportation and that's the court didn't address that issue whatsoever  the regulations and the warning on the sound application and so the court didn't address this issue at all and and so that is not binding precedent on on this court and it's very it's very important  often the only source of information available to the service to initiate proceedings before the united nations judge and a picture twenty seven and similarly in that preamble to the regulation the department believes that the airing is written admission of ailing and of having no lawful status in the united states is sufficient to satisfy the standard of evidence for establishing the portability consequently the new exam silent application will contain a warning clear warning that the application may be used to establish the portability this part of the final rule will not be applied retroactively and will affect only those persons who make an application on the new form and they did that because wasn't alive ultimately to file for suspension absolutely the immigration judge ruling that she felt she was without power to allow him to file for suspension sa to this country in a meaningful and positive way so it is with some distress and a great deal of empathy for the respondent that the court feels it must go forward this point and grant the only relief available voluntary departure he and i would point out that the basis for finding him deportable was not any information obtained from his asylum application rather it was his own admissions during the removal proceedings at that time you can argue that he and the government also did not lose anything nor did they gain much of anything that would have been contemplated by saints here the government basically did not induce him to do anything by their own terribly submitting himself a couple couple responses  he applied he did not know that the law was going to be changing obviously and the government said we're going to warn you about this because you are giving up very important rights because of that this is really  proof in that case and similarly here there is a conception of of the portability essentially and the information provided and that's that forth in the regulations and in the morning on the application there was definitely an
exercise his right to represent himself but we don't even have to get into the continuance matter because the trial court clearly did not give him sufficient time to prepare even under state law  defendant show evidence that could have been helpful to this decision here mr terrorists wanted to consider three possible avenues the cynical one being to decide whether to exercise his right to represent himself identification case that was pretty shaky as it was the victim in the case had many could not identify mr harris and in fact did not in that identified mr service until he is in court identification which handled that is for read a request on the twenty fourth he would have had a week and perhaps a lot of insufficient amount of time we don't know but as it must the court gave him no time whatsoever that i think the problem is that the request was mishandled the court did not consider it until mr harris had the forms and four days later was able to fill them out and let me ask you so what's the turning here at the most the court could at the least the court could have granted him a one week continuance which would not have disrupted the trial they had already set has a court handled adequately his initial request for fresh vocation on january twentieth it didn't put him off until it was too late and then use that against him ok if you want to save some time for rebuttal yes thank you completely incorrect what happened there was that yes he did ask for full read out on the twentieth the court gave him the pro per forms that he needed to fill out so he was certain that he would not make a knowing and intelligent waiver the court said finished it and so the court said to him ok i'm going it wasn't want to do them it continues to monday january twenty fourth and i expect you to have this paperwork done at that time so i think that's the reason why it wasn't done on the twentieth because he didn't finish the paperwork upon himself he come back on the twenty fourth and that's where they go through the litany of the florida and surprisingly even at that point time edition hasn't even finished the paper he didn't finish the first page the court had to to get a continuance so whether self or petition rights versus the continues excuse me comes down to you it is a determination as to whether there should have been a continuance or not that's how we determine and as we can see from a record well that depends under california state law and that's where we get to a timely for reddit invocation which again is not what happened here and the fact that he did get his forever but under california state law that's when they can take into consideration mr harris of his threat or rights so he clearly invoked his forever rights on the twentieth he was given the forms and the court said do i really have to go through all this while i think i'll just handle the continuance first and then i there he had initially said in november that there were problems with his counsel and the trial court cardoza marston hearing and shut it off and shut it down and said you're going it
out but you have to have you have to have a case for that what about the nettles decision and i know that counsel for the government is claiming that we should say that twenty two point one is never something an allegation that was a condition of confinement that did not result in early determining out and turley early release i understand your honors or your honour's question and that  in that particular context but this strikes me as an e p a challenge i understand your honor is that to think that you're not looking for individual relief and your and your position is really bad that the agency is not following the law i don't know why that's on an interesting i mean once there's a designation is made there is address diction stripping but i am just trying to understand what you're saying is that my impression is that there may be an independent cause of action without a requirement and that would be an implied cause of action without the requirement and exhaustion are you saying there is some case law or there's something that requires it because i haven't you both it's an important and interesting case and we have really benefited from both of your arguments thank you let's take this matter under advisement and go on to the next on the calendar
well we also called attention to the fact that the of she she performed in december twentieth love of when she was in a swim was norm
not sufficiently specific they did not they were not imminent they did not threaten a serious it would risk of harm and i think that was the distinction that the agency made in concluding that these death threats standing alone were insufficient to establish past  presented in the record your honor in prison where i think during this time the petitioner had received death threats against his wife was in danger on this so he was able to move his wife out of the town to another town nine or ten hours away where she was unable to work and so i think the fact that both of them were able to find work problems in these different locations and they were not harmed suppose the agencies decision that it was not they were not only able to relocate but they were it was reasonable to expect them to do so how long  that the wife and child may now be in the united states i don't i'm not sure that's not supported by the record on the fact that the petitioner was able to relocate to a new town that he was able to find work in that new town and despite supposedly speaking at a different dialect he was able to proceed normally i know him and the same the same goes for his
out though that when i think where the problem is in this case is that perhaps the district court was a little too precipitous into denying relief and not examining some of the some of the materials here one of the issues we raised in the briefing and we asked this court to consider is whether or not the case should be the hearing but there were several things that the hearing did not allow and i think i've detailed them in the briefing when they were john's was not allowed to question his trial counsel about the fast entries on the diary  allowed to question his counsel about what information the counsel reviewed in making her decisions i think that's a glaring deficiency in the hearing below when you are when  and saying i performed effectively they should be asked well what did you review when you made your decision and this was in the context of whether or not the victim's testimony was in fact consistent she said i had reviewed discovery saying that the victim's story w in consistent testimony from this from this victim does that mean with this is a reliable memory it really liable what is how do we look at that how do we judge that what tools do we use those know that kind of inquiry here in this case there was nothing  moment worried about sort of post hoc rationales for trial counsel's actions here to come back and say for instance i don't want to put present any further testimony about the idaho allegations well the i don't want to go were out there from a number of wit talking about i mean the testimony is pretty clear when she was and i don't know when she was in california when these allegations pertain to when they didn't i mean the information was already there before all the jurors i think what first five witnesses testified to it at that point at that it was so clear that this girl was in fact molester that there was no way to attack that conclude that that allegation because as she testified stephanie was clear that she had been  answers it works through her state of you know her reasoning her thoughts yes the trial court i sustain an objection there back i don't believe that that is the determinative factor either as to whether the mean you know there were three structures through there were three really possible defenses i think in the end she probably chose the only one that could work but still the fact that you know this wasn't context he didn't say she given her defense that was another question the trial court would not allow at the at the post conviction hearing the central question the case thank you thank you very much thank you argument
were in believes the defense counsel elizabeth from an officer at least on three or four occasions by asking the right questions you know why did he do this why did he do that and so the officer says well we didn't do this because he asked for statements on bench adoption of evidence that the defendant subsequently after initially talking with law enforcement officers refused to moral moralize his or her statement is not necessarily in violation of the
assume bankruptcy chapter thirteen schedules least not listed duly finds out comes in and ask for in effect return of the leaseholder sourced for failure to disclose which is provided for under the bankruptcy court right lottery and didn't disclose that and was granted a discharge of of all his obligations based on the information he had provided to the bankruptcy court and after the entry of final judgment reflecting that some of his creditors found out that he'd actually won the lottery prior to even file in the chapter thirteen proceeding with the bankruptcy court have jurisdiction to reopen the remedy there is for a creditor course of this until he declined to accept them as opposed to the creditors in your hypothetical where there's a part of money where they didn't have access to this to do is not in that situation and furthermore it's our contention as we it under penalty of perjury this is one of the few places where it says you do it under penalty of perjury therefore there was an obligation to disclose assets as well as debts on behalf of the debtor meaning he had to essence terminates the lease only includes as i believe the cases terminate your rights was that's how my client is damaged in that they didn't do what they were supposed to do and therefore my client lost the right t which gave the court an opportunity to look at it as a motion to reconsider how the court didn't misplace say that in the record but we still weren't within the timeframe before that order was fin well in this instance we didn't know the bankruptcy existed so when i filed it we believe the case is still there yes so the court has to look at where we're coming from and the fact we were never notified of anything in the case and the issue of the police being terminated or not i'm sorry you were where you seek relief in the spirit you were not so you weren't aware of the bank the requirements of the code must be filed when you start the case and you would have gotten that know what if the lease the most that's if we had been shown as a creditor meaning lease payments were to be paid we would have gotten notice of so that's how i distinguish it because they're going to have to court order in dooley was going to file something in the bankruptcy court that's the situation and i'm not i mean there was no evidence to support that and i did not know what is his intentions were or what what the i mean i've no idea what he was going to file in fact what he
its jurisdiction if he made mistakes about real party in interest or or all the it was totally irrelevant because it's not contrary to it doesn't meet the standard and our cases make it clear that you can be dead wrong and still have a good arbitration so they got in the game in the arbitrator made a lot of findings that i not disputed which go well beyond participation cross claim there's a whole litany that it was a moving party in the litigation it was the one that would obviously benefit from it it engineered the lean foreclosure and it was all of the only one against which this year olds could recover it only it would benefit from the judgement so all of those are factors from which you c think it really in a truthful fashion first because political capital into the case involuntarily it's our position that critical capital came into the arbitration voluntarily as well as the end of it right it is not  concerns and adding questions and issues creating question also eagle that was not raised but what you're saying is they came into the arbitration voluntarily but they didn't realize how far would go that's gets farther and farther gets becomes bigger and bigger can you at that point say oh wait a minute i only fail to ask you know i thought i was only getting up to my knees and i'm getting in mean what once once you're in your hand i  counterclaim as frivolous and in fact that's what the operator held on there was no need to put on any defense because there was no some person who is not a signatory but participates in arbitration is treated differently from a person who signed the agreement is any authority for that it's already stems from the fact that the agreement to a couple of steps to the beginning of the arbitration when it was my focus and focus was operated by it financed by and run by and controlled by critical capital that's pretty much what the findings of the arbitrators were and they are big and the critical choose a different course and of course you chose well as a substitute a different notion of a party in interest now remember earlier in the case you had determined that pursuit was the true party in interest which is another ground given that there was not fleeing the pursuit challenge that perception and if we were in a different form i certainly agree that we cannot but frankly there was no evidence in the court said all of the other three to say that there is a lack of fact finding with respect to pursuits finances why of fact without according we believe sufficient attention to black literal wall which he knew and the fact is under california state law when a judgment creditor
can respond to shift the burden back to the state but showing inconsistent application but that they ultimately burden when that happens then returns to the state to show that the state procedural bar has been applied in a consistent manner so they recognize that this is a general rule that has exceptions and then you can look at cases like the other case that they decided state the kills on top where they consider this very same issue whether flight instructions were proper said you can look to other things besides the published opinions of the state court to find out the regular practice and whether they've consistently applied now that wasn't available to state that wasn't available to the titian i don't supreme court said that its new rule for him in the use of flight instructions wouldn't affect his case my caspian courts arbitrary and classification of this new rule on friday destructions as a prospect of rule violates federal due process but didn't they conclude that this was a constitutional issue was a policy issue no they didn't conclude that the federal district court did conclude that said that this doesn't directly to apply all rules perspectively or create a test for prospective or retroactive application but what they've done unequivocal is say we apply all rules retroactively state or federal we have a appellate process is unfair when they haven't gone along with their own rules so the difference is not that we're disagreeing with a properly applied procedural bars had been properly applied you're right and  have no business being here but it's not properly applied if it contravenes all of the rules of retroactively that seem clear in montana supreme court so pounced don't know what the rules are when they come in that makes the procedure fact and we can see that when we look to the other application of retroactive rules in montana they've applied resurrect rules in montana without objection under the plane air theory under a sentencing theory that we don't require objections at sentencing under other miscellaneous exception guilt the judge just commenting on the evidence that affects the right to a fair and impartial tribunal it doesn't directly violate that right i don't think i can make that claim but it's certainly a fax it and the modifier is affecting me want to save your remaining seconds thank you i'll do  their opinion the practice of them on cast supreme court will comply with the bend of the miller standard but that argument in those cases were not started so the federal district court that's the opportunity we should have and district court can make those arguments the
spent the afternoon with jack ryan many cups of hot chocolate i could but everything has to come to an   they have to go into hiding and into this attic because the nazis want to find them and put them into a concentration camp just because they're jewish they can do anything it is that really true it happened