MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
that the standard is whether or not these prove this is rationally related to the purposes of the constitutional provision i'm not sure when  file progressive has nothing to do with her debate with the patent nonsense regarding the maintenance fees and cancellation ever that it's academic realities put different pressure so i'm going to receive professors and researchers operating on the mantra publish or perish scientists are more concerned with presenting your results at conferences and publishing them that the rational basis review was the correct standard there wasn't a direct challenge to that law to even under rational basis your friend suggested that well if you're going to do something even if you can require the maintenance fees you could put a lien on the rational objective here or the objective was to precisely to allow patent holders to allow their patents to lapse and to expire if the patents proved to be not successful thereby having patent office can be directed towards other purposes and one of the examples of the court use was to help pay to fund the court review of the patent pending case of and i don't know due process clause however mrs smith would create and i don't believe anyone has ever challenge the amount of the fees as being excessive that was a part of of the  cases brought below or the appeal it was rather the authority of congress to set the fees but i think they'd be a viable argument to be made if the fees were set excessive i mean if congress decided we'd like to get rid of our eighteen trillion dollar budget deficit that as long as there's some relationship between the payment of the east and the use of those fees towards improvement more efficient administration of the patent system is one thing that takes you back to my question about why it would be a different situation if the fisa diverted i don't think yes we would i would it's it's conceivable that if congress imposed excessively or very high fees in order to promote deficit reduction or from the military or do something that has no conceivable even tangential relationship to promoting science and useful arts that could be properly challenged or to be the basis of a challenge however that's not not the anyone should be allowed to challenge the they have standing just on the show of a an injury you know concrete particularized actual imminent injury in fact so anyone who was to to bring that to have standing they would have to show at a minimum that  the court has no further questions you have a couple more minutes if you have something t
i also think we have sent a message by several recent cases that we that we say anything or not now you know we probably are continuing this a little bit in the abundance of caution
west coast how do we know whether the person isn't doing that for purposes of getting ready to sell in the swap meet some places in california good happens to get  that which produced the image couldn't rely on the commercial camera you have to look at what it was that the i've seen the picture and i was just home grown it's nothing home grown
understood the bankruptcy chair right she would think it's a no after bankruptcy she wouldn't got a nickel with the suit for purposes of discussion that she was denied the notice that she was entitled to so she was denied the opportunity to participate as she should have nevertheless there was no protest didn't cost her a nickel she would have gotten a call and what i want is to know that the bankruptcy judge is right about that point so she did not know knowledge of any of them there are a lot of things she found out the subject but she did not know in advance the fact that this was the second bankruptcy proceeding within a decade we have no where we had no information at the time of any hidden masses whether or not the value stated on the other debtors station were correct subject to checking out to see  bankruptcy filing to whether or not everything was honest in practice a time of filing he heard testimony from the team leader in the bankruptcy court offices to the procedure that followed in preparing the matrix and after significant amount some fourteen hundred vs eighty five hundred i think was the next largest unsecured approximately fourteen hundred my memory is correct so it is difficult to
contribute to the workforce sufficient to justify the wages without seriously in danger in her health and this is that it was originally a waitress in september of two thousand and six multiple doctors i wouldn't say that this is a a or b situation as your honor scribe earlier but that this is the manifest way of the evidence that there is well that's what it boils down to is i mean no question both of her primary treating that we presented an employee from and prestigious you know regarding the accommodation that were made in this ethics own admissions were guarding her efforts when she returned to work all of that shows that she was able to permanent total was an issue in dispute in this case and i'll get to that certainly testimony from vocational experts would be competent evidence to resolve this is not a case i would bet it is a go there right absolutely clear there you know that is correct and when she returned to work in late two thousand and six for a few months he complained of increasing symptoms doctor to philips order a new m r i which is a diagnostic test so it takes out completely any subjective issues and he compare that new m r i with the old m r i he noted that there was advancing degenerative changes interestedly enough in the level immediately above the fusion the fusion what is it was that al five s one he noted these degenerative changes occurring in l four l five level at that time he took her off to work instead and said if your condition worsens you're going to be a candidate to stating that if she tries to increase or activity whether it be at work or otherwise there's a possibility that we'll have to increase or medications narcotics modelling this certainly could endanger her health and then offers his opinion in a letter that she's permanently totally disabled again i agree there's three ways as this court points out the supreme court points out three ways to determine permanent total disability that one is by products of the medical evidence
reason over here and i know you've read the briefs for the reason we're here is because i can one nine hundred ninety three a district attorney's investigator or the prosecuting attorney made a decision to go for the decided we will not go over another photo array we're going to go shopping for a photograph of the defendant taken a few days after the robbery which which could have had no effect other than to drive into this approach a case correctly and look at all the facts and circumstances to see the was a reliable identification the second time she testified well if we do approach it from that view was a reliable identification the second time she's on the basically told by handley the investigator this is the picture of the robber and unreliable later just later unreliable i didn't the case in testimony before the jury and give us so critical here reliable evidence it was evidence that was unreliable and was also prejudicial and was a denial to mr holder you know right what do you do in the california court of appeals decision which we also measured by the same very deferential standard the crime and admitted possession of the type of gun used in the robbery there is no reasonable doubt the result would have been the same it cost him are not made the in court identification you have to also demonstrate that that's an unwritten reasonable after creation of federal  current court of appeals look at this and i reviewed all the other evidence of identification all these other people and concluded that it was harmless beyond any doubt at all now that you have to somehow convince us that that determination is contrary to  unreasonable appellations will clearly establish federal law why is that so contrary to or an on reasonable application that we want to take notice something because it's true if you have met all these people identified your client program if in fact that is a law that's the that's that's that's that's what i'm arguing why not i'm talking about the harmless determination on all these witnesses who identified your client the size cost and mark what's what's the deficiency and the fact well that's talking about witnesses who identified your client in addition to cars and guns and all the rest you have to convince us that that's an unreasonable application and i think there i think i think what you're saying there is that the evidence is sufficient without her testimony  the second time because costin minor had a clear opportunity to see the victim to see the perpetrator at the time of the crime her attention was drawn to him because she believed he was robbing the bank she identified him  mile away on the west side so still when he picked up at nine o'clock in the morning he got to the bank his would be he got his children a few minutes later like twenty minutes later shortly after robert the prosecution time with this case so i think this court needs to assess the impact of the second test makeup on that jury not upon where the evidence is sufficient and i think it did have a harmful effect which conviction should be set
when he enters that the authorities do something about it he was to use an analogy sent to boone volatile or purgatory no one looked for the anti semi prosecuted the anti semite the state to this day literally supports the similar at the beginning of this case the new york state supreme court justice louis bork stone repeatedly and repeatedly described it as overt anti semitism that's a quote from his several decisions in this matter and he ordered them to stop them being the several people who were doing it or supporting it some ten years later came before district court justice league judge chen judge has simply ignored that fact and de facto let's support the anti semite so much for claims preclusion or collateral estop the district court but not for grosso that's one of the issues i've raised point two the new york state department of education in this case is not the new york city board of education they are two distinct bodies point three the licenses involved are different new york city license state license i've never used the state license never been appointed under point four grisel was found innocent in one form in the sense you have documents in front of you which says the case against was withdrawn with prejudice and various other similar notes point five  cell was never charged with immoral content and moral character or immorality in the city by the board of education but the state now charges that he excuse me now states that he is soley charged with immoral character more than morality and the only documents that the state has produced are the documents that show innocent of that very charge but nor the facts just as this court is being asked to do i will note about the anti semitism that the truth remains that were so consumed with kill grisel the jew is still the law in the state of new york no one has done anything about that i will cite two similar cases for your consideration burton vs cascade school union school district three hundred and fifty three f supplement two hundred and fifty four where in that court
any reasonable proof beyond reasonable doubt there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that constitutes a crime for purposes of the i and they and your solution is that anything less than that would lead to  there was a conviction of a crime for purposes of mind because number one there was a form of judgment by the court number two there was a fine as required under the definition of conviction and number three he was convicted in the proceeding beyond  a reasonable doubt these are the elements of the crime so you're saying there is more than one factor well if i did i did as i has mentioned earlier conviction has been defined is is the definition for conviction under i in a forty day yeah is there is this only laid out so the actors are included and i think they were include here by the court referencing the term conviction and you know the position of the government is conviction alone as the fine for a guy in a conviction  variation across the country was something that justice alito raised in a different context but still talking about immigration law just a month ago and and the supreme court said look been so subject to the vagaries of state court and the vagaries of state law that it was it was result in inconsistent outcomes and that is the concern here that the board is trying to create some kind of bottom line or very you know did they interpret it the definition of a conviction and they said you have to have to satisfy certain factors in order to be considered a conviction you need to speak specifically with ms nichols mr guy or she said reasonable doubt what in his arms or shows she's wall if there's anything your honor the language that i read to you before where it says on page six eighty seven significantly the court of appeals in state supra concluded that the and then it wasn't significant here and also the fact that as i think it's limits are it said that he did that need beyond a reasonable doubt standard and the other factors that it found were the principle that was a sufficient but not necessary that's how i've read the decision they did have to go into the other factors because that was such an egregious procedural departure from constitutional principles  of the offense is significant enough for this at bare minimum to be remitted before the complete lack of clarity of a court and a complete failure to properly apply the factors and i would just remind the court in closing that  this man has been in this country for twenty eight years and this allows him to be moved he has no other eligibility for relief aside from cancellation how many convictions does he have i believe he has for how many
excellent in this courtroom ok very good if i could your honor and i raised a number of issues in my opening brief but i would like to address the the noticed issue in terms of the voluntary departure the reason is because i believe th and it's directly on point case holds that in a concert this is a motion to reopen it was denied by the da because while the judge did while that motion was timely in terms of the ninety day rule it was after the thirty days of the grants a voluntary departure if the immigration judge on the record does not specifically articulate the consequences of failing to depart then the strictures against the motion open do not apply in this particular case it's clear the judge did grant of voluntary departure it didn't happen record granting a voluntary departure directly as part of our mandate sure i mean in the sense that if that's that was part of the judgment beloved i mean usually there's the case virtues but anyway i mean i made a rather elaborate equal protection argument in saying that there's a lot of internal consistency in consistencies in the crazy quilt exactly ira i don't believe i don't believe we really need to go there i various forms of relief including a job in the status which is what titian requested in her motion to reopen you say this to forty sixteen is an equitable provision by definition is part of  period does not mean that there was a constitutional violation for this particular awful lot of strictly motions that go on i mean i think that's one of the problems and but clearly the notice is that there is an exceptional circumstances if that's in the statute i don't believe the councils right now regard and so they you know the problem with alien had been convicted of multiple crimes she would not have been eligible for voluntary departure however her motion to reopen would under matter of lardy would have been granted of since she's being penalize for being a person of good moral character under prior law there was no time in numerical limitations on motions to reopen it could be filed any time under ira it's specific it's ninety days so literally  before the court which would have been an asylum or whatever here the b a denies your motion to reopen i mean if that's the case then that the regulations are it's clearly a statute basically you're considered to have abandoned your motion to
incapacitated throughout her pretty certain i reported in july of ninety four that she continued to be fairly capacitated in december of ninety four i continued to say that she wasn't going very well january ninety five nine what is fairly incapacitated  seems to dispute the fact that she's in great pain can be found at pages seven hundred forty six to seven hundred forty seven of the tran the administrative records and he believes based on his review that there was a wors d very minimal objective findings even in dr  so the commissioner's position is in a very complex case that if you're a ninety seven on that date is supported by substantial evidence to neurologists of looked at the record and one actually felt that she could work even through the time of the l j's decision and that's why she was denied completely at that point but later dr babs has reviewed the record and felt that there were these discrete periods where there was some worsening but that she could have worked up until figure in ninety seven and then substantial evidence in that in the form of a report from the board certified neurologist to review the record is present  the commissioner's finding should be upheld even if evidence can show an earlier on it's a matter
eighteen sixty nine during the era of reconstruction you remember your history you'll recall that those where it is monday it was freely predicted that the nation was headed for disaster in their rochester new york office of western union a young telegraph operator named barton was impatient with the faulty performance of the telegraph equipment of that day you boston had i d s secret ambition one of which was to buy a partnership in a model shop in cleveland ohio but there was also a girl kitty richardson and good for holding to a steady job in those uncertain times but like many men head of him and i soon learned that no secret is safe from is  confessed his ambition and kitty had won his promise that he'd let nothing stand in his way then later that evening at a charity meeting and i say to you with a friends here about to find out and frankly i'm a little curious to see whether it works like a fool oh what's this mrs burton and grey you and your wives are invited to dine at my home wednesday evening sunday very gracious of them i'm sure but who's  stranger vice president of the company before that dinner was finished general stage or had decided to join with the professor and young had grown to considerable importance and brilliant young inventor charles a scribner was now collaborating with professor gray on a new development some a place where beyond the comprehension of even general state or instantaneous conversation over a wire can do that not yet but that's a great i believe he now has the answer to how to do it talking over a wire barking this is important it must be protected but it's a gray was in washington at the patent office last month and he's there again today doing just that very thing in fact you should be there at this moment well why don't you take care of it long ago perhaps we like your son for a little slow to recognize his full implication only tomorrow's weather unsettled followed by still on martin were on the first shot of the greatest development in communication in the history of man nothing must be spared of course this just a minute there's more news flash the patent office in washington announces an improvement in the lead with a which will make possible instantaneous transmission of speech by wire it is claimed this device recognition as the inventor of the telephone but the years of effort by professor gray and his associates were not laced as the telephone displaced the printer telegraph them in a western electric focus their energies on the brighter future one of these was our well formerly mr barton the secretary now his assistant then one day in eighteen eighty one in the executive offices of the western electric company well you tried them both which is better for you this one by far you can hear more distinctly in us a better job in every way yet actually they're both well instruments made according to bella designed the only difference is the one that you prefer was made by one day you'll have many thousand hits of skivers right here in boston what then that now becomes your problem
he paid that as part of a criminal restitution award separately under a different statutory empowerments he was assessed a penalty of five hundred seventy three thousand dollars as received the use of those funds during the entire period that he's being assessed and since interest is meant to represent the value of the use of those proceeds to the through the year two thousand and one i wanted to emphasize that point i think that the remainder of our arguments are set forth in the brief i think that that's the pivotal  interest is actually that purpose makes violation of the securities laws unprofitable by depriving the wrongdoer of the benefit of what is in effect an interest free loan there would be little deterrent effect if an insider trading heard from counsel is that his client did not and could not have personally profited and the standard for i'm inferring from his argument that he's saying the standard for that in award of pre judgement interest is  but that is not the case here what that would be in a case where the court freezes all of its and its assets there is no need for any adjustment to the protests or interests of ward here ok thank you for your argument trading charge ok ok ok thank you for your argument think both sides for their argument the cage to store good will be submitted for decision will turn of the last case on the calendar for this morning and the week which is the exchange commission again against michael