MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
shy as emotional distress issues takes as an x she retained an attorney for this divorce proceeding paid those attorneys more than fifty two thousand dollars and  neighbors drew on the eve actually on the morning of a hearing to approve the property settlement the key issue is whether the crappers settlement is unconscionable and the facts that we have a balance of marital property which was in excess of three million dollars which is totally unfair because of harsh and unconscionable which puts right within the pattern of the cases that have a from the said that maybe they could determine her credibility that they thought she was fine to enter the judgment and you into possibility and you have to look at the circumstances at the time of the judgment and also the economics of circumstances after the judgment on that and mr froze more than three million two hundred thousand dollars that's just not a fair distribution of the property if they were married into the ten and divorced in november two of the fifteen usually there was whether or not the court you know one contrition alleged claims alleged facts which would entitle the party to relief which is where we are in this case does the amendment petition in this case allege facts
i mean i suppose it would have been no problem if he said what i suggested earlier that are under no and administrative closer because the government hasn't agreed to that would have been and i take it his objection is
under thirteen and record police departments can on them then in turn a doctor regulations as the term good standing is not specifically defined under the federal our right under the state regulations so as a result of that the police chief
to the ground or is one of the witnesses as you could say thrown to the ground he was handcuffed well face down on his stomach this is occurred in front of his home and his neighbors in the midst of this paragraph thirty one describing his mental health diagnosis including anxiety disorder bipolar disorder depressive disorder and chris is going as is tonight with the mental health and in terms of the not voluntarily consent to this search that it was acquiescence and i'm submitting that based on the confrontational the highly charged environment after being thrown down and sided t often it's common it was not done it kind of raises questions i would fall back on his mental and physical disabilities but that's pretty much all i have for that argument to violation was the was the basis of that was as criminal conviction and one supervised release violation also was the source of his three points for having a felony and for two points for being  supervisor ways plus he was it was a consecutive senate so it seems like a lot of over chill for all four for that one shot and then your honor in terms of the various downward the the united states may it please the court just briefly with the sentencing issues let's face it mr cruz got a great deal the first time around he got a fifteen month sentence which was a substantial downward departure in variance from the guideline range at that appellant has conceded there were no weapons drawn there and there were no threats there were no i'm sure he was taken to the ground and handcuffed behind his back the cell yeah i think this highlighted this  basically to the district court's credibility findings the district court explicitly credited and officer and their testimony regarding the nature of this takedown mr combs was then escorted by a few agents over there was zero evidence of any first of all any of any evidence that the agents knew of mr coote his physical or mental health issues let alone that mr combs was exhibiting symptoms of this of them and certainly not any evidence of overreaching by exploiting any of those conditions to the contrary the evidence was that mr coombs gave every indication that he understood his rights and agreed with that statement in the form that he was leaving voluntarily without any and from china and so i'm sure there are other sources but it is certainly a serious problem in maine and with dangerous and some violent results and for that reason i might add this to the extent mr hughes didn't go there but to the extent different it might be less than forthcoming i know the trend history increasingly videotape interviews at a station and so i certainly understand where you're coming from and i don't
court answered both of those questions with an affirmative they did the district court did so without holding a hearing primarily based on the opportunity to actually have the issue of the tribal governments jurisdiction over our clients h having the opportunity to be heard on the one question that we have been wanting to be h the district court to apply tribal law is commonly not based on a routine application of federal law being the prevailing party in a federal court action a officers who were sued in this case including robert muller the honorable robert muller the chief judge of the tribal court let me ask you this case or not before the court we're not here to argue the merits of the underlying case we're not here to argue the merits of the attorney evidence having been presented regarding at the district court determined fact addressed the merits of the underlying case in the july two thousand and three order
client had obstructed justice now you tell me what good that would have done what do you want to  reduction in the defendant's guideline for agreeing to deportation that was a concession made in the plea agreement also your honor have the defendant abided by the terms of the plea agreement in terms of accepting
presence in the united states shall be terminated when the illness serve the notice to appear well when the alien has committed an offense which ever is earliest in this offense we believe a fair reading of the statute is that you don't get to stop times otherwise congress would have said the word and instead of the word mor the immigration judge darlene seligmann when she preacher muted the ten year suspension is deportation on july twenty two thousand she should have committed at least a continuance because you  surprise mr gore he's handed this along at the time of this hearing on the day of the final hearing so i'm sorry we forgot about to put the commission of the offense in the order to show cause but we're going to add today we're going to give you the service of the order to focus on the service of the old order show cause occurred on march from live one nine hundred ninety seven nine and a half years after the original commission of the offense so therefore nine and a half years there the order to show cause was gone in march five ninety ninety seven the preacher method mr martin you have no rights would you like to apply voluntary departure yes i would you'll be granted voluntary departure from a country that you've been in for what would have happened just telling one would have read the statute and she would have seen it as the word or she would have seen that one stopped time she would have seen that he now has thirteen years in the united states new allegation on the day of the hearing i have been practicing immigration law for thirty four years i have appeared in probably twenty thousand immigration cases in that period of time and i have never been in a courtroom where the judge did not turn to me when there surprising us within a minute with a new charge you have time in which to respond to this charge and i don't do not know why some women did not do that  and here here's why you need to give me time to litigate whether or not this is really my my my family it's not that kind of the process it's not only he could have made on the day that she said like traffic you know a controlled substance traffic conviction away for purposes of the court ability ok see my time is up i'd like to reserve a little bit for  there others assigned as all in the ninth circuit all in two thousand and three on pages three and four and i think that this court if they found no jurisdiction here would probably have to explain those three cases and i think they would have to say that you know we as a panel disagree with the panels in most cases i don't think they can just say there is no jurisdiction because i think that in the transitional case such as this it is not a typical ira this is a transitional case i think that you'll find that these cases say that we that
eliminating or reducing access to such an early release mechanism can be such a violation in mathis the supreme court said removal of such provisions can constitute an increase in punishment because the prisoners eligibility for reduced prison is a significant factor entering into the defendant's decision to leave oregon and the judges calculation in that  recognizes that the elimination of the chance for a lower sentence can violate the ex post facto law even if the new statutory regime doesn't produce a longer sentence court's ruling to the contrary and we understand there are quite a few they era when they focus only on whether the length of a sentence is literally numerically increased by the new law we don't think that's ever been the requirement  garners for example asks whether the law creates a significant risk prolonging respondents incarceration there is one in the sentence is likely to be longer under the new law or the old law and we think there's a difference of people who can take advantage of the reduction but it is once again we go back to the sense that it's already happened there's no increase says the question is whether the law creates a significant risk of increasing the measure of punishment here the new version of one b one point one zero creates a significant risk
filing of this fisa petition so again even though the unlicensed practitioner was working in the attorney's office again there's no evidence that this was not a real live are sure to take a shot like ation what was the i'm licensed attorney the person who was the owner of the business she was not an owner on she later became an officer of the corporation when they had a different name but she was not listed as an officer on the corporate filings earlier hours location of work for crews rage many of the person who would have been his supervisor so the employer would have put all of that information into expiring with the state just because mr over there can't now remember it doesn't mean that it wasn't a real job offer discredit doesn't really need to reach the facts in this case because my argument again is that the immigration judge in the murder of immigration it goes did not conduct the correct analysis the enervation judge explicitly declined in mind the facts in the  st two pounds so they are that this court needs to go to the facts that's really for the facts in there to make those determinations and here it is case again because there is not a ton of evidence it is really important that this presumption be applied properly point that you made i take that point but i'm not sure that that i accept the presumption and burden shifting approach that opposing counsel has adopted but it's plausible and weak and we may want to go that far it would seem to be somewhat inconsistent with some of our earlier cases to come to an edge and there so if we wanted to follow and we wanted to you of the fact that it was accepted for filing yes you if it wasn't appropriate would have not been accepted that's correct your honor so if you look at the reasoning and  signatures and information and supporting documents and if they were found in the proper trying all of those things are required it's not that they just didn't stand everything that comes in the door they do a review process and that's why
related on items which may be excluded and makes clear that advertising ideas are not on the rubric of other related items property rights do not remove the use of another's eyes that's right but other intellectual property rights is not a free that's kept from the blue it's a phrase that she used in the prior sentence and the were used any were in the policy body in the sentence you cite derived human would have more force but the that language is used in the prior sentence i don't know what basis can you extensively are ok perfect timing that there's a rd exception to the exclusion which is trade dress i take it if if we were talking about bottles of certain soft drinks like coca cola trade dress would include the trademark name in that circumstance right part of the trade address and so the difference here is that we're just talking about the one word it's the use of a trademark and the issue with respect to that is that it's clear that so even a policy like this that excludes trademarks could include trademarks if they were part of the trade dress claim i know you're going to tell me it says nothing to do with this case and you may be right but it seems that the the language that we're dealing with also deals with copyrights and it seems that copyrights are both excluded and accepted from the confuses this section of the policy that we are to look at it with a little more generous eye and that might bring back in the argument that your brother makes that we can we can look at the cases it doesn't create any confusion and the reason why doesn't create any confusion is that you have to look at the exclusion in the context of the numerated offenses so when you go back and look at the definition of personal in advertising injury which we cited  particular provision and given that ambiguity there is case law that that ought to be construed against the drafter of the policy which is h d r and once again if your honor mentioned given the ambiguity thank you certain
well let me go through this really the timeline i think the timeline very important the removal in this case occurred on the thirteenth of september two thousand and one and the motion there was there removal before any of the briefings were taking place the washington case which had already been briefed was remanded to state court then on the twenty eighth of september another fifteen days instead of instead of focusing on what the defendants in this case did and doing evaluations based upon whether or not they had a reasonable belief that they standard for looking out whether the defendant failed slightly or failed wholly to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement is different than whether the judge what the judge looked at and whether when she determine its own in order to make a decision about whether to remove the case or not and i think that is what the judge was claiming to she certainly was not placing any burden on the plaintiffs in terms of the
because i very well may my thought was on getting it getting a visa to come to the united states to marry your fiance the laws you dance with the one the wrong year and if you switch fiances you have to go back and come in again for the new fiance and my understanding of the fraud issue is fraud just flat out disqualifies you and because she had gone through a marriage ceremony with  one of these many men i can keep the names straight that she had to tell the as officer yes or at least give an explanation or else she was just being intentionally not you can't you can't you may not there's nobody else you can dance with which is by getting married to the right person this here the person did get married to the right person and despite that isn't being is not being able to adjust status so the question is whether this was intended could you well as we do have a moment don't think you understand what i'm asking for help when i want you to plug statutes talk generalizations cases are about specifics and what i want you to do is restate the statute in specific terms walk me through the logic of the
not in fact come to pass  shifting for from the murder question to a readership role question which was involved and mccain's but i'd still no understand under the condition precedent therefore he cannot escape his obligations under the waiver of appeal provision there is a contract principle known as prevention whereby of a party hinders vendors and possible under current acceptance of responsibility after pleading guilty and you're in his interview with the probation officer he backpedaled he said that he was no longer the leader but he knew that he had nothing to do with firearms and because of that the p s i i did not award
events here rose to the level of persecution it was there were a couple of death threats because the police fact that mr singh was lying to them and said if you continue to lie we will kill you and your mother and the evidence and he came to two conclusions one there was no past persecution because the events did not did not riots that to the level of persecution persecution is an extreme concept was any access here to any protected ground what happened to the father was a continual harassment by the police to get money from him because he was a successful business entrepreneur because he did have a company and the separatists just like that in that time the question to him is the key question in this case and that is i understand that do you think the police believe this was just using it to get money out of you pretext to escalate pressure on the father and later so why would they go after your son they went after to extort more money this case has a single motive and that's yes your honor they confirm that on page nine seventy one of the record an amnesty international report in january two thousand and three states the police often use torture or the threat of torture to extort money thing on may twenty second and may twenty eighth he was asked if he was a cow's family dog if he was healthy with his father's terrorist activities i don't understand why you make his factual statement because although perhaps a reasonable fact finder three quick points regarding the motive question without even having to go back to the record the idea is to find itself page sixty one and sixty three of the record from that quote that the father the people charged in this plan to escalate the pressure on the father
as i understand it all the robinson testimony was was abbreviated i mean it's not like the court just just willy nilly admitted this but i've also i've looked at it it was redacted and it ended up being something like a page or you cannot acquit mr sidwell if you believe the statements on that tape if you're in robinson that's how critical was the you had i'm asking that asking myself instruction that they were not to consider her her statement with regard to al without the robinson history which showed a series of such transactions as asking the same time and it's a it's it's quite well the writing down this morning nice reminder about the recent the death of the late great johnny cochran who said if it doesn't fit you must acquit and as i sit here this morning waiting for my turn
field so you can use them to get acting's which are the scale of single cells for example you can use them to cargo things from one end to the other in the presence of magnetic field and so we can make threads and
basically this is a case of a shield which is a protection like voluntary departure like any other form of relief like cancellation when the government uses it as a sword against the same parties  first of all your honor our if our brief we believe that the b i had no authority to issue voluntary departure in the first place well strike that they did wrong they were required under any section two forty the analysis it was required as the case of certain city operators indicates and they did look at all the relevant factors in the case i believe in this case to be i just gave a short shift and really didn't want to consider too much of the case and just heard you stated well because you didn't file because you didn't leave the country which she couldn't do anyway she had no intention of leaving would you  she couldn't go because of her with the doctor told her not to leave because her medical condition she was in a serious medical situation assuming that the government you are correct and they did not properly  reopen so that we can present this evidence to court it's actually new evidence it's never been heard of before by the court the issue of the mother's now medical condition how that impacts the u s citizen children if they have to go to the small village in mexico voluntary departure really isn't a punishment because the voluntary departure entered in lieu of an order of removal allows them to leave without these liabilities if they're not granted voluntary departure and they get a final order for mo district director in saying i'm sick i can't leave can i have an extension the district director has the authority to grant the extension i hope i'm not claiming ineffective assistance of counsel here but he didn't go out he just ignore the voluntary you didn't come back with anything on  new evidence would likely change the results in case they their conclusion that the information on reopening is unlikely to change the results  hundred seventy two actually there was a prior plan that's why i was stumbling on the daycare but the profit sharing plan was rolled into the n s t steel plant in one nine hundred seventy two they i thought it might be useful to just briefly recap some of the major
just standard practice for immigration lawyers now no that's not my understanding but what's the problem is the killing the records from the ins or the book that's been a problem in a situation in singapore what changed between the completion of the last round of the i a e a review and his motion to reopen i read the new york times article and the country condition report but in all candor i can't see what it is that's different today that was known to him at the time i guess my question is why did we prosecute his asylum claim at that point well it was a standard circumstances so my client like a number of other people was kind of quite in that situation of thinking that the suspension would go forward at some point in time and didn't then go forward  before was not known what was here before was the board's order denying his motion for his excuse me his application for suspension of deportation ok those aren't even a administrative hearing the only opportunity that mr singh had to attain suspension of deportation was in the hopes that this court would find the start time rule impermissibly retroactive which it didn't so he has so little faith in his asylum application and he had so some much fear apparently of being cross examined by the government with respect to his allegations or the board of immigration appeals examining his claim apply the timeliness regulations but it was also on time but again the regulations require as a matter of regulatory well and no one has ever challenged the efficacy of this requirement that in order to  withdrew his asylum application the only new evidence is the new york times article and the i believe it's an amnesty international article and as the v are action against political opponents are are three instances of punishments for speaking or writing without prior permits now these individuals there are three of them they were jailed for an extremely short time and they were jailed only because they they refused to pay fines and after after they were jailed the fines were later reduced and these political opponents were that's free to his motion to reopen and we look to whether or not he alleged evidence that was new and not available to him at the time that he withdrew the prior application isn't that the law that we apply to evidence of  continuing political problems in the country