MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
never retired early and then instead of receiving the reduced benefits for the rest of her life she would receive save the benefits as though she had waited until four retirement age s from four to six hours total well if you can sit here and walk for only four to six hours total you can perform full time work perform full time work it's untrue that you have to find that she was able to do full time work to find enough disabled because to step four you can do part time work and still qualify to be rational and work it's only at step
to find his license or why he was leaving court on those he wouldn't be evidence that would come in if the defendant testified and explained i was leaning forward because i couldn't see i was leaving to use the second the the factor of times being knocked down that's not an indication of impairment because property damage happens in all kinds of accidents it's just another reason you know that it happen
i think it was unfair because he did not understand the issues and the defenses that he had available to him in making an ineffective assistance of counsel client yes backed the hearing and based on the translation i provided to the court had one of the answer and that was in english what was his name everything else was related by the court and this made that statement on the later decoration we provided the court in other words i've said if you believe the first part of the state in which she says that she receives money then should you believe the second part in which she says i of course and making that statement and the marriage was consummated so yes we have something to overcome but i think we should have the opportunity to overcome that as it was he appeared at a hear everything else the consequences of pleat of admitting to marriage fraud to milling that you had married in the immigration laws and then the consequences of being removed immediately i think he deserves an opportunity to present its c the first ones you know when i was very impressed with the detail in which they and we went into understanding that in this case for example saying i'm not even going to pay attention to the hearsay conversation between the investigator mr staff i'm going to only only going to go  entering into the marriage she very well may have made misrepresentations in conjunction with seeking to remove the condition on that  done deal with the approval of the second petition but in conjunction with her application for a waiver of the condition then should be able to apply for a waiver of the hardship of the u
claims to the court that's just not the case that the court followed up with a trial counsel in an entirely different than following up with mr long personally for the more attorneys bring matters to the attention of the court pretrial motions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel could not necessarily be decided because the trial had not yet occurred in that case and additionally that was a letter sent to the circuit and the letter itself indicated that  hand to the sins of the state is arguing that he felt to present his planes or that he could have called trial counsel to the stand and the defendant is not given the opportunity to call witnesses he wants in the moment he wants to
arose at the time of the original merits hearing before the immigration judge and i wedging that there were due process violations i don't understand why at least to those issues you could not findings but then cited some additional reasons from the record why they felt that was the proper disposition is it your position that every time the board does that we now have to remain and give the petitioner an new evidence is made then you take another appeal to v b i upholds the decision the second time but points to some other evidence that wasn't cited in the ideas record were there ever be any end to the round robin of appeal and over again and they didn't understand what he was saying which you help me with with the scenario here who was present at the time of the hearing before the immigration  he has a masters degree and he was trying to i can read i can read the question that was posed to me and i can read your counsels or your clients answer and then i know that the government lawyer made an objection which the court basically endorsed by knowing it and i read that  testified to different details regarding the alleged kidnapping saying that they had called him and were not going to pick him up at his house were going to go somewhere else and where they would find him an individual by the name of god i was driving the vehicle so let me ask you the same question because we as you know we have a lot of these cases and as you know it's difficult when you have a transcript that is not the best and i would say you would have to agree concern that i guess we could look at this record two ways it's either as there's going to suggest a problem with the interpretation and perhaps the transcription or it's a problem with the petitioner's testimony
defense there are two reasons why it is not first because the record of conviction does not eliminate the possibility that he was convicted as an accessory after the fast and second because the record of conviction does not eliminate the possibility that he before this court in a number of cases doll but has conceded that we are is materially identical in all relevant respects to the record of conviction presented here they fail to distinguish any of the charging language in the information materially indistinguishable from the record of conviction that's been presented here
by expressing her distress over understanding that the issue of the method violence much larger than her doubt that she was in the advocacy and illegally and because she felt like law enforcement would not everything is not indicated on their promotional materials up front and and and and not providing a service prevent these men to question whether the mission statement is for tonight whether they're brick eating a private and public funding not being able to physically get down to the courthouse and and so i object in that appeal because i did leave it and not only an issue that affects me but at a lot of americans here in the united states and
your thank you thank you are you mother what
on that specific question distributor but that doesn't mean that it's actionable on their loss on you five on lismore half that kind of exclusive right and that's what the court trying to make a determination on which was error and that's
to please mr sanders yes to me to twenty to thirty seconds but obviously there was a camera that was going to control well so the point is that based upon the record important that is that in the criminal case that's the time when mr sanders needed to private or limited never did that in the least he basically accepted the entire transcript and the record which for the purposes of this appeal relates to officer bryant's testimony about resistance the entire time even through the deployment up until the time he goff is not allowed to slice and dice the record and change the record by arguing that after he was here which is certainly not mean that he was bit once or twice hypothetically even that assuming that that was the record at the preliminary hearing that would be excessive force and therefore mr see ender's could not be convicted of  this is related to other crimes there's nothing in the preliminary hearing transcript that indicates any excessive force or any use of the dog after the us so what's what's important from the from the transcript it what it is how it shows and at the time all the way up in crewe and coughing you cannot now get up and argue against that is opportunity which he did not take at the criminal trial was to try to the time of the eastern district the court said that there was no exception or reservation by the criminal defendant regarding that live in areas hearing all the officers behavior was lawful winter did not limit the agreement only portions of the transcript  factual basis or in any other manner suggest a trial judge should not rely on a particular portion of transcript finding a factual basis same thing happened in beads which is the banks or to a case where the jury basically  raise in your brief isn't it because as i understand your argument reefing is that it was a fully a foot chase and a car chase that could have been the heat of the resisting arrest not this argument you're making now that a dog bite somehow
that there is no priority issue actually involved to the extent that there has been voluntary titian's submitted to the village of bloomingdale pursuant to section seven petitions arguably are still pending however it is our understanding the village of bloomingdale is not taking any action towards them as such or are we believe that under the two thousand and nine amendment that the village  bloomingdale to have to accept work or do anything towards the will the voluntary petitions followed by petitions in that instance there is is i appreciate what you're saying are the priority  well then take could certainly file an objection and go in and indicate what respects the annexation was deficient isn't that correct they had the opportunity to do that certainly in this case as well did we had fundamental fairness just isn't one way it goes two ways they have no right to know and when did you tell them how i'm going to draw a blank and then question shortly thereafter because vestige of the proceedings we started discussions about whether we had priority and so forth to do it before december twelfth you know because that would be a definitive date the recording of the acts september i'm sorry not december know the fact that you know these municipalities know what the other municipalities doing theories down under my point that they're looking at this and that they're looking at that but we're talking about now the want and we're talking about legal in which talks about fundamental fairness don't mean anything here in terms of you know they're being forced somebody needs to towel glendale heights the there is an issue here we don't know the things we did they would have stopped or things would have gone forward we have no patients well but it might it's it's not maybe even successful for what it might have looked like leader if you're trying to talk about fundamental fairness is the question i'm posing to fill in  right understanding which you're you're out of points and it's a valid point but we didn't just sit on the sidelines for six months doing nothing we proceeded on we filed our complaint with circuit court and within rule says we don't have any real authority to rely on if you were here for any of the last argument you might understand the question is well twenty one years preference right and it and they can they can undertake the following alternative can of jet they have those instances as we have seen these are not object i submit that it's critical that these folks should have come to the meeting that night on september have made a difference legally i think that even if they had received the objection it's still within their exercise of of the police power to to you know jazz it make any difference they could have done exactly what they did with or without notice th
be ordered to forfeit only property that he actually acquires neither david linage nor james house ever actually acquired when villa's east which is the property we're talking about here  that you can show one hundred and fifty three and that you have a superior interest to that of the defendant's correct not exactly well that's what it says your position is that the defendants never had an interest in the property right so doesn't a fifty three end give you the ability to show that your interest is superior to theirs because they never had an interest  is you have to be there to argue that they don't then you can't wait till later to argue that your interest isn't superior well no the problem we have is in six and does not allow us to finding that the defendants had an interest in the property before you acquired it deprives you of standing well we have title to the property so we and you are well i mean as i'm going back to the forfeiture itself which i'm not sure you're entitled to challenge but why couldn't a court in a conspiracy case it was all the defendants were alive were convicted and in which to charge conduct was they conspired with a dead defendant forfeit the property that the dead defendant obtained with the proceeds of the conspiracy that is exactly the point of money that that sort of joint and several was the interest and the convicted defendants in the property their injured their interest i assume what was forfeited was their interest in the property right what was their because it was vested in the government and at that time knowledge got of the right to possess to control the property which is a right recognized under california law and house receives formal paper title the property that was of  remission is not an adequate remedy for them to get us so held and the remission that the government is prepared to offer in this case is inadequate basically that returning their investment minus genes so most of them would
state i suspect wasn't aware of that until we actually got a form that paid for the statutory summer suspension at that point we went to the judge and we stipulated that this was the only issue and that it was a question was on thursday gave us the weekend to submit a memo and more authority as to whether or not you believe the failure of the police or check the box was a defect to such a degree that they ju poor is sufficient the state correct myself correct later on so as long as we're clear on what there's no more good and it is just leave me legal argument and one of the police
which has been discussed in many cases of the united states supreme court for many years and that issue is whether the government the state in this instance made a consonant with the constitution complainant about june twentieth specifically but he couldn't call his answer as to that particular date because he had been concerned that the abuse was ongoing and therefore there was a clear indication in the record that there were other dates other apps which may have come into evidence had the trial proceed at the government because under the state cases that i cited in the brief if you look at howard case in the long case with his  organs supreme court on by case have the government in the first trial had the witnessed going south on them with respect to june twenty but had the witness been allowed to continue his testimony and testified that there boost in the first trial the evidence they ultimately succeeded in obtaining in the second trial the first trial could have resulted in the action for that reason there was jeopardy in trial one which overlapped with the jeopardy in trial two and claim on the basis of the oregon statute dealing with former jeopardy and that's question has two parts the first part says no person shall be prosecuted twice for the same offense the second part deals with an organ concept  a criminal episode the court specifically stated as we understand objections argument it is not that he was prosecuted twice for the same act rather we believe his argument is predicated on subsection two changes recall i don't have the portion of the transfer market i think all the prosecutor said was you will be here that when the victim heard the defendant kamin that he knew what was going to happen i think stop father coming into the room and you will hear evidence introduce evidence of any prior assault in this case in the first trial was no evidence all the prosecutor was saying is that when the victim heard his father coming to the door he knew what was going to happen but the state very specifically in that case the first time around a lot did the june twentieth incident and when they could not prove that june twentieth incident they did not present evidence of any other crime on any other date and they allow the judgment of acquittal to be granted now at that and this court in the united states supreme court said that given the fact during the first time around acquitted the defendant that necessarily under collateral stoppel principles it was a determination that he was not one of the people who was involved in the crimes terminations of the trial is the rest of the statute of limitations period i'd like to point out to the court the case of state of oregon versus long which is about eighty five
used by the general public and does it make a difference in the analysis  to her car she had not park occurred there she was walking across the parking lot to be picked up by her friend he was not a situation where it was a lot provided for the park exposure by that employee that the general public doesn't fit right
counsel maybe you could help me with a question i have i want to make sure i understand this right this guy had a perfect right to come into the u s has he had a green card but instead he came in by rejecting a fake i d somebody else's birth certificate to  make it look like he was a u s citizen as secretary i believe so yes kind of like somebody who's passed the age of twenty one but they're still using a fake id of the liquor store yeah it's not correct now i think we're both asking focused on the same thing here i thought once he had the green card he can come in despite his prior crime until the ins take some action to s because of his prior crime even though he has a green card it's different ways of approaching the same issue i believe so i'm not honored i thought once he had a green card it was you're applying for admission when you have a green card are you already admitted i think even if you show up at the border and you say and they say what are you doing well i'm back coming from mexico to the united states that doesn't mean you're applying for admission this is my understanding i'm facing this and it has to do it and then i watched it backtrack to the question that i asked your opponent about why they are for the fact that they didn't make a determination about the viability of the criminal there and the that he wasn't convicted of that crime but it's saying that they're not relying on that is the reason for his deportation but it's a big difference between saying he's not really understand that and it may lead to agreement it doesn't lead to throwing it out but without that determination my question to you is if you can if you just haven't thought about this and if you want to go back and think of that but if if we were right about that if there was no final determination with regard to the crim the false statement regarding citizenship independently sustain deportation that's what i want to know as a matter of cistercian or or is it depende might is legal permanent resident status having been automatically revoked because of the crime i read secondly i'm certainly not sure and that's really to me the question your what question is
client had already have seven years of physical presence in this city in the united states because you know wanted to qualify for suspension it's needed to show seven years of physical presence moral character  it a letter sent in response to the settlement agreement which allows for alternative dispute resolution and alternative dispute resolution allow that if a person disputed what the board determined such that the board in this case the board found that the alien wasn't a class member and bear a hole in it they only in pursuant to the dispute resolution aspect of the settlement agreement could then file a written challenge to that  the petition for you but under the settlement agreement and it sort of set out a little more clearly in the actual notice that is attached to the board's denial of the baritone a motion which would be found at  pages twenty seven and twenty eight of the record which is that's where it is today deny the motion to reopen for verizon and gomez finding that he wasn't a member of that class and they attach the notice to the petitioner which would allow him to challenge that under the terms of the settlement agreement and if so that particular notice is to be if there is a written challenge is to  attorneys that actually handle the baritone a case and then further review can be sat with in the district court if need be in this particular case our office actually didn't receive the copy of this letter that is contained in the file and tell approximately six months after the board's decision at which time the board forwarded over a courtesy copy to mr mcconnell within our office because the thirty  issue and to whether in fact the alien was a member of the baritone a class it's clear from the record that mister that the petitioners attorney at the time requested th application through his first attorney to the extent that he's claiming that that was ineffective assistance of counsel he hasn't complied with lada he has that he also didn't make clear why he never went ask when he had typically out about persecution but did ask whether peterson or whatever student was married and she just mentioned that her husband had been killed in an accident but didn't go any further into anything and then even if the court were to or even as the petition part of you should be denied even if you overcame all the procedural obstacles the application doesn't make a sufficient case that what you're dealing with here yes you know i think that's the least of the problems the problem is  you're not you're not relying on the fact that the asylum petition should not have been withdrawn when it was you saying instead that while the case was after the case was over before that but you didn't do either of those things right that's correct