MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
arguing both you're arguing that the court should have found a breakdown and that there was also an actual conflict yes we disagree with you on the break what's the actual conflict here one does the actual conflict mature  the attorney was put in the position of having to examine witnesses who were impeaching the attorney's own work product but they didn't rest and given jackson presumably would have had trouble doing so under and the appellant hasn't been able to establish a conflict well i take your point but i think there's a little more there are two that i like which is an important aspect here agree once the have done and in this case the the court went on to ask his reaction and gave him the opportunity to sort of state but jackson said no you can't  you not just entitle to competent counsel you're entitled to counsel conflict from counsel that any time that there's a dispute between defendant and his counsel over the question of trial strategy that we well the trial court found otherwise i'm suggesting that record should be further expanded to determine that in other words if they were conflict there isn't there  returning my phone calls he's not making the appropriate motions here everything has broken down in service to the ordinary standards which we hold our counsel for the district court has has closed one of those avenues for you ha prejudice is presume so i mean if if this case were like bill murray for example absolutely it would clearly be a different case from jackson i think that's absolutely true but you agree we're sort of aren't dealing with the teac issues but what they are talking about and with a split at least say is that once you get to a situation where the defendant is charging hi lawyer with you know effect of assistance then you go to say like hearing on in this case there was a hearing it was a motion for a new trial hearing there's an inherent conflict and then they say when he goes through no evidence or a hearing that conflict is heightened and so much so that in that case they found that you violated call your and therefore prejudice is presumed so we scaled back from jackson was i remember i could be wrong but i thought jackson just simply made the allegation and the involvement of the lawyer having to say anything in defense of his activity and it seems to me that if the judge t i turn to you and say well you know your clients just accuse you of being incompetent or ineffective what's your response to that he's beginning to i mean what are you going to say that you have at that point a pretty tough crowd like well
thank you thank you very much
the johnson i would also like to try and be able to save a couple minister rebuttal if that's possible and this is a social security disability case and i know that all of you have decided social security disability cases so you may well be familiar with at least some of their statutory regulatory procedures which are very peculiar to that system however this case is not any it is not about any of those peculiar procedures or standards really revolve around dr collins and what do you think that his view of this problem compels i think that his view of this case definitely involved the idea of a waxing and waning process which is typical for lupus apparently which was tackles here with a steady diagnosis for over a year in ninety nine and two thousand or maybe believe her on the change the diagnosis of to the connective tissue disease or there's been some similar diagnosis before as they were trying to figure out what was wrong with her but in any case this disease waxes and wanes and has flares or flare ups as dr cullen mentioned a number of times  collins opinions were not backed up by notes from the clinical practice and also that he made inconsistent opinions in regards to the dates of disability i think both of those were not very good reasons in regard to the yes flare you know he considered the whole thing but i can't relate everything in this report but he points to quite a number of information here she appeared well in november ninety nine with an under acute stress  says she she's she's better for twenty seven but also says i'm for twenty eight but she continues to have two types of processes going on one of the chronic process and one is the more severe symptom flare ups that make work problematic and they will just never mention the word flares or flare ups or changes in the course of the disease so when the hail jamie the criticism about his clinic no indicating improvement he failed to appreciate the other part of the disease the down part of the part that disabled him in fact so we'll see we'll know the improvement but never did know wh only nine eleven twenty four she has no pain and wrists new acute distress normal mood disorder stable present was given in the past she feels no acute distress improvement with noted that the symptoms improve with medication and so i don't i don't think it's true that he didn't appreciate the fact that she had the steroids more than a certain amount because chronic steroid use causes us to your procedures and she has to be careful about using steroids and deal with the finding that she's not credible the undersigned finds claim right i did not i did not challenge the credibility finding but i stuck with well for an ocular i mean well i guess except for one thing that her reporting of her disease process was not understood versus ashcroft
focuses on newest technologies to reach the public i pods cell phones podcasts and television it might surprise you that our program for advertising is not expensive we believe that our success is based on your success so we provide you with proven options that you can streamline to your budget grass valley television produces g v t v news we care is locally on two programs which combined there are over two hundred times a month on channel eleven and unlimited time johnny unitas underwriting for six months contract is hundred dollars per month which breaks down to fifty cents per management also this shows that if you support your local media as discovery lifetime fox news m t v and many many more if you underwrite g v t v news and we create the overlay ads for comcast channels in the grass valley area for free that's right it's free and that's a value of a dunder to sixteen speak for the future way to reach your market for a limited time we offer to shoot your underwriter mention and eric for one week on our news for free that's right if you act right now we will schedule a time convenient for you and provide you with visual proof that we can help you no obligation if you decide not to underwrite our news you still receive a free week of exposure we have put together some samples of some of our work with this d v d and you can see that
he's hiding all this stuff she doesn't have a clue it's pretty hard from his record it strikes me to say the music you are was any more clueless than her husband well what is to make the mortgage payment and so you know once a done deal she seems to have been able to get out of work again but she did made some very serious restrictions on her on her hours you have to be home by certain time because i have to have dinner on the of those cases is there any harm and i have to go back and look to see if there's absolutely no comment on that i think about it is there any discussion about the still being the level of controlling behavior that we have here and mr was part of the pattern miscue part had never been able to make the financial decisions in the family seems might have been more financially astute and you know that's difficult to  everything on the line in this record indicates he's spending a lot of time trying to convince or it's really a good deal one thinks of an abusive controlling person who's saying listen listen why if you do what i say most cases didn't want the investment and actively trying you know definitely complied with her duty to inquire we have a catch twenty two with you what does she need to do to comply with this duty to inquire and hit the walls and threw things and that falls under my definition of violence and it's very possible that mrs kidd part but because she's been asked over and over and over again was the violent towards you that didn't you know she material and i believe that that particular piece was material as opposed and i also believe the troth erred in determining that the individual could read or understand these materials for me make one or two comments about sixty if they file separate returns i don't think anybody can read this this record and determine that without mr key parts input that mrs k part would have put the partnership anything on her separate return
violence evaluation and have no further contract with the young woman who made the allegation domestic violence evaluation we always  happened to the jail in terms of what her name was when she sought to contact mr trouble after she had him arrested and she used the name of the woman that the father had brought up that night at dinner which would have thrown her into so i see that my time is up thank you very much that it would be  witnesses on the stand to have credibility terminations maybe even if the government did not want to go forward the court could have on its own motion under federal rule of evidence or team have witnesses call could have order
dr power of the surgeon's opinion was inconsistent with his own treatment also but again his treatment not let him do that diagnosis so failed back syndrome you can't you can't have off ways and that's exactly what she did  powers opinion you know is inconsistent with his treatment notes when you look at the treatment notes there are several observations in dr bowers notes which you know where he's observing that mr you know condition in one way or another as normal practice but it's a pain case no or it's you have i so it's not there's no there's not a total disconnection between the light the light work conclusion and the medical observations of you know normal functioning in one way or another was his previous application you have a degenerative condition that you know the conditions back when to improve so it's rather difficult to imagine how it got better when when from when it's like to now sedentary now limited to saturn turbot now improved  oil and saying wow all these all these projected findings are more mle and she didn't and she didn't talk about functionality your honor and further instead of follow up to your question she talked about physical findings namely good morning and may it please the court my name is frank schaefer and i represent nancy barry felt the acting commissioner of social security mr hardy raises only one issue in this so they'll chase explained why many examination showed normal findings and those normal findings were normal normal normal balance normal court nation normal strength no were some other opinions that were really not issued but there was a explained why he rejected them or stricter opinions and ultimately they don't taste like work r c it was consistent with the more recent state agency fact are the appropriate criteria by which to function out the cams heard are completely in the dark that's the problem they cannot do that if they do they don't know if they don't do it so we're not saying
bombing particularly simple easy to get thomas it is easier to style a fish in the ocean
shot at getting this thing resolved as quickly as possible now in the course of the letter or the forty one pages did you address the legal ground employed by adopted by commerce statutory incapacity on the part of commerce to grant the relief you are seeking your honor and i could say because i was to meeting the answer is yes and if you look at the pages in the forty one pages of the sign particular case like this you absolutely have the right to go back to one of the predated entries and you've done it in pe asked and now you're trying to litigate it differently on the merits are ruined by the court has said you appropriate then that sounds like congress is basically saying exhaust if in the course of the side in these cases it looks like the kind of situation in which a position in this case that you were legally required to do what you did here that this was a matter of discretion of policy balancing and this  position that you had argued in the trustees of north american bankruptcy and in the in the film course was not that of course was a case in which exhaustion actually might well have served a purpose because the issue was one that was concededly by commerce within its discretion and so maybe if you had been presented additional facts or better policy arguments you might have changed your mind but when the issue is one on which commerce is a position as our hands are tied by the statute there is nothing you can tell us that is going to allow us to do what you think makes sense even if we thought it made sense because that's not the case during the may be now after that two thousand and twelve decision and he of the failed in two thousand and eleven in march and april of two thousand and eleven when the events relevant here it was was it not commerce its position that and i'm going to but not having a position is precisely the problem and of course court noted that in the middle still which is often a similar case the courts are clearly stated they have to provide some kind of indication that they maintain their prior position to what you had to ask that question i mean if if expect the court to reject it you have to look uncertain but the question here with respect exhaustion which a supreme court has repeatedly said is a matter of waiting and balancing the question is what is the realistic expectation that some benefit would flow from the one sentence left and i'm struggling to see that there would be any benefit under of circumstances this case and others then you know giving commerce an opportunity to perhaps decide to write something exhausted situation there's no cause to be charged you go ahead send in the letter you're done you're taking care of each other sometimes to take an issue off the table here how unusual but nonetheless present is that there is something on the other side of the table how  is something would be we don't know but we do know that there is a risk of a mix of significant additional period of time which is prejudicial to them but it's critical to congress to not have the comments from the parties because counsel knew
clearly defined in this case it's whether the department of veterans affairs if you define a word that by statute could only be pursued by either party by initiating a civil parts of the final decision of the office of  appropriate that's right and you were exhausted your administrative ramit is to get them to do what you're smart i think they're supposed to do on that point and we believe we have because there weren't any more in the history of remedies once a final ord issued from that particular official in the department of veterans affairs in your positions there was a fire order issued then you had a choice you could go critic on hire couldn't you have within thirty days and attempted to enforce that order  final order based on the recommendation of the easy o c hearings officer i don't think you can get back remember that the you know sees jurisdiction from the outset in these cases merely they provided an regulation that i cited was not applicable and we didn't none of the other things we talked about still that the point i'm trying to make is that the course of the litigation before the district court was simply whether or not this lawsuit could in force the an unfortunate accident to enforce the act not a specific order under the act and that's what i that's what i contended at every level below it's action the federal court has a right to determine what the relief is going to be and it's not limited by what the the final order of the agency had began did you ask your  this week it's just an it was our intention to have the court issued all the relief available under title seven as it applies to the rehabilitation act for federal agencies including that's part of the but then i read your complaint it's starkest of course in the monetary claim to say we're not satisfied with what we got through that administrative process we want saying that your complaint of the year on the enforcement or did you just jerked around this issue of whether it was a foreigner order i objected on the basis that it was being dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the u s district court and that the statute clearly gave the court jurisdiction whether or not there was a regulation out there that applied to certain ways that the case that you have been dealt with before the final order  contended there was a final order and we kindly filed an action and therefore the united states district court had subject matter jurisdiction and that was the only issue here we were talking a moment ago about how the case was tried this is a rule twelve motion ar
documentation to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard in the chapter seventy five action not regarding the burden of persuasion in terms of the arguments made before the administrative judge but in clear terms of burden of production there is nothing in the record in the four corners of the proposal to remove other than self serving going to render generated by the proposing the fish in in contrast to that there's also no evidence in the record demonstrating that the eighty six was harmed by law in terms of its efficiency which is also a component required i believe in the evidentiary submission for chapter seventy  five in terms of some of the allegations made by the official story afterwards they seem to be specific charges also directed at performance of ms thomas seventy five action only if you are going to implicate performance evaluations you can't do it in a way that doesn't enter on around the performance requirements of chapter forty three and the m s p we have spoken to that can boeing versus as well as the pointed and handsome plan clearly demonstrated that she's getting numerous opportunities to improve was provided a mentor and simply did had trouble identifying critical issues and ensuring the tas x you did not do that but there is no evidence in the record that supports that mr thomas actually said i didn't do that more importantly at the time at the hearing the administrative judge specifically found after listening to all the testimony that the general pronouncement by mr thomas that in fact she did complete tasks first the specific allegations set forth by miss the smith attorney and miss edwards were more credible and those should be given de council of there was sufficient evidence in the record and that evidence was brought for credible to the credibility of the terminations before the administrative judge i submit that that's not possible because once the burden of adoption is not met on the standard of by preponderance of the evidence under chapter seventy five action there is no relevance there's no issue guarded credibility because it should not have gone to that stage it's what's in the four corners of the proposal to remove any arguments that may touch in concern what's in the proposal to remove still do not correctly uttered the fish and c of putting forward sufficient documentation to show that there's a failure on the part of the of the employee in federal service for example counsel he represents yes we said there were arguments there were representations which are self serving there's no way around that where is a simple email from for example your superior telling you look we're running late on this project are you going to get it done it's on your back we're talking for a period of time from march one two thousand and one on march eighteenth two thousand and one to jan we're two thousand and three and we have the pap and the cap and place in january two thousand two into the data demotion
gave was under that very different view of the evidence we cited the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict look at what the facts that any rational juror whether the facts were sufficient at any rational juror could have it's looking at the evidence again in light of the new standard i think if you compare that analysis to the transcript which is relatively short and the discussion of the jury instruction discussion of closing arguments in defense counsel and  that what it's first rejects is just incredible the defendant's story and that's not the standard that you use under chapman which you do is you look at the evidence and decide well what a jerk what could a jury decide and you need to place the burden of this analysis on the state and by just regarding what the defendant had to say it's shifted that burden on to the defendant if you take a look at the district attorney's closing argument in the transcript he goes through several times and makes an argument that says even if you still find him guilty of second degree in those discussions you'll find that intertwines the provocation and method of getting to manslaughter size second degree with the unreasonable sort of self defense and the standard for provocation or heat of passion is again a reasonable person stand it's just compounds the problem with the joint structure in my view i think a fair reading of the record there is physical evidence to suggest that they may not have need one of them may not have been in the car but there's no physical evidence of the knife that mr martinez talked about there is evidence that the crimes that there was a gap between the shooting when the police arrived at the crime scene so there was a discussion there were other people there i think mr mark when you martina's discuss that a little bit that there were other people around and so there's kind of the negative evidence of i just briefly want to point out that  victims while they were walking towards their vehicle that's in the record so even though it's apparent that the jury did not accept petitioners version even if one were to credit of the justice pointed out that the testimony from the pathologist the physical evidence suggested that the victims were in the vehicle when they were shot or around the vehicle approach him out of the car start to come out of the car and i don't know whether his memory was clear that the person who actually opened the door and was lifting up but that there was a gesture and then mr martinez testimony is that one of the victims had night and it w for a defendant to think that he's still an actual imminent peril when the person is walking away when imperfect self defense negates is malice and it's what he actually believe he may have been what he testified that that
chapter thirteen only deals with unscared claims to be payment funds to claims under the plan therefore the actual issuance of the or the schedule estimation your book is moot he already decided the issue ask you something when i am having trouble and any word it is you want the the so there should have been an estimation hearing but in lieu of the of what he thought the bankruptcy judge stored what should have been an expert estimation hearing is an agreement to go back to state court you go back to stay cool work you move to set aside the default judgment you lose  the default judgment ordering foreclosure what do you want now what do you want to this record judge to the bankruptcy lawyer judge to do do you want him to to reconsider what the state court has done now reinstate the in the bankruptcy court because the or the sent the back to state court specifically stated you could come back for cause cause good corps cause it's a do at this point one of the one of the what is the arguments what constitutes the merits of this case that you're talking about that the merits of the underlying assets are pacific what the are not they actually had compute it does not that i correct that your clients sign to stipulations stating that they have no defense to the action and therefore agree to waive any claim or defense to the foreclosure action just stated but there was