MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
different points one has to do with whether the rule is a good rule and whether we should try to invalidate the rule the other has to do with whether if it's clear on its face then the rule doesn't apply i would could that not only go to the heart of his testimony at immigration court however there are number of other instances where he indicated on to the immigration forms that he had never been arrested convicted cited or charged for this
defendant even based on this just the way that he did have access to b p that two of the people in addition to the victim in this case plays him in the rye with b p and obviously that testimony is very damaging to the f
actually a final order of removal then they can't be held to find that they did not exhaust the available remedies below technically the board might have been in a position to  order but at the same time there wasn't a void orders therefore the court wouldn't have jurisdiction so we maintain that they're not required to exhaust to the board where there was no final order you know review any the merits of the order or the proceedings were simply looking at the fact that all the way back to the beginning the proceedings were never initiated in the first place and once we recognise that the rules were never initiated final order is into the statute which is an order that is issued by an immigration judge and then further the regulations under eight c f r twelve forty one point one state that the final order is made at the conclusion of removal proceedings conducted under section twelve twenty nine a now no one i don't think in this case is debating whether or not a notice to appear is pertinent to think everything clearly points to you have to use the definition in the statute it would be absurd to come to the conclusion that there would be a notice to appear defined in the statute that starts a rule proceedings and then there would be a separate document titled no stupider thats under the regulations with different requirements also involved in starting up removal proceedings but then actually are two separate documents and having to figure out which one you would need to use in any given time and that makes it impe s additionally you know the regulations have to support the statute not supplant that given that the plain language of the regulations in the way the statute set up is pretty clear that the notice to appear at initiation is strictly statutory you need a notice to appear that must be served on the alien in order for the proceedings to be initiated if it's not initiated the starting line is not crossed and we don't get to the end with a final order remov of hearing and a notice to appear are all filed with the court meaning the requirements under twelve twenty nine if the statutes are at the regulatory notice to appear with the fishnet there would be no reason to include in the holding the reference to underlying that statute is explicit in unabated with the problem that maybe too big to fix was created by the government you know negligent or willful failure to use a system that would resolve this whole problem and supplying the time way that they can come in and then create something different that doesn't meet the requirements of the statute
good morning the first case of the morning he is people versus good will by fourteen zero four three two a couple matters you know the record other matter is that the other man or the other judge on this panel this morning is justice chapman he's not able to be here today he she will  thus he was a law enforcement officer and thereby why should this court not follow that case which makes that very direct
the next case on the calendar is  proceedings that are the basis for this complaint this country within just the last several months has the men awakening as it relates to the  association it had been recognized that they may not you the guise of prohibiting professional misconduct by ignoring constitutional  this case is about multiple efforts on my part to bring to the attention of the disciplinary authorities in the state of connecticut that in the racial discrimination was and continues to be applied in terms of discipline but tony these efforts have been met with repeated rejection almost as if it is believed that racial discrimination and bias cannot legally happen in the context of attorney discipline in the to a recent decision of the connecticut excuse me the california bar authorities and which they found that tiger not knowing what eight years of discipline the two a kearney's that there was light the disparity in discipline of attorneys such as myself this matter started out as a male calling wherein it was alleged that there has been a pattern and there was the reason why we are faced with only me bringing the appeal at this point is because the other name  well as hers but because of my current has been just now for two years i was on able to press her case claims nevertheless the facts remain the same that show this pattern and practice of african american attorneys being disciplined more harshly for the same and in some instances more agreed just conned by white attorneys miss miller you properly that that motion for a number of reasons including that it was untimely it was improperly based on post judgment conduct by non parties the purported new evidence has nothing to do with the grounds for dismissal upon which the district court relied occasions all these grounds are fully addressed in my briefs and unless the court has any questions i'll rely members thank you clearly stated on multiple occasions that the constitutional issues were not properly raised in the context of a present that matter the absolute contradiction to what had been argued that was the
and no longer applies that once the immigration judge makes the decision without regard to what happens afterwards we can exercise article three jurisdiction over the right i believe that you can i believe there is no  authority it doesn't actually ask for facts no your honor but every person a few years before the board of immigration appeals or even prostatic is bound by the regulations regulations provide a little more instruction on what you should different things are as it doesn't give sufficient notice to the board of what the legal and factual basis are for this appeal other than the just the general conclusions and the fact that this was a person a person a person a alien anything to do or because i
circumstantial evidence in connection with guilt or innocence from your history so i'm trying to understand because the case law doesn't say you have to prove every
if not you can't just decide he's going to come in anyway when he says he wouldn't the attorney general wouldn't have the discretion or the intervention nationality act to give him permission to reenter because he's not available he's in a missile would be in a missile because of his criminal conviction which led to his deportation and because of that the statute and the waiver and the waivers that are strictly nearly confined he's not available free of those waivers so there's one chance to yes please the court kristin aniston for the attorney general as your honor has pointed out this case arises simply for mr ortiz's unlawful entry into the united states in june two thousand and two mr ortiz is relying on a claim ineffective assistance of counsel in order to a race independent decisions to illegally reenter the country however his former our counsel's alleged ineffective assistance and you know way impacts the order under consideration earlier and without incurring subsequent immigration violations mr ortiz could have particularly raised this claim during his two thousand and one criminal proceedings there was an avenue to do it's hard for him to argue this now after he had had several opportunities after opportunities of proceeding long before th mr ortiz had been removed and then even assuming that he would be even assuming that he would that could convince the court to not finest higher order  this case really is about his entry without inspection in two thousand and one and he's removed on that charges not have i think the question in question is can he attacked the prior unconstitutional his case was closed his original removal order which was on the basis of that conviction is still valid it's acceptable but i think that this case can be decided you know much more narrow context as your own and pointed out that in any event he threw the ball on the country without inspection charge and  he will be submitted
wrongdoing i mean you're here saying you know we do know that you can award twenty percent child support out of that settlement we never got a chance to put on evidence about how much it was for this or that or whatever they're towel has to determine financial inability you don't have to deplete all of your assets to be financially unable to pay you also come to look at whether or not payment of these undermine the scheme of things here so i mean you know why shouldn't leave vacate the entire property distribution and send it back to being redone based on nothing being consider major asset in the marriage that that may affect the entire property distribution and therefore it's ok katie and sent back i mean we don't we don't know what the trial judge would have did done if she'd have actually considered it we don't know if she room will we built here's the thing the trial court may have divided everything in this case based on a belief that your client had sixty thousand dollars cash in the day when perhaps as you
of the diagnostic studies to support his opinion that there was some sort of a change we've done a good job in lying in related underlying physics but those that even have to go that far if these are just that the two doctors was just going to throw in the toys over clean case the ways that the case was handled very similar to this case and to the extent that you are triggering the commission we did the facts and made a exception create some sort of break in the chain of causation and the supreme court spent a lot of time talking about that rule at the end of the day the reason why they reversed the appellate court was because they felt that it was the commission describes it very well also the idea is that once the fusion is completed but only really an over the hardware that's placed in this case bone didn't grow it was just hardware but he was declared stable he was declared a maximum medical do you get around that the way i get around that justice hudson is i would say that when the commission made their findings on who's credible and who's not as far as the witnesses and when the commission way th now if you look at the order and what we get from the commission is the simple two page order and then we also get the more detailed conclusions if you look at the world itself controls i think if the underlying reasoning august the town which moved them i don't think there's anything wrong with the doctor saying that i think there's something wrong with the commission not be clear in what it is fine with was pretty clear he got nothing  commission's decision is to be internally consistent they would regard in that particular case at least with regard to if i'm recalling this correctly there was a awarded benefits that was in opposite with between that and the subsequent condition which was the treatment that he received for this pseudo arthro sis which he already had prior to the date of the incident and i think that that's why the commission's original decision was
argument to raise the existence or exceptional circumstances of this court has regularly noted that there is no objective standard defined by the agency to let the court the target of whether or not exceptional circumstances got that a claim of abuse of discretion is where only covered by that stature you're going to get just right we don't make statutes go away by saying every discretion and that really just brings everything within the scope of the you can't review discretionary decisions because well your honor once again i earlier this year one of the cases are again just comes up actually does talk about what are some of the things they would consider exceptional circumstances and what it looks at essentially is whether there's been a fundamental change that the facts the respondent in the case eligibility for relief and in this case that was met matter you did look also at matter of x you dealt with you and we think that that does provide some sort of a framework for what they're looking for in terms of what constitutes an exceptional circumstance that's also consistent with the often repeated consistent with the regulatory expression for change country conditions for asylum if it becomes apparent because of an external change that there's been a fundamental change that makes the alien eligible for immediate relief and that has been sufficient for the board and their decision in this case provides no explanation as to why they depart from that in this case the petitioner was immediately eligible for relief priority became current he was grandfathered and fifty five i and there is no explanation of the board's decision why that did not constitute a type of exceptional circumstance that they would consider in deciding to reopen the proceedings to allow him to adjust the status can make an additional sentence just bring the evidence that was submitted or something to the effect that we looked at the entire record they provided no explanation no context there is no  there is no explanation whatsoever as to why they declined to exercise discretion and that's what we're asking this court to determine is insufficient for the agency to actually carry out its duty of looking at the arguments presented and the evidence before it was closed basically because he has a removal order he's now with all that basis but i just wanted to clarify that for the court and finally the on a related note regarding the availability of i believe in gaining equities by remaining in the country that provision of law that statute just allows people to be grandfathered so he's actually availing himself of the weight of the statute as written and did not gain any driver additional time for a stop time report recently like that i think you are in the times
morning your honor is my name is jerry and i represent the petitioner marie and your honors i think that this is a very interesting case and really a very satisfying case from the petitioners perspective because i think that the two main for an end to be found to be engaging and alien smuggling there must be knowledge of a smuggling scheme plus an overt act and further and some of the smuggling you know smuggling doesn't mean what improperly that's absolutely true i'm kind of at a loss as to how we could stayed at the immigration judge couldn't possibly have concluded that that statute was violated when the facts are these people travel together to mexico on vacation one of the people is a three and a half year old and they're coming back white why couldn't a reasonable person find that he assisted the youngster in coming back well there's nothing in the record i mean i think you could i'm sure you would assume that the father would right well they were travelling together they did go on vacation but i don't there's nothing really the shuttle affirmative act of assistance in the record we were paying a smuggler you know encouraging somebody to come over from from mexico illegally and telling a person you know if you can make it over the border illegally from mexico i'll give you a job i'll give you a place to stay if at the time of the final administrative order from the front of the i a e a the person can prove that at that moment they have ten years of good moral character then they qualify for cancellation of removal and this case if you assume that it was smuggling of what  say from this incident very ninety three this man has never is a good man he's respected in the community he has three children that are united states citizens he's had the same job for more than fifteen years now so he's doing something right in a stepfather's decision to go and regularize of birth certificate of his stepson to show himself as the father that's kind of tough to me to for the for even the government to make an argument that true week vacation he took a to return and they did so without any it's not like i had a visa or a valid border crossing car they had nothing they went to mexico and the only way to come back would be to come back in violation of los cases are submitted at this time on the briefs next case then to be argued is zero five five six two three five and zero five five six three went to united states versus park place associates ltd each side
charges if anybody understands what the elements are of a bank robbery mr kampar seems to me to be a pretty good candidate for an experienced defending on this previously he's been convicted in the same time of these charges before waived representation at the parole revocation hearing and preferring instead to have a psychologist appearances representative at the prong revocation proceeding is that a right that can be waived it can be but it didn't and i'm glad that you raised that issue because i was going to say ok the question manual mandates that in order for someone to rai a specific inquiry into the status of the defendant's knowledge and understanding at the time of the purported waiver will i was to determine whether erskin opted to forego counsel with eyes open and you'll have to month before the hearing where he indicates they selecting to be represented by the psychologist the documents from the hearing itself the parole guidelines worksheet and revoke patient hearing checklist specifically advi and the result is a in favor of the government because the burden is on the defense it's as if the government is in the position of the defendant in the most cases where it was a trial and i'm assuming let's assume that we say he carried the burd
talk about from the beginning is the application of the course decision has been on a good two years because that decision holds that legalisation applicants need not comply with the regulations that require obtaining think you can because it simply is a question of construing the reach of the court's own precedents and this is the interesting heart of this case because in our brief we attempted to provide the court with a road map through the complicated journey of  this much is clear that by the time the immigration judge ruled in the summer of one nine hundred ninety nine was one ronald litigation had been concluded the previous year and the outcome of that litigation was that the only bona fide persons who fell within the original statutory deadline imposed by the i r c a for filing legalization applications so the default position as i said before is rosenberg vs flutie which holds that someone who is here in the us is not held to have departed or have made an entry upon returning if the visit overseas was brief casual and innocent i we point out in our brief that my that the petitioners  brief before this court does not really come to grips with that issue there may be a waiver of it but i suggest to you that we think that the analysis should focus on the word innocent and then you have to examine the evidence of record was innocent and so the question is whether innocence also depends on whether you know when you when you leave the u s what your requirements are thick and i think that the i think that innocence should love the i i think that the rules were probably the truth the same all along your honor we might get mistaken interpretations by those rules by ins officers but the other piece of evidence that you should pay attention to  before you left for mexico and she said no it was an emergency i didn't do it i didn't think i had to do it so i didn't do it apparently she developed a belief on her own that because it was an emergency visit and i did i do not dispute that it was she denied that she she said i don't remember applying for that there's a stamp on the lower right hand corner of the document that said that she actually used a sheet she used to come back into the us in may of one nine hundred ninety one she first tonight that she had ever done that and simply she knew it was wrong too i stoop to two points in response to that your honor first there is of course the basic principle that the people are held to know the requirements of the law i president doesn't mean the defense of the true it just means without a lawyer they never thought of it that's that's correct your honor i mean it's simply a question of what evidence you put the most weight on i think in this case the immigration judg
make the injured whole and more importantly to deter future civil rights violations there is only because this court they can see that this court a summary judgment decision secret of and many people many employees know that but very few speak out the reason it's not because they don't know the right from wrong but employees former colleagues in my case they look at it say the lawyer would tell them no you can only you will be have a day in court because that's what i told him an effort looking for for counsel those victims who were pursuing justice long time ago but many of them didn't come forward only after something happened and i and i you can think about this is the lots of other victims to have just to have a new trial and of a kind of judgment thank you thank you the opposing party is submitting on their papers more argument thank you very much thank you the last two cases
license or if you're if you operate in nursing home you are in fact have a duty to the residents of the nursing home provide the proper care and your own bible for any negligence of any of your employees or services just to make it specifically you're saying because the nursing home care act trumps the liability on the part of an employee for the conduct of another person and that's not what we have here we sued the nursing home for its neighbors is the feeling here for the patients that the home was laughable for negligence in treating and caring for you if that point did not limit its holding to situations where a doctor had in fact prescribed care that the nursing home did carry out there's he would again he got the nursing home care because a doctor doesn't prescribe every act all day long people who work in the nursing home e except is otherwise provided by statute so there's an exception immediately in the prohibitory language to this section how do you respond to the argument it's clear that the legislatures of of this language sh does the nursing home care it from general provisions of the toward immunity act because of that language except as otherwise provided i don't get the arguments very simple otherwise provided is in the nursing home what i think that in this case the necessity for turning a reviews issue so the nursing home to leave somebody in a position indefinitely never move them they're going to say we're not liable because we didn't know there was a problem in it that is really out of the specifics of the that from my experience all of just being in these facilities all the time which a lot that i learn all the time ok if so you're saying that diagnosis is to creating a care plan yes and so who would have done that that would have been