MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
is actually a volunteer organization run by the community completely hundred percent run by the community and it was set up to serve the town of belmont by providing nonperishable food items to bella residents who are in need they may be in down in their day to day living as you know you can use the food stamps to get your milk you need your vegetables and what having a food pantry enables them to put more towards that they can get their known perishable food  was in the past we have to limit all of our items and the reason for that is that we have people come and our before the pantries open and standing in line waiting to be the first in line to get what they need and then we have people who come and are at the end of the line well it's not fair to me for the first five people to get everything and then nothing would be up for the people who come at the end of the line so it's time to stretch it out so that everyone gets day to day basis that you cannot purchase for food stamps and so it's really nice when you know we did a lot of those items also do productive to do so i came down to a sort of an orientation meeting and i've been volunteering for since i actually just started in two thousand and eight i saw the website back in december i just decided  years ago we started working with patty to try and provide a way for sixth graders and also high schoolers to perform some community service since the food pantry was behind the high school we thought this would be a great time for us to take on an extra one basket if you wanted to help me this is something i have to do and so you helping me to help everyone else so you know no matter how small it is it's helping the whole i come the two saturday mornings our church that most of the people are fairly affluent and it's easy to think that the whole town you know has money and it's it's kind of town with because of the taxes where i actually had a longtime residents who have started coming to use the pantry if they do march wars march i think a lot of people don't understand that there are people that may be unemployed or underemployed even for a short amount of time that can be ted a structure to their family and to be able to have something that we're providing we as a town are providing without having to go to outside governmental agencies museums a great a great thing you can't assume that everyone who lives in belmont can afford  groceries can afford to live here and that's the same thing that's happening in every community on even wellesley has had a food pantry for much much longer and that's you know it's so it's not an inner city issue really important thing and it's important for people to see that what they contribute some place and is really providing a service starting here in your community is a great way to get involved you know coming down helping the saturday supporting any of
motion to reopen through the board we could have submitted a motion to reconsider as well we felt strongly enough with the appeal that we have on the record
certainly and thank you for the information unfortunately i need to start my remarks by making a correction to the record on page forty five of our opening greve the she had a reasonable basis for their belief that would not be an abuse of the privilege and on that basis we would not be able to proceed we also argue that there is an improper motive behind m mr mueller stressed to moni remember mr dodson asserts that there are numerous occasions that staff comes to him and makes and informs him of the basis for his belief for these these statements of inten the material question it's not a citing a case for that principle nor is that principle as you stated it our position is not it's not the inability to remember others it's the fact that the sole person that is of benefit testifies completely opposite in other words identify who ever you can as to this if you identify this person we go and talk to that person and we  that at the end of the campaign not at the beginning that's important because now let's turn to much testimony where he is talking about initially in the campaign this campaign goes for essentially or the sales campaign whereby sales people are line thirteen i think there was a lot of during this time there was a lot of depending on what the point what point of the campaign we were in but initially initially when that was the case when we would collect when we would  can't read when we could not collect we pulled advertising out of the book he says it does not flatly contradict any way shape or form so quick word on the personal grudge issue  started because he was a credit manager and he was looking at one point five million dollars of bad debt in a book that was multiple times higher than any other book including much larger markets seventeen i was told on numerous occasions that they were told they could not pull accounts who told you that various salespeople and managers let's start with the first one that you that told you that who was that i don't remember the first one well let's talk about anyone give me any sales manager you know it's been a long time ago generally talked about elevators parking garage can you remember anybody that told you that were on the page twenty five yeah i think i can and who but i'd be going to be speculating what's your signal or not there's an instruction from counsel don't speculate on line fourteen witness ok acknowledging he shouldn't speculate  on page one o five specifically i'm sorry i misspoke once thank you one fifty five and it's it's on page six of the testimony there it's essentially the entire page i won't read it in the record but i get to a jury and the jury gets to decide which of those inference to this is the truth you
state felony drug conviction constitutes a drug trafficking crime and therefore an aggravating if balinese under the immigration and nationality act even though that same offense if the prosecutor under federal law could only be considered a misdemeanor now the petitioner was convicted in arizona a question of dangerous drugs a felony for which he was sentenced to two point five years he was charged by then immigration naturalization service has been removable as a person convicted of a controlled substance of facts petitioner concede it remove ability and apply for purposes under section one hundred one eight forty three capital b that section itself refers to us in part drug trafficking quine as defined under nine twenty four c two now nine twenty one u s c eight zero two subsection thirteen as the definitional source of what constitutes a drug trafficking crime why why is that incorrect while the number of reasons but to a special recently in but in the highest levels reese case which dealt with guideline definition the confusion here comes from the fact that the same definition is referenced in the guy in the sentencing guidelines an exact same words  supreme court has long recognized that the same words in a different context and for different purposes can be interpreted differently but the purpose of sentencing guidelines dealing with criminal re content of that of what is a drug trafficking crime and just the additional problems with the use of that first of all as i mentioned younis it's a break from previous twelve year a board position on not be considered aggravated felons so yes it's very difficult and perhaps cannot be reached but still under constant contest constitutional obligation to work towards that and i think the hypothetical felony rule at least provides a basis for that analysis second of all the legislative history obviously the board can change its position on many questions of law but it has no no particular your honor at this court has found that there is no jurisdiction over constitutional questions in light of twelve forty two twelve fifty two a tuesday so that would be a question t well that's true you are the government will look and see that thank you but in so doing this it's that's a decision for congress to make congress has decided that it will use the definition of the criminal death definition of the just trafficking crime as the basis for mobile court is congress otherwise which is which well the government apologizes it if it has been mis understood by the board made the change because and looking at the circuits interpretation of eighteen u s c nine twenty four it determined that the purpose of immigration uniformly was unavailable so it decided that for immigration
you suggesting that there's a basis for distinction between the prior decisions in this case that would allow our court panel that is to rule in your favor  well ordinarily that in that situation the only recourse for appellant would be to petition the whole court to rehear the case and bank to reconsider our prior precedent but i just reason why he didn't raise this issue in his original immigration proceeding so even according to the regular described article three courts he can waive where he can no longer bring forth the subject twelve a there is nothing in that section that indicates
material fact it was something that came before and if you read the deposition as i pointed out in the brief what he says in october tenth of two thousand and one is now if i cut them in the fraction speaking about october tenth whereas august of two thousand enough a denial is not enough what informed our opinion that there was a substantial showing initially was that there was like ten cases that came forward where the exact same language was used by the office of the same office and that he had done  immeasurably but the judge did rule it was going to come in well you're making the allegation there's a false affidavit by officer grant is not what you say that is correct and what is the showing that you have made that officer gran here there's nothing that the stablish is or even raises an inference that there's the falsity if we're looking for substantial showing that require some sort of corroboration or some officer certainly has it coming forward and saying that it didn't the officer gets an inference that even if my client's telling the truth somebody else must have thrown that in the trash we don't get an inference that my client says that he didn't throw anything in the trash and therefore there was nothing in the trash and that seems to me that would be better or better know somebody from the street i don't have any other independent corroboration i can't change the facts and you know i certainly don't have anything other than what mr di there were a lot of other people that made this allegation against this officer at that time and the officer used identical says it was growing for personal use under prop two things so that he was the only person growing so there was not likely to be any informants basically after grant had no other basis for believ buildings were getting power from the scene and a single bill was not right this is a single bill for the entire property which included the buildings in the main house i believe the record is silent as to whether it was a single bill it's in the back when we were doing our search we weren't looking for numbers we were trying to he had a record of three felonies they were trying to get them secure the residence quickly and secure all parties there and they said they didn't see it and there's no nothing of the what's your response i think outbuilding is not the clearest term in the world i think it suggests the building that was in this case i don't think marijuana should not necessarily be used to bootstrap and why information was developing should be viewed as legitimate or not legitimate secondly this body found cuttings in the garbage i don't believe that he did find cuttings in the garbage if you believe that
photographs but part of my problem was i read the transcript and then try and match them against the transcripts that does seem the court very carefully looked  with evidence was being proffered and i'm trying to understand exactly what these pictures supposed to tell us because i look at the shot there the first of all the court seemed troubled by the shots from the driver's line and the arguments seem to focus on struts into the car from the passenger side correct that's what we're looking at th when this started i got out of the car and so it becomes relevant to whether it could have been seen from either the passenger side or the driver think that that makes the officers testimony incredible the deputies and working gang suppression what's important about seven states the specifics of testifies of what that meat is that they do not respond to other non gang related activities which presumably would include a traffic stop that they don't respond to that they responded to this one because they were gang days they were identified as gang members and that's why the officers responded t the reason for making this stuff that there was no traffic infraction put in objective evidence of photographs to show to impeach with they could see that are you walking away from the photograph after what then would you please answer my question at the beginning is what are the i listen i read the transcript in the court is looking at the same photograph and saying i don't think they prove your case this case now that's taking out some of your so called or i'm calling it objective evidence any of these photographs what shows that why there's no there's no gun shown in these one way or the other so i don't know what the photographs are supposed to tell me well how can i look at this i can see i can see on exhibit three i can see the leading edge of the grabber side seat adjustment mechanism so what is it about this photograph of them and they don't seem to be
mean he is he's being portrayed by the government as public enemy number one in a sense so i don't know how they can possibly say that his fear is one supported return or it's very specific  without minimizing the harms the conditions there were kind of garden variety magazine place lack of adequate food no recreation no exercise things of that nature in the
n you're hung up on judge hanson i understood that the the nine hundred ninety six applications for a certificate of probable cause respond his reading of those is there an attempt to reopen their appeal there saying i'm entitled to a file to file for a late appeal under this doctrine of constructive notice or i have a good excuse for not filing my appeal therefore you should now let me file an appeal it was really not an attempt to get a review of the motion the denial the motion that's response reading of it correct that that williams was speaking to for the first time start his appeal and it's important to look at when he files with that application purser to get a probable cause he's seeking appointment of counsel for something that you don't get in a collateral of having first a habeas corpus he's saying now i want to go with my appeal i missed my chance to do it i have a good excuse i should be allowed to file my first appeal as of right and then end up withdrawing a guilty plea whatever could i'd like to just point out to the currently in the district court a resolution of this case that this excerpt a record of page one forty the district court resolved the factual issue of what that document was in respondent twenty ninety seven if that's that would be the conclusion of for lack of a better word a round overview or it could be you could call it the end of his appeal process and then we start respondants position here is that it's the twelve eight hundred ninety seven day is the day that the first state court heaviest petition is filed in the trial court and just for purposes of our discussion if we're talking about this in terms of gaap polling which looking at this rate a mandate and kerry versus southwold that read a mandate had a specific time period limitations on it on which it was final unlike the california state heaviest proceedings which  denial of his last they'd had these proceedings to have been timely he would have had will file this federal petition by november twenty first two thousand and we don't have the first petition until february sixteenth two thousand and one one hundred and one hundred and thirteen days and then it was beyond that that we get the first pages petition and that's why we presented these arguments in the alternative it's one of those issues where you don't even necessarily you got that seven twenty date where it is either want it cited the end of direct review or at the end of one round overview based on california's procedural rules for responding and unless the court has
so there's a distinction that's certainly true but the problem here is that the state's position means that they can operate over years under any
be granted or should be applied but in that case in garcia and in the mark of a check of the other leading board present there was and an application filed the holding in those cases was that in certain circumstance united states now what can we do for them i think that i mean i take my colleagues at their word i i assume it's true that mr garcia is a u s citizen and i'm basis of something that happened post record i mean when we're back to that problem this is the gaining of us citizenship by mr all that happened after the immigration and i understand that and i know so i i guess i'm stuck of it your honor i don't quite know what i understand the you file a petition for review of the underlying deportation order that freezes your voluntary departure period the order in question here is not the order that you have before you now it's the earlier border and they didn't file a petition for review in that case so the voluntary departure clock ran and expired if my memory is right on may twenty ninth two thousand and two so they would be subject i think to the to the penalties for failure to comply with a voluntary departure period i think there are waiver provisions in place that they could seek a waiver on the mexico side of the border i think they could they could seek a waiver from the u s consular from the attorney general to come back and not families not you know torn apart yes i will i will use that with the court which is me to do to communicate with you by letter upon my return to washington is that what you wish me to do well we have several
garcia informs his counsel on the record that he satisfy these requirements in two ways first by affirming an asylum application that indicated that he came the united states numerous times guess i don't know how to answer that question  make which is that the government stressed in its rebuttal argument that there is no authority for this court stating its mandate and i have argued this point in my brief and i believe it's absolutely clear that there are at least two cases in this circuit which allow for
to st of all why you didn't engage the district court statute of limitation ruling and what is your argument sure it would be the district court said with respect to ninety three dollars claimed that the statue limitations issue was the same as all the other argument on it so is your point then that every time the alleged violation is a failure to disclose a ninety three a claim that alleges that that there's equitable to argue that absolutely that until you are known only until you become aware there's this is this is classic to so that rules apply really in any in any case where it's deception yes or m k shara negligence anything w figure out where the arguments might go here because it's very hard to tell that from the opening brief i suspect you apply it to a massachusetts attorney general regulation that somebody says you need to disclose certain types of defects when they exist and if they don't it and if you don't do circuit for that matter that addresses the issue so basically for statute of limitations period without some sort special relationship between these parties which the judge noted was interest so it's a commercial transaction disclose in the st place and that is of course that would be argued below and mr garrett if he takes that on at all barely does so by setting to this statute but with judges ruling the world easily deals with any begin with which is really the only basis that i hear being raised for for approval polling on the statute of limitations again a technical service littleton is just like an extension of a repair manual if you had to  it doesn't say there's any safety problems it just says if someone comes in with this problem this is how you can try to fix it and that's all it says and with that as the only thing played in the complaint the district court correctly required in this nice this is a case where they have a duty to disclose and then to disclose arises either when the car comes off the lot whether it's five years down the road when we're out of warranty or fifteen years down the road there's no time limitation for when that  to because we have no basis at this point to challenge that the court's decision on the on the warranty claims so they're now being rewarded for not disclosing this  thank you we're going to take a recess counsel in x case should be prepared to go within five minutes
start serving and sever my identity became so tied up with serving and serving with a stimulus so strong you know it was really good for you physically plus it got me going through the motions of finding things exploring senses are just barraged by energy i mean you know for twelve years and i still relate to it but it's not i don't you know i used to be a surfer you know first and foremost you know now i might think i'm really a nest qualities that are scribe to this is particular sign which is now i think it represents a person or an aspect of the personality of the evolving personality where it's reached not the final degree  i was in a period of taking a lot of the likely living in actually living me just the archetypal drop out existence in town here and when you're you know when you're taking psychedelic chemicals you really are sensitive to the fact what you normally recognise as being reality you know how your consciousness reacts to the every day because you know it's just a fraction of what's there and so usually kind of undertak search to find what you think is real life what isn't what will verify the experiences you've had you know taking these drugs and what doesn't and the trips i've taken can really stand that you know ten really were psychedelic experiences i just didn't take enough or i take too much in the wrong place you know you can really goofy things that's for sure if you're in a hung up i think these are times where if we're going to survive on a very large scale we have to stop acting blindly you know acting by impulse and but on an ego level and psychedelics if you if you relate to them as a sacrament you will have the experience more times than not that you expect of a sacrament like when i had my first communion i waited you know like i was so prime i had seven years old man that's another good thing about them they turn you on to levels of play that you'd never have the hair you know to break your facade in the need it it's in the organism you need to play you need to just get up and know your pal you know and go through a couple of  o you know and shit like that making faces real living link between myself and the rest of the human organism i believe in