MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
i don't think that's the question the question has to do with with harmless error in a sense because i think it's to me that the statements should be suppressed why is the result that at least some of the statements should be suppressed right so even if we don't agree with anything that the defense has raised other than the things you already have conceded and agree with we have it is rather how we interpret that does that mean in part of the motion to suppress is allowed on appeal or does he have to win everything to be allowed to withdraw his plea under that paragraph i think that's a reasonable will be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea so statements are part of that clearly and if you prevails but how much to see after prevail i'm really asking what the bargain was how we should make the government live by  or how how we should enforce this bargain when it's from your own sitting it out some of this appeal should be successful he should prevail at least in part even under your own mean there's you know in this case they weren't looking at a state current possibility i mean the worst saying this this seems to be the guy who just robbed the seven eleven and oh by the way he's also here illegally if there was nothing
corporate staff at the end  specifically say dead it's a hospital setting
changed it thank you or thank you very much
if what she said was true that her husband was involved in political activities some decades after her family had been have been targeted and that she was only target when she went to the police station to inquire about her husband the there was there was no severe or serious physical harm to that applicant but and in this case there is no evidence that can help the conclusion that she was and this vicar was seriously but but the fact it would have to be brought first of the board of immigration appeals or the immigration judge whether i don't think that she could do that at this late stage that i'm i should be granted humanitarian but i could not be done in the first instance by this  half the question was what line fourteen in the ten years that you looked at him her husband did he participate and instructions against the government yes question ok how many times answers they nine question did you ever see your brothers again after that after they were in prison one more time i saw them twice all together question if you see them anymore after the trial yes there was only the other ones not the other one question do you know what they did israel yes or yes yes to their bodies they didn't give them
proof issues excuse me i'm sorry your honor three burden of proof issues so one reason is because the court in the very beginning of its first order talks about the amount of evidence that was presented on its initial observations and then talks about what was to come but there's nothing in the record itself by go with look at the record and cried and read the record that puts any flesh wound bed seventy five percent figure i'll do that representation offering circular had said sixty five percent would you then thought it was appropriate to have sixty five percent  seventy five percent margins in a drone you know part business like this week is is is these guys in fact trance support achieve seventy five percent margins they're not an performers they reason i think it's very important for the court to understand that there was very strong evidence in this case supporting the taxpayers position on cost of goods sold and i would specifically ask the court to look at a joint appendix record six fifty seven which is a chart which which indicates the historic sales and purchases of this company a twenty foundation for this exhibit months exhibit shows there were twenty year period this company achieved gross profits of about thirty percent which is in line with what it reported which is in line with how are you supposed to
think you stated it fairly succinctly judge nelson i do not currently have any questions all right i've got questions for the other side because i think it's unusual for an issue of intent to be resolved on a rest it's up to you mr marcus that you could you could preserve all the rest of your time for rebuttal which may be in your interest if you wish your honor i would proceed with just a little more discussion about that i the twelve month rule that i discussed earlier i discussed how ferguson's implementation of the twelve month rule and signature was done with the intent to avoid the earn out under kentucky's definition of an open ten or twelve month rule also winds itself to another error in the district court's opinion dismissing the committee complaint that is the district  we don't know the twelve month rule and these are facts again mr butler told ferguson vice president of the problems the twelve month rule was created for the business and in response ferguson promise to repeal the really a separate provision that if if a party believes they have a claim for and then for cation they get notice and once a notice is given there has to be an objection a separate it's a whole separate provision separate from the rest of the contract and isn't isn't that just a specific provision about  the district judge said that it could not proceed because the contract provisions were not breached but i see this is a separate provision separate promises separate obligations of  a claim for navigation notice objection and this and then they say well we gave notice but there is no objection and therefore under this paragraph we are entitled to them for cation irrespective of the  go ahead i'm sorry to interrupt you quite all right here on read it seems to me too to rest on saying you haven't even sled anything sufficient to permit this case to go forward plausibility is a judgement but again it makes no sense that ferguson paid one hundred and ten million dollars for a company and intentionally taken steps to destroy the profitability of the company for the sole shifted from signature to ferguson it i mean is it isn't i mean the money still comes in but if it's allocated to signature then you're you're required to pay that is this bonus payment but if that money is allocated to ferguson you're not and why as well as not plausible that you're really doing this twelve month rule and these other things really is a bookkeeping mechanism just to sort of profit shifts that's all wires for example most of the decisions d are cited in signatures three involve cases where there were other restrictions with respect to the earth this one  concerned and i think ultimately you may be right in the case but i'm not sure whether a motion to dismiss states you really have enough here to say this is not they don't have a  twelve month rule remember that rule not reduce the amount of money its signature me but it artificially depressed signatures trading profit which they ferguson millions of dollars because the trading profit was
was calling evidence that there was that there was some other party involved is unspecific assertions by less adams that she was told something about what was fica is not there when that happens now after the judgment  foreclosure was entered there was some references to wells fargo however at the time that the judgment was entered the evidence before the record including importantly the original note that was brought to court so that was very quick to point out that
treated it like a bench trial so instead of doing the balancing ask him whether there was sufficient evidence from which one who concluded that there is a liability of the defendants we believe there was cars because there was no way for them to get into the car without having to counter this condition so that they also on the other for you know with regard to urbanization to determine whether the the type of questions on natural versus natural laugh at the time that the plaintiff was leaving to go get his car in the garage so how are we supposed to know that he didn't do the job if he was supposed to do it and i'm assuming your point for just a moment are we he decides who's going to do his job if you didn't do it completely how are we supposed to know that he didn't do it completely if he was just in the process of leaving when the point of fell so i hope there would be good enough time for us to even know th this type of a market it means it's been there for a long time and didn't you mewling that day in the blizzard like conditions that people testifying to the way you care i mean for for people that live in the florida that you live in or
the need to bring the blessings of understanding to the families and friends in this and other lands of those who have given their lives that bend and women can be free granted or god and those closest to the fall and  pain of their losses with the ennobling wind up sacrifice for civilization sacrifice for a better world for then another generations yet unborn branches to god the courage to so  and while they have a feeling this are usually here it is important to remember that that's the offending us three hundred sixty five days a year the heroism that has been demonstrated time and again by veterans from the american level revolution of the global war on terrorism sometimes unnoticed by those of us enjoy the security that their sacrifice has provided our veterans military spouses have had to into a career interruptions frequent changes of the press and a disproportionate share of parental responsibility and children are asked to deal with changes in is currently defending us in the global war on terrorism and yet many seem content trying to balance the federal budget by diminishing the quality of life programs assigned to the families who have already disproportionately sacrifice today the american legion the spiting to remind congress and the white house of the free promise to not balance the budget on the backs of veterans  forget their sacrifice and i urge you to keep our veterans and their families especially never return in had thoughts and prayers for those that are serving in harm's way today for their safe return so so hopefully they can celebrate bench stay here with us next year thank you very much i'll simply echo thanks everyone the cheer specially the next generation so i will be ready to hand it off to you guys protect the football for as taught us the lesson of the medi come in the game is more than the player and the ship is more than the crew there is a greater discipline we must now pursue and we are to preserve this virtue of obedience in our quest for an honorable world  that is obedience to the laws we ourselves make the voluntary discipline of citizenship under our system of government we maintain the laws by majority rule we may persuade our neighbors to new theories or new porsches we may advocate real action the choice to veterans or plant as good citizens we follow the choice of the majority whether that choice be be individual or not this is the virtue of discipline which must be ours and this is the lesson we must learn at home in school on the playing field in organizations in the community and the nation it is the lesson voluntary obedience to the decisions of the majority we must not be on mine who either of the conclusions of other people with whom we have joined in the quest for an honorable world this is the highest order nation in a peaceful world like the are for a moment of silence
to review of anybody of an average individual including me indicates that they're not similar and in fact the date read by the immigration judge is wrong it starts for twenty four which is on the second page prepared by the preparer the immigration judge use that as is the principal mode of attacking the veracity and viability of my client's claim the second part which the government even i mean their story that they haven't talked to separated from were so upset when they landed in this country and one of them was talking of the country and the other one was in los angeles and couldn't even be sure they could showed up at the hearing because he didn't have any application was mailed by the preparer one brother that's rich in the became a truck driver my client stayed in southern california both their applications went through the system right when my brother was refer member did they say to him how come you have a picture of your brother in here and give him a chance to answer well i think time that you know that question yes and no well not at the time that he testified there was no indication he identified the photos that's photos of his own injuries never testified that   additionally the immigration judge found that it was impossible that the local police would have randomly stops mr kumar in the street and ask him to aid their investigation in finding alleged local terrorists find them plus about the second implausibility was that the terrorist would naming the man who turned him in and say this is a terrorist go after him that's the second one the one that we were having this statement from an alleged terrorist then i rest mr kumar and persecute him just based on simply the statement in no other background he never testified that he was involved in any sort of activity  either arrested or persecuted on account of any particular that's true but it makes it makes more plausible things that may not be plausible in the orderly that that may be correct your honor but the immigration judge specific finding was that notwithstanding the tactics that are used by the police in this particular area there is no indication that mr kumar would have been persecuted on account of any protected grounds notwithstanding the fact that he may have been arrested a direct well founded fear of future persecution not relying on a presumption because you establish a well founded fear based on what happened because of that is if you do that and you the immigration
aware of them to inquire about game biased because he did ask one or two g b the jury selection process it's not a situation where counsel was trying to downplay or minimize the whole  fundamental right to a fair trial was violated so i believe is just it's just i mentioned we have to look at it within the purview of strickland which is did the defendant make a substantial showing of constitutional violation potential jury bias prejudice should be presumed their argument has been rejected by the illinois supreme court twice both the people of the manning and being people in that camp in both of those cases the defendant argue that  girl i mean how do the how possibly justify a dash trial strategy if you were strategy and i didn't do it with the first group then it would seem to be strategy for the the defendant were both sure you know gamers you could argue that that is not necessarily a deciding factor as to whether or not the council is deficient so really what we have here is we have evidence that we have when he when he when he talked to the police where he was where he tagged the areas that areas matched up with where they found the game evidence tag and he also indicated from what angle that they shot the window  notations on the pictures showing how they did the angle where they fled and things of their nature that coorong rated much of the decline in statement this is evidence is overwhelming to find that the defendant was guilty  impartial yes i can put aside any friendships or in you know notions that i might have and decide to take on the evidence presented so in terms of whether or not he struck overnight counsel's questioning indicate that he was aware that there believe that the question was he was friends with a single over by the department and that department might have been assisting the other on the other agencies that aren't that were involved we should be looking at whether to defend the council's actions were without with no basis and have has no legal basis in and determining whether or not it was appropriate or not then if there is no further question
you're you're representing to us that you are counsel of record and that as an attorney you are representing the bank of louisiana yourself sherry scott and john crow is that right think ok i just want to be sure that i understand that you're you're here as an attorney representing the bank of louisiana and yourself and sherry scott and johnny crowe all of and they were addressed by a board and then they were raised to discard on appeal by plaintiffs now di case is on remained back to the agency because the supreme court has decided  o'jays have to be appointed by the head of a department so after luci idea of the i c to board the head of its department appointed and the agency we asked the court to remember a case for a new hearing before the new s and it's not only are that some of the issues were not raised in the first in forstmann proceedings like the issue wasn't raised there but it could have been raised just the way they raised it in the second one   the second factor is also not meant the claims in this case are not wholly collateral to the unfortunate proceedings in fact because they were raised in the important proceedings there are by definition not collateral  i'm like and i'm like him because boy the investigation here did result in the notice of charges and we now have a proceeding ongoing proceeding in which don't these issues have been raised or can be raised so we cannot be wholly collateral it's only when there is no possibility for somebody to raise the issue in the eight before the agency would be wholly collateral and i think it can happen to this court and if the court finds the need for more discovery it could send for more and that's what elkins has do because the same issue was will get enough discovery and agencies proceedings are now going said yes because the court of appeals can always always remain for more letter i briefly glanced at it it was filed after i had left for new orleans so i did didn't get it while i was a work i did briefly glance at it i think it's just in our response to their motion for remain and i think different courts with different jurisdictions for how to deal with those issues but they're not they don't involve our statute so there would be no base it's to conclude that congress directed that f d a sees issues of age discrimination should be was addressing the discrimination claim would have to look at whether the agency had would have taken the action anyway even regard less of the discrimination that the supreme court and this court has hel that even when there might be a discriminatory mup motive in undertaking an action if the action would have been taken anyway then it's not unconstitutional and for that reason a part of addressing the agency's expertise and inelegant a supreme court said that if one of the constitutional claims involves the agency's expertise even if not all of them do because
to any bond hearing which would involve an electronic detention system the court has to examine whether the rules of that particular jurisdiction in  we do do do we pose that on the corner as a part of this bond reduction i do not believe that we do because i believe that the statute refer to the left on supervision  any one cor the state is required to inform the defendant when the defendant asks for and receives it by that his days at home will not count against  whenever it can bring this issue before
i beg your pardon for yeah oh i'm sorry i didn't know what i was lyin our fortunes of war are rather poor fortune in my case you were a soldier a marine tower the japanese is the one side well mrs eyes now this is just a practice troll we're still training each other you live around here just up the road or perhaps you know a fellow in this neighborhood name thanks thanks ok boy picked up here to escape prisoners i've got a couple of men telling them no i don't want to bring them in yet i'm gonna let them run around a while i might lead to something not on where i don't go to bed but you brother what did the us government ever do for you nothing that's right now then back to the government what's that brother he said what right have you got to attack the government the right to free speech free man and you sneak back to germany you have close your mouth during court she's just a doom for you german soldiers prisoners or a german woman i hope you don't expect me to help you you may overwhelm temporarily with your planes and tanks and money but you'll see we'll win in the end so we first make them hate the jews then we make them hate the catholics then we make them hate the protestants and when they're also busy fighting each other we take over it so conferences of jews and christians are doing a magnificent job they fight racial hatred they fight everything you stand for magnificent job we germans have spent years planning our ideas race hatred religious antagonism class hatred before show all right let's go so you can hold your sunday services tomorrow that's wonderfully kind of my we're going to need all the help we can get i'm truly sorry but the people of all religions are injured by an attack on any one religion call on me for anything i can do what you've done here my friend moves me very deeply what can i say to let you know all that i feel you've been mighty good neighbor i wish every community good have the same good fellowship and mutual respect that we have in our town you have shown that although we worship god in different ways do we worship the same god and we are brothers in spirit yesterday hatred destroyed our church but now with your love and labor you've made it beautiful i think that's the parable of the word hatred destroys people a nation but the hope of the world lies in the sympathy and understanding that each group has for the problems of the other protestants catholics and jews need each other to make our cit strong i believe that in the whole world as well as in our nation in spite of all differences we can build a more just and humane society christians and jews white that we have in common and work together as american citizens because it's our common humanity binds us together with teamwork we can make the american dream come true
all right let's go to the m i guess we're a little jumpy with this thing was over