MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
wall between the two buildings which would allow its end roof vent to come over the wall and actually purchase it on the other buildings portion of the common wall as well as the gutter and would encourage on the remaining top of the building of the owner of  amount of work or shoring up to allow to be built on top of this is going to come at a cost of about forty nine thousand dollars to shore up the party wall as well as just over twelve thousand dollars to remove and replace the roof on my client's building at that point my client bowed out and decided that it is too rich for his blood and this suit came about so and this it came about eventually in the spring of two thousand and seven senior across motions for summary judgment which were file not placed in the deed for no reason and the reason was to keep the status quo the roof existed at that point and that's what's the plaintiff's purchasing twenty thousand and that's the condition that the defendant purchased wording and there's an appropriate standard that should be applied in cases like this and that standard is that where an encroachment is slight and unintentional and the cost of removing it would be great and the corresponding benefit to the adjoining armor is small on the defendant has expressed that he is not willing to grant this permission so at this point the damages to defend it would be great and the benefits a point that would be slightly further appointed did have a cl law however they allowed that claim to be barred by a from running the statute of limitations now for that reason we believe that injunctive relief is not appropriate and the main case he cited i do want to address this was  suit now that the court found there was that first of all the approach meant was unintentional because it was done with permission and then the appellate court st district refused the injunction as there was a great many hours there was no newsman here by my client predecessor predecessor to do this he simply was asked and he permission to have this structure built to the improvement made by the licensee was partly for the benefit of the us it may have started as a license however when you accepted this language that includes that it's the property is subject to conditions the roof is a condition i think you've accepted the roof as a condition or then a reason is apparent work record i think when you
say why don't you call your shots when you think you are in the swimming pool pardon me my hair into your head i'll turn on the radio would excuse me that's all right department have asked us to broadcast if you want to strangle a dam has broken jail again he is a dangerous criminal and we ask you to keep a sharp lookout for all suspicious characters we thank  that radio i don't like it black coffee is not a crime in the county although i still shooting it dept is a crime in the county this is no type a joke he misses serious friends there is now a reward of ten thousand dollars offered for the that was me just wanted to be sure  there's some way we can fix this up so what are you trying to do bribe an officer
were able to adventure middle beach slow going toll on the southern tip of the island but i we brought in our wounded we took a breather on the beach with only a small part of the cost of respect the elders were dead in the realm of the four thousand men died take a tiny island somewhere in the
not see that as a significant lift
describing not only was he planning raising funds for this case you previously done for the restaurant where you go wrong downtown the restaurant that as counsel described i was losing money when it first came like a lot of restaurants when they start deposited earnest money he'd already done drawings he'd already retained counsel and then he approaches the letter and said this is where the concept is this is what we'd like to do with this building we'd like to get your ok but this they said no one of the other because he couldn't show us that he's got his money in a bank account well for his concept is if you're not going to be how do i go to my investors who i'm over in working with who've previously invested with me in another restaurant and go ahead and get this built i'm going to tell them  put the money aside make the investments and everything up and they'll keep your fingers crossed and hope that the landlord has already previously rejected another one who's produced an internal memo that says we can really get this program back nobody occupies it is going to go ahead and approve it him and he said hold up i've created a franchise first of all to a corporation present to read myself a parasite personal guarantee secondly on the side in this to a franchise e that's going to attempting to do relative to congress would products although i guess i shouldn't say the only thing is that the four who play for the two thousand five forcible does include a request for a grant but i don't know if that was directed at us early against fishman thousand dollars represents from the period of time in ga worry of two thousand and five to the end of march of two thousand and eight the amounts my client actually wrote checks for on a monthly basis to mr fishman mr fisher is award supposed to be a credit towards fishman because they were double down when it was brought to his attention on the motion to reconsider the transcript of that november i guess it was november third two thousand and eleven clearly he says i made a fortune on this property they introduced documentation that showed that they were losing somewhere between thirty forty thousand dollars a month by trying to operate this property in mitigation of their damages the they were attempting to they didn't want to be they didn't want to go out of business and stop paying them they produce too and in later a third possible new tenants take over this building and start paying mr fishman with mr fishman continuing pain and the way of the growing order i'm reasonably refused to consent and
decision and based on the previous factual record as opposed to a motion to reopen which makes the new hearing based on you or previously unavailable evidence in this case  oh you so you've made a motion to reopen not after the mother becomes became a permanent resident no i haven't but that's not really a changed circumstance that i that the board would consider i think change comes to condition it's a different regulation that i know there's a specific regulation that allows the the board to reopen on motion the that relates to change country circumstances around is there a different this is a basis for moving is less favorable to petitioners than one involving change country circumstance is that right actually i don't believe that there is a regulation that allows the filing of a motion there was no bias there and that they spanish language documents that she wanted just met and in fact that the second time before the board couldn't be considered without an english translation response to the final order of discipline by the u s department of justice which suspended him for a parallel five years that nominee did not respond to either complain negations and did not respond right so doesn't that lead logically to the conclusion that notifying him would have been futile no because sons of the law that's applicable the and there needs to be a mechanism for the board to evaluate whether for instance the petitioner is making certain claims of what a secretary in the office told her it would be very helpful to have a response from the
which i will discuss briefly alan white who emotionally abuse to us on appeal because there's no there's been no suggestion this morning and not much in the in the in the the new evidence the words the eyes decision that the new evidence wasn't sufficiently new  character and then another for the b and if she has been approved based on the same bus rule it's the same rule that applies to the vote cancellation your honor so i would like t
motion filed at that point was let's send this case back over to the board of immigration appeals we certainly have raised questions with the vote and essentially raising the question now no time limit is an exception that applies if the petitioner is arguing for recision and if he says he received no notice of the original hearing but if you look at the record that's exactly not what he argued unclean hands the petitioner committed fraud on the one hand the petitioner said that she was in and vancouver canada but then she admitted that no she was always in san jose and that was the problem what happened here was the petitioners own making she chose to withdraw her application for a song she chose not to appear three separate times at the hearing and then she waited three years to follow a motion to reopen so because of those that were these this course not reach the merits even if it got past those petition what he's trying to do is claim the benefits of the latter the continuance without the burden having to show up if that letter is not valid if that continuance letter from september to december is not valid then petitions should have shown up in september what she's trying to say is that she never got that letter not stamp a certified mail giving her a continuance well she never got the continuance and of course she should have shown up in september in the first place and she didn't and the september hearing she was notified of that through certified then you're right the ninety day rule does not apply what i'm saying is that really isn't the argument she tries to make it seem like that's for argument and her brief to this court but you look at pages thirty four and thirty five she expresses this claims the argument she says i'm making a matter of am asked arguments and that's why the ninety day rule still applies made those arguments not on his brief not in this court the only issue and the the most recent order by the court was the general counsel memorandum issue and that's not before this court petition has not raised any arguments relating to that ambiguity think the next page he clarifies it because the priest says she had in fact receive proper notice of the hearing via a properly served order to show cause but fail to appear for the scheduled hearing so i think that should constitute a waiver
determination is not supported by substantial evidence that i now agree with the government that the b i i specifically limited its decision to an adverse credibility its nomination based on realized omissions and to alleged and consistencies and therefore was to live and work in las vegas but he also told him that he feared being persecuted tortured if he were sent back to el salvador the border patrol officer did not ask him at that time why he feared being persecuted tortured if he returned el salvador in the jury question is on i did you leave your home country or country of last residence and the answer is to work and live in las vegas you know that and nothing added to that the th so it's the next days that a little time to shape up and it seems it is recorded but it seems to me and of the formulaic set of questions that are reasonable questions officer gets that yes no mark no no reason for the border patrol officer to continue with additional questions and that gets next file which is probably what happened here ok so basically agree with that but  you would think that would be the honest answer when you start out as opposed to perhaps when you get that follow up question he says oh ok this is where i better say ye why he would he fears persecuted persecution or torture if returned el salvador he would and he would have gotten the same answer that yes i almost forgot on august th a month later even  plausible why are we held to accept that explanation because we have to be compelled to accept it in order to ruin your own way that's that's the the standard going to the inconsistency about that that he was inconsistent about what age he knew that he was gay when he testified three times at the individual hearing that he knew that age seven that he preferred males a that the st time he knew that he was gay was when he was fourteen instead he testified to pages eighteen thousand one hundred and eighty one that he formally came out to his parents when he was fourteen but they already knew that he had been gazing she was a little boy and then he was specifically and so what do you the what's your response to your friends argument that the response to the question why did you leave your home country or country of last residence to work and live in las vegas shouldn't be held against the station or because it's obviously not an untrue statement that is one of the reasons and he says are a couple of questions  divulge what was going on with him but he did not do that twice he did say that he feared going back to his country during that in that one question but correct and also i thought i heard you say just before the last question that i was i asked him why do you fear and he didn't say something or are we a claim that this discrimination against him by the gang constitutes persecution which leads me to a larger point is that montoya found client here's what he suffered i asked persecution at age twenty six
is no record of what transpired at that hearing so you're telling me you don't know whether the judge ever certified by step like i don't believe it's not part of what the  but there's no agreed state in the facts filed in this case there's two separate bystanders report right so so here's the question if we have no report of proceedings in the record how can we ever find that but the trial judge did was against the manifest weight of the evidence that's a very good question of two or more acts of following monitoring observing surveilling threatening communicating or interfering or damaging to property or pets by responding yes to more act subject of an object in other words the petitioner should say these things either possible or more stressed and then the work should look at that and decide whether or not that testimony is something that worried because i guess part of one of the houses on the farm probably either not ready to be lived in a home or something i don't remember the exact reason but we were trying to be amicable and with something of i don't know the specific incident that it was related to because i don't believe that there was any communication between the
a spouse case unless there is a negative factor in which case there must be sufficient positive equities to outweigh the negative this court held and hernandez reliance on the not viability of  and that would have made him ineligible to adjust status as a matter of statutory construction the judge found as a discretionary matter they didn't merit the exercise of discretion base view that there was a history of spousal abuse v there were only three incidents that were described before the court all of which were documented by state court papers she had called the police got an initial protection order when she went to court to try to get that extended the court made a finding that there was no evidence or some alcohol having been a little drunk i guess and the police officer wrote in the court report no crime was committed those are the exact three incidents that are testified to some of the incidents are testified to by the sawyer what do we have express versus the immigration judge at the end of this decision it was soley denied in the exercise of the ministry of discretion this judge weighed several of the adverse factors against the positive factors he specifically noted significant adverse factors in this case being the conviction for disorderly conduct resulting from the incident when he threw the coffee mug into sawyer causing a gash in her forehead the history are other history indication attack obviously her intent was important and majesty you know testified that the reason that she continued on with the marriage even despite all the troubles they had had after he came to united states from russia was that she thought that she might be  council's statement that because he had never been charged with marriage fraud that showed that the judge wasn't ruling on inadmissibility that's really also in disability under section t your spouse case is presumptively granted and it's only if their son negative factors and then only if the positive factors are insufficient to outweigh the negative factors in this case because the negative factors we don't see as very substantial in light of the state court decisions in the police records we think that the positive factors clearly await if you took off these improper or negative factors that struck on the scale you couldn't come up with this kind of closure as to what counsel said about the judge relying on circumstantial evidence about looking at the computer or that sort of thing i don't believe that was what the testimony bonafide lack of bonafide on his part of he's looking for some other options to stay or he's torn up is full of life full of all the stakes here based on her application for him to come over here and so and he's pulled up and come here and then
afraid to get into this deal because they had difficulty financing a monster truck did so because the defendant said don't worry financing is guaranteed this is a done deal excuse me  thank you i want to address the question that you raised briefly on the first part of my agenda section fifteen u s c sixteen only to ask to state the creditor is the person to and the dead are rising from the consumer credit transaction is judge that in order to resolve it on the pleadings marron part says you have there has to be no way that the plaintiff could be could win a trial when looking party signature shall be made by used of any name including traders to name upon the credit sale contract or by any word or mark used in lieu of the written signature so their own document says this is the first page of the credit sale contract this is
also believes that the defendant can't meet his burden that he was a very big the evidence was supposed to balance an error to the scales or that he was prejudiced by the error also at issue is thoroughly by the court he did not raise that any point with regard to that issue his schizophrenia in fact he was able to tell the court he was fifty four years old so he wasn't a juvenile he has a criminal history where he's had contact with the court before he was able to read and write and then the court actually i want to point out on one hundred and sixty nine dollars their record  all right the course says is there anything about to that is getting in the way to making a clear decision be a medical mental physical or otherwise so he specifically asked the defendant if there were any medical issues that would affect him entering into the plea agreement and the challenge the ineffective assistance bergmann at any time but at issue here is challenging goes into effect of assistance of counsel in the actual critical critical framework where here it's kind of want rolled into whether or not the corner made sure the defendant voluntarily entered into the clique and the court did make sure he voluntarily entered in the plea just because he didn't say do you voluntarily enter into the clique doesn't mean that the court did not defendant could have raised and he did not and the defendant said that bergman did a good job and he understood what was going on he understood the plea and then he signed the beleaguered agreeing to the clean agreement is not as thorough as the voluntary and therefore the defendant cannot be prejudiced by the error of not actually saying do you voluntarily enter into this plea also to address the two thousand and two conviction being enhanced if defendant is arguing back he only entered into the plea agreement because he thought that he was getting ready for felony count to plead to one felony but he was getting another co this was an error and that to two thousand and two case he could have said your honor i'm looking at this i don't understand what including two in the plea agreement because it's two thousand and two conviction wasn't actually a conviction so he didn't raise any of that because he committed it and granted it wasn't brought out there but that's on someone and the record with proof of the conviction so it's now part of the record on appeal i mean we can only go by what the tra the two thousand and two conviction and just to as a final matter for that other two thousand and thirteen conviction even if that was you know there the trial  wasn't able to hear that he doesn't thirty conviction in the state has to give notice to the defense so we don't know exactly what the state would have done if everyone knew that the two thousand and two conviction wasn't a viable conviction we don't  discussing the statute that requires the state to give notice to the defendant for these
stupid in a box wives to be able to have carried this off and therefore the cold offender who happened to be in the car with him was guilty as he was dealing drugs and the judge ruled th all ramos lopez as we call him had only a fifth grade education in mexico and they advertised in fact they started that in your opening argument saying we're going to tell your friend he's not a very bright guy he's only he doesn't know mike she's only been knowledge it was a he was able to do this all by himself which in general sense i mean because the testimony was instead he really was to know he didn't know anything are quite given the drugs package the drugs and such and he was so stupid he just there are two individuals involved him and someone else doing the heroin i don't think the jury was in any way mr byrd you know after he'd been cross examined over forty pages of the record and showed that he would admit to just about anything i was
which the board at that time did not find first places now with that with the change in the law he's he's no their stipulations earlier and they refused to because they say he had a bag and baggage letter which he did not show up for however it's clear that he never the application for suspension deportation and made the finding the discretionary finding that the plaintiff and not shown extreme hardship and that is in the record as well so even assuming there was an error logged he did make the findings that he was not eligible agree really a tragic case the individual was convicted of a misdemeanor he was a kid and they didn't give him thank you just a very short jail was almost a kid's prank they found a gun in the garbage or something and put it in his pants and then decided better that he shouldn't have it so there it would seem to me that  directly on point we do believe that it controls the case that's presented before your honor today this is you may be losing one vote in a vote you had because we don't discuss the is you know she is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony she was looking at the facts of this misdemeanor and trying to engage counsel in discussion regarding the facts misdemeanor that she state the facts as they are in your opinion of the facts as represented in mr ramos brief or that he was and i think he was the line was horsing around