MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
primary one is the failure to appear issue and the reasons they are for and whether that was supported by the met the evidentiary standard or whether there was it under the abuse of discretion standard whether or not it was clearly an arbitrary prescience or contrary to law decision to take this single declaration and disregard it in the way that was without making the finding that it was inherently unbelievable second issue is whether there's clear and convincing evidence that was he raised in the administrative brief after the decision and has been really raised by responding to find that ruling i'm sorry the second issue being the clear and convincing evidence issue and as i understand the b o h pure curiam decision they are saying that this issue is  it's not it's a harmless error because there is clear and convincing and unequivocal evidence to support the finding of the portability i'd like to address that issue first and then go on to the failure to appear issue  now as i've noted the issue at stake is not harmless error by the i a e a saying there is no jurisdiction to review that issue mr know when was in front of the court with a motion to terminate invited his counsel because we have a single charge in front of the immigration judge and on appeal and that's two forty one a two and a little too little liars which is two crimes of moral turpitude that do not arise out of a single scream and that was the evidentiary issue was these two were these two convictions a single scheme because they involve the same modus operandi secondly it's not a harmless error because even if he was found a portable he'd be eligible for relief under the former section two twelve the government all right let's let's let's say it's a ground for reopening now he cannot just ignore the hearing and say i want to do it on some occasion after i reopen subsection are two separate sections and there are two ways to proceed on this or the a section that's well litigated in the circuit some us being i think the last decision on the issue where you do have to show corroboration because simply making a extraordinary circumstances why you didn't show up is needs to be corroborated because there has to be a basis for making the finding that oh yes in fact you had extraordinary circumstances under the lead section though there's two grounds either no the same day that the decision was issued apparently not considered by the court when it made its decision the single declaration at no point did the immigration say it's inherently unbelievable  finding of the judge was essentially that centrally she basically found that the there is no state custody based on the declaration she couldn't find state custody meaning i'm assuming or one could assume meaning that parole is not state custody on the other hand she says there's she goes on to address the extraordinary circumstances which was also raised as a grounds but i think it's a secondary grounds the primary grounds being being in space custody as
right now the petition states at paragraph six page one that the trial court excluded the testimony of material witnesses for the defense because they were in the courtroom during the state's testimony the affidavits of the two witnesses state that they were told that because they were in the courtroom their morning contradicts that their witnesses were excluded from testifying but we do know that they didn't testify so the state's brief at page fo frivolous and we're not asking for a new trial here we're asking that the matter be remanded for second stage proceed since the appropriate order in this case  e defendant in the complaining witness now the motion to schooled witnesses was granted the two witnesses that counsel now says would have testified and submitted is witnesses were told they won't be allowed to testify because they were in the courtroom that or so the gist of the constitutional court this is they were somehow excluded i don't think it was by the trial court's action and that's how i framed this as being outside of the record if they were excluded but there is an allegation that is not from the us that they were ex variety of decisions that mr cohn cites to that would support that theory of post conviction relief but i don't think that i think it's outside of the record i don't see anything where
programmer job you disapprove grammont you go over what's called prove out and you standing you watch what the machine is doing you make adjustments so it's sort of a like machinist computer programming job the only evidence is the evidence about the equally and about  deal with that well if there's a question of fairness here and there isn't on this record i think that the i think the plaintiff could always raise the issue hey wait a minute i've been saying bag so to speak i want to present some evidence position well the issue would have been committed to the discretion of the district court as to whether new evidence was appropriate or not i would submit in this in this case as you look at the record plainest himself admitted in his reply brief that there was no additional medical evidence and so i think on this record you're left to scratch your head as to what plaintiff could have done if indeed he believed he was being sandbagged and we've also made an argument as to why this is there but when they sent the case back because they didn't jump into the district court they made clear that it was going to be doing over a review and it was going to be the determination of whether the person w that even in the brand new trial on contractors for example a jury or a court would not have a roving commission to look through the contract for example and
discussed what we thought we got a divide of time and how we ought to proceed because quite frankly it's almost identical issues in the two cases it really doesn't make sense to have one fifteen minutes of another fifteen minutes so we would like to hear it if there are no objections by you all here just from mr bright maybe give you say fifteen minutes to go forward and then have you all split maybe ten minutes and ten minutes of howie and then give you a five minute rebuttal that's more than the thirty minutes you would normally get a less than the sixty overall any objection and  ten minute and minute things we are going to have the second person not to just repeat ad nauseum everything that we already covered in the first because the briefs are just a similar to try to focus on what else you think we might be missing the perhaps a few additional words about infringing systems but i don't think it's necessary quite frankly i think the case should be remanded with instructions to  d you are in the computer business and you have a computer system that has to do with selling product to two consumers that's stipulate on the record if it turns out that the writer the author of that letter produces information that satisfies the court that indeed it isn't on the internet and isn't anything to do with your information or belief that that's true that will give me a chance of a discovery and then i'll figure out whether they're in for you know they will be they often are but that's a fishing expedition that you're asking for and that's where i'm supposed to allow that to occur you actually have to have with major from major channel numbers and minor channel numbers which according to this bleeding or or specific types of channel numbers are fine in the piece of specifications that exist in v c t cables or piece electric motor in bodies you can see that as a part of your system that that actually is modification correct no we cannot conceive that there is a part of our system that modifies virtual channel tables or channel numbers later channel numbers somehow those channels get modified something within your control and whether it's according to the message articulated in the patent is a question of infringement or not but it is a question of notice you know that  he's using that thing that you use it changes it from one channel to the other whether whether it does or the way he claims or not is is another issue this issue for an arrangement is not an issue for plea i disagree because if  to accomplish and we're alleging that of doing it through our system i mean you do it enough to go back and look at your system and say we did analyze the way we do that and we don't think it infringes it knew that much how is that making a product blacks out of the window keep it all secret whereas all their employees the secrecy but the product that comes out at the end of the day is a product that would be completely
with labor contract seven separate times a cite to this court's holding an advocate also replacing collective bargaining agreement between labor contract both of those cases cited constitution under section rio one if it is considered a contract between labor organizations it is not a preemption case it is not a removal case the case that held that section three that the union constitutions may be section three a one contract is jury which was held in nineteen thousand and seventeen years prior to the lingle decision this court must presume that the united states supreme if interpretation of a c v is required only if language is mutually exclusive it does not denote multiple options if the court has any questions about whether about what a case that stands for the proposition that other types of agreements could be covered for example union constitutions and the like with that then answered the p m s in question in this case essentially for the bulk of the case decision is important to that argument as well because in lingle the supreme court noted exceptions to section three or one preemption when congress has affirmatively indorse state remedies in a field of labor law example that savings clause has identical language to the seven anti preemption savings clauses in the yellow more d n a and the case notes that when congress is affirmatively endorses state remedies in a field of labor law that correctional intent must be on all preemption law it is rooted in the principle that if intent of congress is clear that is the end of the map for the court must give effect to the that is chevron v natural resources defense council incorporated for sixty seven dollars u s research here congress's intent is clear to preserve union member claims for breach of union is clear that congress intended to preserve such claims to union members in state court every title of the yellow margy it has a savings clause because congress was concerned with the expansion of preemption to other matters in the field of labor management and wanted to ensure that union constitution claims would not be preempted the all white why is it not clearly expressed in this one why do we have to rely on has affirmatively indoors state remedies in this particular area of labor law and for that reason implied preemption cannot be applied in court has expressly disclaims preemption of union member claims for breaches of union constitutions in preemption of state law has expressly just claimed preemption of such state law so the earlier backed cannot operate to circumvent there is no question the case is probably removed etc there is two types of contracts that are in compass by three hundred and one collective bargaining agreements and contracts between labor organizations i want to go and important point here
are instead of doing that at the trial who are i took it substantially further in providing analysis as to whether or not we could eventually prevail on this public nuisance cause of action and we feel that this analysis and those arguments put forth by the bennett would be more appropriate at that stage rather than in a sixty thousand motion to dismiss it out so we feel that the that the order or hinge its analysis on that again we feel that it's incredibly premature but since we're there we go ahead and go there on that very issue about whether or not the public or private nature of the property should dictate whether or not this  there was no evidence or there was no evidence there's nothing in the record no affidavits to my knowledge from the defendant on that issue as to whether the public or private nature of the business part of it of the property should give right in  for this or the dismissal had absolutely nothing to do whether or not sign properties either own the parking lot or had a contract of getting to me in the parking lot at the time the injury happened the basis for
yeah i don't quite understand your theory that your theory is that the veteran in show exposure to agent orange and then can show that he suffered from a  male in that that's sufficient or doesn't have to be a connection between asian origin he m l and we don't have a situation here where there is a statutory presumption  ok the veteran was exposed to agent orange and a veteran developed him you know twenty six years later or whatever it was what how could that be sufficient because of the standard suppose that the veteran suffered a broken leg in service and then later on developed am you're you're saying that there would need to be any showed in a relationship of causation why why is it have basis for concluding there's a surface connection because it is a standard less that call less than was less than causal but i still don't understand the theory for even something less than causal why we hold that as a matter of law exposure to agent orange thirty six years ago is connected to the diagnosis for a see whether that was caused by some of em pin circus that in that sense that would have to be a causal connection where the disease or condition is manifested years later there has to be some relationship between that some proof of relationship between that and something that happened service and it and i don't understand what temporality has to do with it  continue to so the to the time when service connection was planning a horror maybe it's not well granted but these things happen
when that event took place we were on the eve of trial i think we were at the pretrial conference expecting to commence trial shortly thereafter we accepted the proposal to go to the state court we got there and i believe this is actually recounted in our motion to started there and so we would have to start all over again and at that point i think we were i forget how two three years into this night the motions i mean it had been a donnybrook and we decided we'd rather return to the federal court and try the case i and then following that broker feldman thank you on turning to that it is very important that this is a surviving separation agreement that makes all the difference in the world there the case was actually quite clear why why does it matter if he ends out modifying the terms of the underlying story court judgement as to the  makes essentially the same argument that was made here in the craft decision there was a surviving separation agreement and the ex wife received fifty percent of the husband's pension benefits he reaches sort of transmogrify those pension benefits into disability benefits and then said by the separation agreement just as pension so you don't get any of my disability benefits in action in the probate court but under the declaratory judgment stack statute to thirty one day the wife persuaded the court would not let him do that but she got fifty percent of the disability benefits too he came back and made essentially the same argument you can't do this to me it's a modification of the agreement and he said that  put it to your honor this way what we really have i think is a non controversial initial promise and that is that a surviving separation agreement is separately enforceable including in the federal court and  involves an american property issue and the answer is no and that's where one books have done you can add up and in particular i would actually refer you honest of the marshall decision i know that marshall is a probate exception decision but is quite analogous to domestic relations the texas probate court actually entered a judgment over the widow's objection saying that the will was valid and related it to five the stress was valid nevertheless the supreme court said that the widow still had claims against the s because they sided impersonate him damages remedy against the son and that did not require the federal court to undo the will or to undo the trust it was a damages remedy against the son and the court specifically said that it could default is fifty percent twenty percent quite modest but also let's not forget in the implied government in good faith and fair dealing question of the the case he specifically found based on the only credible testimony that was presented that be this testimony that the spirit of the barium was that she would get twenty percent of mr russia's interest in the company and once you get that far if you find that the spirit of the bargain is that you get twenty percent which is a fact finding that the court made based on the only testimony fou
is is this tour a family business no it's actually part of a corporation we're part of albertson's inc out of boise idaho one of the band is below with a banner is called st my employees well that varies depending on how old you are what department you work in and how many hours you want to work so full time is work forty hours a week so my part time is work anywhere from ten to twelve hours a week and others work anywhere from twenty five to thirty hours a week so depending what part of the building you work in here i always would vary as also certain laws that i have to abide by whether you're a child or an adult i'm certain i was and i can regulate that was do i don't do anything i have a whole different division within the store that handles that for me they work for me directly sometimes you don't even know they're in the store dressed like yourself but when i dress like me and i just walk around they handle that very customers come in the morning it's all full and ready to go all the fresh stuff comes in early early in the morning five six in the morning all the dry perishable comes in overnight who you can we call the ten o'clock look i have the most fun out of anybody at work i get to go to work every day spend my time with all my employees and customers see what's going on throughout the day market my job is called the store director and what that is i have to oversee the entire operation of the building the most important part of my job is making sure that the building is safe  and they stop a little bit in the afternoon and they start coming in about nine thirty and ten o'clock and like how you market i've been in stock market for thirty four years that's a long was actually there for the opening i was working in the meat department actually downstairs cutting meat as a young man who since then i've progressed my way up to still a director ok shelves well i get to spend quite a bit of time in the store and just being up and down the aisles around the store you get to realize with things go and where they belong lot of things are grouped by aisle and by category and after working in the business as long as i have a lot of the stores laid out the same for instance you know the pasta is going to be annihilates so if you're returning pasta back to the aisle you want to head towards aisle eight and you find the category what belongs and ok they come from two different places the first one is right here in massachusetts up in the so and so it takes about an hour every morning to get down here unless there's a lot of traffic the ones that come overnight come out of wells maine so that's at least a two hour run to get down here the oh sure i have so i have i clean them up all day long i have to set the example to make sure everyone knows that if there's a spill on the floor whether it's me or one of the main is clerks i'm there to clean up you know why because i want to buy the fall and hurt of your friends and we're going to walk around and talk to the different departments and maybe see what's what they do for jobs t
read the consequences can't be clear it's not necessarily even clear that your client is a subject to deportation yes oh but i think an attorney has a responsibility this arrest the facts of the case is make a decision whether there was a likelihood of being bored or he said something to the trial court decided of not being defended by choosing to go to trial and be that says he's prejudiced i believe that says it would have been rational for this defendant to choose to go to trial this particularly here where it's everybody you are to make prison time that he's resting
clear cut as we seem to be going on because we talk about yes we french couldn't strengthen the spears i mean somebody could be a teacher but it may not necessarily be a part of your job to get involved in physical what directions was he given by the employer what pressure was put on him to make it clear that he wasn't doing this he didn't really want to do this anyway even though was a part of this job so you tell us that it was sure testified that he did  and he you know i disengaged respond if there was an emergency there if there was a medical condition if there was an injury if there was a fight between students not only did he actually gag immediately to address this situation but is a teacher he would but in this case we don't get to it because your strongest argument look he clearly didn't want to do it he succumbed on the fourth request for direction and he did it because he was pressured into it and it was not something that he voluntarily signed up is that the essence of your argument yes participating and not for the benefit of the school district he wanted brownie points from his thoughts so he agreed to participate he did i think forty teachers at the school only five to speak to mr chorley who was a activity if the very game that's being played furthers the employee who's next did take it out of recreation like today i think it depends on the specific facts of the case i think what actually he testified to was that there was an on field after school basketball cruel room for the students that mr chorley and the other another teacher mr mayor now the range and that as part of this program origin junction where they held student teacher basketball games should cooley certainly testified that he had no and that he he could not answer one way or another as to what the he could testify to it he doesn't know the level to which mr jordan was pressured mister levy to participate in the and then i would it take it out of the realm of a recreational activity and we come part of the order of business i think in this particular case it certainly does i think in our our district it certainly did and i suppose there could particular case where the sole reason to have a student teacher basketball game is to improve morale in the school you know create some sort of a bond between the students and teachers so yes i don't see it because it furthers the interest of the school