MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
first would like to point the course attention to the immigration judge's decision on page fifty one of the record on page fifty one a record the immigration judge concluded that the petitioner did not meet his burden of either past persecution or future persecution of the board and its decision on page two of the record implicitly rejects the court's the immigration judges first had an opportunity to truly respond to this factor well what happened in bombay what we do know is that he lived there for seventeen months living with these relatives and during that seventeen months that he was there sixteen or seventeen months the police never pursued him there and he also stated that he didn't go out and  testimony that is there any evidence this time with these who was looking for him when he was a national police i'm not i don't think he specified it was just very general that police were inquiring about him at his home and his home village has not so there has to be some explanation of why he would be in the category general category of no problem and that's a small category of some problem well i think that's the best the board can do in terms of individual izing the honor it's also you can also i believe it said that he fled his village in his declaration but on the out of the sphere for the police but on the record on page one hundred my question was interesting i believe point few had been aware that the police were still looking for him and decided at that time on september ninth ninety seven he had a reason that he was afraid to remain in india and had to flee to or voice teacher
well that brings us to the second point now with respect to exhaustion or not the second point that's clear is that statutory exhaustion just not apply here because a motion to reopen is not a remedy available as a matter of right so the key issue that the parties should be disputing here is whether the court's discretionary credential exhaustion doctrine should be applied to deprive mr straub form for his b i appeal and we submit the answer is not for the first reason is that applying the credential indicating that they would perhaps agree to a joint motion to remain with the department of homeland security however that just indicates how fleeting these options are because the government has weaver back and forth and we can have no con the finally we have
decisions the district court held that they were entitled to qualified immunity because quote there were no decisions where state officials and forced a ban on from participating in religious activities that was put in place by the religious entity itself so we person chaplain who was a rabbi made a determination that the individual could not receive was did not meet the qualifications for being jewish and therefore he was denied the ability to have a kosher diet so these participants do including bystanders speaking in religious worship there's not the government doesn't contest that that's a substantial burden on his religious worship and there's no suggestion here for example that there was some other good afternoon andrea arriving for the state interfered with glass there is a legitimate logical basis for it however in kind of the legal this court looked at that framing of the issue and explicitly rejected it as being too broad under the qualified immunity
the supreme court's return to the proper constitutional understanding of the role of the jury in our judicial system united states versus booker the court ordered that sentencing factors be considered by the jury to the very fundamental nature of archery trials up unless you have any further questions do that all the time especially civil cases and then you particularly in the governments grieve and on page thirteen lines together this is not a civil case we're looking at the beyond reasonable doubt standard and it does it
important here but i have to say what is struck me as a little not entirely non sequitur but what the decision goes on to say is that as an e g or for example a comment that speaks to the quality of evidence not to the to the justification specifically it says e g the record does not contain an affidavit from the individual who allegedly mis read to her the hearing notice indicating a wrong hearing date and to me it doesn't really follow that doesn't demonstrate the lack of exceptional circumstances that talks about how well she proved up the explanation that she offered in particular it doesn't say that the explanation that she offered doesn't rise to the level of exceptional circumstances which what i thought i would see in that p so can you can you explain to us what the basis mean how how this is a non sequitur why i believe that the reason why they included that language would be in her motion to reopen she never made any claim that a neighbor told her anything she did she was
frame it specifically the commission seemed to find that yes there was this incident there was this accident but the claimants injury was a temporary her vision of a preexisting degenerative need condition you're saying that the
violation of the law time incompetent and if you look at it if you watch the video i'd submit i mean we we suggest the teens with factors are appropriate here which are which come from the grantees because what happens at the station is not the person being arrested video there was no level of force that was used by the officers that was successful against the plaintiff in attempting to get him to submit so that they could cause him restrain him and all out on to receive medical treatment
internal investigation that erroneous we concluded that the initial mountain tested was six hundred thousand rather than one million seventy five thousand and there was four hundred seventy five thousand or so d that in your client's own words make clear that by january twelfth two thousand and twelve he knew that the bank was claiming he put in almost half a million less than he knows he put in  if i handed a million dollars to a bank and then i go back the next day and the bank tells me you only have a six hundred thousand and i know i gave them a million i don't have a claim million investment when he invested that amount one hundred seventy five thousand that's not in the bike in with two thousand and twelve he wasn't saying he was the plaintiff himself was saying that the bank had told him that he only put in six hundred thousand in the first place that he had an injury that is not in this but he didn't know the cost of the injury he knew the cause of the injury on friday twenty two thousand and thirteen when the x her when this report was filed that you even though i don't know why you're not bringing me back the car i know that i gave you the car and you are now claiming that i didn't so i've got an injury i know you are the guy who is responsible in some way for the injury but i don't know how is you should count my time from the time i discovered the pattern the forgeries the transfers but that's specifically what must reject the hotel the puck turn the snot started clock that's why you have what we
itself finally in issue three the issue is whether he'd probably abused its discretion in granting the state's motion to reopen the case to establish th that's exactly true and that and that is the person of the station in the cases in which an abuse of discretion has been found the judge is has abandoned his role as a neutral arbiter and is serving as an advocate for one side or the
and the state was not responsible before they had so kind of knowledge and information before them in this case the records stating that there were drugs in the defendant's system to bring changes against a until they issue an order in due course thank
and now you can add kidnapped for getting out of this little playground what's going on down there the cops are looking for a guy that they think here in the park they this should be a crazy place to hide but you never know what they're going to pull next they figure he's going to be driving a jaguar what makes them think that with pitch nothing just tired so you said you said something about an explanation i'd like to hear on the level the moment the only thing i have against you is i never got that was but don't tell me about a fix in a small town when it's mad or a card game when you haven't got any cards bank whole world may guess you can get an even break if you give it a chance give it a chance me all my life i've been trying to get by on my own because that's the way i figure after the army i saved the money so i bought myself a truck not two trucks or a fleet no partners just me turned out i was bothering somebody guy on a lot  much minutes later one of his other drivers with their yelling his head off about how i drove his body over the cliff it even seem to care much that he was dead but if you break out of jail no jury in the world would convict if you told them what happened if i got t jury those truckers were coming to get me they weren't waiting for a trial i had to break out of jail a gang of hoodlums probably kept it off the next morning to go back now they won't have anything to do with it got everything to do with it they can't prove innocence running how do the afternoon is that your car yeah well you weren't supposed to be here no no no i didn't know are you folks who the races cops would come here looking for the kid you know kind of a a lover's lane well good evening frank i didn't know you're smart like i said connie but not smart enough i guess what you got any more hideout cute spots picnic spot nobody knows about trust somebody you see why don't well what do you expect you hate the world in the world man who drives as well as you should see this sure it'll be an education mr meyers she sure is not even here tonight we get it first thing in the morning i have it ready for you first thing in the morning thanks  for the fun i mean what's the occasion oh well all of us lady drivers who aren't allowed to drive are going to celebrate the breaking training and you know you've never been in training that mean i can't break it
usually have some opinion but they don't have to know everything about the person and if you look at the cases that cited here by the athlete they rely on a case called jacobson which is a fifth district that happens in situations like this and those murders are still generally admitted to probate because they can be tested later so that's that's our position we believe that the judge norm today who's done twelve days before her death if you look at it it's some kind of a worm it's got the states in it it's got no evidence that was prepared by the attorney that will mea all the property to move the two sons who are appealing this judgment because of all of this mystery jeff leroy requested that witnesses a meeting testify that can you say well i've got two witnesses here who walk into a room there is a guy sitting there going or says a word and there's an elderly woman sitting there she never  anything except the notary we hand it to kids the will and says here's where you sign we had a station close and they walk out so how can those witnesses even start to believe testator's was of sound mind and memory when she sits there and says nothing and from the records seems to react or nothing she just sitting there and all all that said is the notary says sign your kids easy have to believe i think that excuses those old cases from being real authority for this case because if it says now you have to believe you just can't be neutral long as you've got to that's not the question the question was do they have a good faith belief that she was you know carolyn miller i had no conversation with her so there is no way for me to tell that she was would not have been able to do and be not filed at will and rely on that prior will so they took advantage of that well and i think they are stopped at this point from seeing oh well if if we're going to pursue justly roy through citations if we're going to take other actions as executors of prior will mean waive the right come back and say oh forget all that we would like  faith pursuit of my client so i agree very they were performing as executors and there is no proof in the record that their performance was something other the proponents of the will to make it something that people can believe in you know in the minority in the room could have said well you know let's ask personal questions let's have the notary witnesses did know he didn't say anything he just sat in a corner which makes you think about undue influence a little bit but he was never going to fight to the two witnesses who were the only people that i called in
either change side i don't know you think you're lookin for well it could have been webster but i thought you said it was some fancy guy in the car you got to change cars  country mines in a time was bitten by a rattlesnake only five years old me not the snake snake died it's easy to manage if you get up on the wrong side of the car i don't like description of frank webster still reported a large wild race to the coachella valley webster forced another truck into the ditch the truck overturned the killed the driver webster was arrested but escaped from jail now a general of ourselves for this dangerous trip at least coast around the country come on mexico and recognized that if you're a good girl and if you are one this is all over you'll still be alive and beautiful you'll never get away with maybe not you don't or driving can you remember well now that we're in the park we could stop and have lunch or is that impossible it is a view rather registers of the race or is that impossible to register all right don't give me a break just remember i've got a gun and i know how to use it and point number one check point number one number  last night this cause is too dangerous all maybe dr richard land but i've got to i'm sorry but that's what they decided to drive oh you're a jerk to put me down by name coast into mexico it's a dangerous course people can get killed and this is derek and ride with me can change well with the trials if you want but not tomorrow you know we've always had nothing but drivers in this race all good for you the kind of much just large you can't drive as a county want to just pull out a large you can't drive it might be easier than taking a chance with the car i think i can manage it apparently sure why we're looking for someone who might be hiding out in the park we think he's driving a track one i haven't actually know what insurance plans i'll do what i think i get to cooperate you've checked all the identifications of the entrance oh yes they'll cross the border even though we
trouble like quiet women stay that way your life pretty good yeah  quite appreciate your returning my card my freedom so that before i'm running out of variation i'm also running out of patience no idea what to do about it that suppose you do anything to get just about getting more ideas not at the moment let's take a walk you're more trouble than you're worth you want to play rough i don't want to play it all and don't i want you to give me back my car let me alone and would have to pick on someone like you someone to come along sing with my luck you're probably right
alien who joined the u s military and was horribly disturbed would by reason of that fact alone become a naturalized citizen you also have to include the fact that it was during a time of war which is recognized by the president although i think afford oh yes very crime of war yes that was i remember congress has passed actually it's from time to time allowing naturalization of aliens who have joined the military during time before bad the involvement of u s forces in he actually probably cause a lot more severe damage to the country than what was supposed to  petition to petition for review to struck your his arguments before the circuit court following the motion to reconsider after a motion to reconsider  i while that was pending there was a regime change and the big day at denied relief because of the regime change without giving petitioner an opportunity to address whether the regime change eliminated the need for asylum that that's the nie the petitioner due process purely procedural issue that and i'm trying to figure out th the regime change occurred after the briefing to the v a was done and the issue was submitted but before the b a a issued its decision in this case the decision to be i have already been came out of the blue when the case was being argued on something else entirely so he never got a chance to argue about why he doesn't apply to him had i suppose this theory would be well maybe the prison mind and i want to give you a fair chance to address it usually if new law comes down and it is likely to be outcome determinative and it affects the case if it's just legal will issue an order telling the lawyers to be prepared to address that oral argument or to submit simultaneous letter briefs or something like that moment and either give him a fair chance to address it if it's likely to affect factual development th vacating circuit court decision so that things can be reconsidered in light of the decision they just issued and it's just that's the routine and i'm wondering whether that routine should be applied to je this fellow we've got to make sure they have a fair opportunity to be heard if it's factual they need a fair opportunity to develop facts and if it's legal a fair opportunity to argue that it looks as though there might be a factual element opportunity to be heard that's what we mean by due process and you have noted an opportunity here when he did he have an opportunity when he wants to be heard on what he wants to develop evidence on is ok the reason he's prisons are bad is not that the regime is a house of torture it's that it's pork that ok but i'm special because i was an american military and they reserve special beatings for members of the u s military now that's seems factual to me maybe it is and maybe i'm mistaken here why doesn't he need an opportunity to make a record on that ok it's personal and you're i may be misunderstanding this you know the case much better than i do because the decision in
improvement needs to be supported by a doctor's evidence and it's a factual question bottom line because of course into the prejudice in a case like this so if you're not making an argument that there's some additional discovery you were deprived  very difficult for me to understand why the plaintiff in this case doesn't understand what the notice was for the first ten months one mr starr was saying this one questions about actual expenses and medical bills
there was no rejection
defendant utter the words you know i will kill all americans of my people will kill all americans we would not have the issues presented in this case the problem here is that the government still in their discriminatory enforcement on because in fact i certainly have not found any published criminal decisions i prosecuted a first looking laboratory setting off the smoke alarm who then did not engage there after i mean any type of discuss i believe it is page nine eleven that mr tobacco argued that because the jury had acquitted on the assault charge therefore it was only his language to the stewardess and therefore he couldn't be guilty pretty much canvassed i hope that the law under this statute and i just sort of a limited universe decisions on the specific facts here and the government trying to argue that belligerence alone would have been enough  smoking and setting off the flight that the obvious not alarm and then lying about it and being difficult would be sufficient that that intimidation of the court is going to make that whole thing that would certainly be a new interpretation clearly though i mean probably many of us in this room have lessened the ability of the flight crew to do their duty if we define their duty as you know it's certain that a job and we ask for something that maybe isn't on the approved list to me that that ha legal ambiguity and therefore the possible legal insufficiency in the words on and you know the jury may or may not have found that he made that threat that's the problem is if they found the words in conduct as listed in the series of examples that the government gave during closing that intimidated was smoking the smoke in lara larman his statement you know i'm not you know i didn't do it that that was legally insufficient intimidation and even though the interference he has no intent requirement as intent to interfere intentional explanation my argument is that that any intentional intimidation was directed to mr best the purser and there was no
what we were appealing for the problem or its judge jones is order simply said that the court in minnesota could not do anything contrary to not in really gated in oregon since the question of not being ready you know oregon and since the question of an injunction had not as far as we can tell been determined in oregon minnesota judge could enter an injunction and to the penalties and make his own determination of the minnesota state law without doing anything that was quote contrary to what had happened in oregon if we resolve the if we're not able to resolve the state walkway the jones was not correct that the state claims are identical to the federal that we would have to have a issue preclusion going ahead and say an injunction and ok we were we were in we were removed and rema good secondly the i think it's had me before that date before the april judgment from the minnesota or i just had made exactly the same arguments they made in their so called rule sixty motion in march of two thousand  minnesota court would do once the minnesota court injunction they thought about it for several months and finally filed a motion so i think they will they have their rights to seek an appeal in this case and there's no  if the court gets to the merits it's a very limited inquiry it was just was wrong with respect to the fact that there was no change circumstance if we treat this as a rule sixty of emotion he was right there were changed circumstances for the and a half million dollars so ardently they got religion and they moved for exactly the kind of injunction that they had previously said  crafty injunction told the minnesota there was a general statement of don't do anything contrary what did that mean did that mean don't issue anything with respect to the penalties you didn't know that mean that you were that until there was some indication of what it meant and sixty five says we really seek relief from a judgment is no longer equitable judgment
but in terms of reasonable doubt on the offense of unlawful possession of a fire it was constructive possession was the ownership of the vehicle ever of getting back to what would be the police argument what would be their concern about lost or stolen items from a vehicle for someone who's not never trusted it because they're who but you said but that's basically what you just said that's what police do because they were you know they were having a beer go impounded so the toad and so them they have to do that to make sure that when they come back and get that vehicle
use the situation it's hard for me that quite understand the art that that the government has not done anything you are ahead or that they're the government when being able to make a relocation pace on that nd aspect in a government provided information on the number shia muslims in the country and the location of the different areas
k get more bipartisan than this