MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
request to turn yes it is provided that the petitioner meets the burdens of proof to demonstrate that he had custody by clear and convincing evidence under article twenty of the convention that the truth of the trial would not be permitted by the fundamental principles of course the state related to the protection of human used means can jump if there's going to be a reason and it seems to me to be you know just just a plain street conversation with somebody i'm going to send anybody back that's going to be in an intolerable situation that's trial declaration for speculation of human rights united states federal amnesty provisions i'll provide to avoid return of the child in cases where that can be demonstrated and contact the other contracting state that the departments within those contracting state shall arrange for the filing now if the convention provides that the contract if they should take their own appropriate measures and use the most intend for this to be an orange it is simply a mistake and congress will have more than enough time to remedy that situation if it's brought before the s is for the court to determine if it was sent back out if there was a great push by clear and convincing evidence however the evidence before the trial court is bassy dissimilar from prior cases where great verse was found cases where the father or the discretionary determination of a court and congress when the and it's consistent with what we know about how congress draft statutes because if congress is going to go against the way that the convention had been structured the way that our partner countries have adopted it and going to regret treaty and required this statute to be passed in order to execute it but again when congress said that it made clear in the declaration section in section one thousand and one that it was attempting to simply establish procedures and to  convention for the united states it was there's no clear indication there's no indication other than the one of course is that because you support it out that would suggest in any way that there is any intent on the part of congress to thank you ok thank you respect the goal of this convention was not to prevent to provide amnesty or refuge that r t g status for work people bringing their children to a different contracting state the goal of this convention was to enforce the laws of one
no requests for summons may be filed unless the notice does exist so if he didn't exhibit the notice his request for summons is invalid and no request to summon the valid therefore  record to look at thank you very well apparently not the part that's ok so so it's really a serves as a notice to the commission doesn't it
earlier case and so putting us in the position of deciding this ninety three a question as you say it's an eight hundred dollar case but we have
goodmorning members of the court my name is tatar and i represent a chair this is an unusual case for the court the court's record decisions do not have the situation where ten to thirteen officers from four to five search warrant and at the time the package was opened with thirteen people or ten people they could have cordoned off that house and watched over on not believing any other adults had come or gone the destruction against the destruction of other evidence incriminating evidence that might be inside the trailer unless the officers going in conduct kind of a protective sweep to make sure that there is somebody else inside besides mr say charles and his girlfriend have probable cause to search the house for evidence of drug dealing activities they could very well be other incriminating evidence in that case including other drugs that could be tried in the absence of a protective sweep to make sure but according to this case this court's case didn't hurt and which i think judge singleton misread the place should not be running into a house without a warrant did not leave if he didn't think about it he thought he could go into the house although the government also argued that they couldn't get an anticipatory warrant because they couldn't they didn't think they had enough because there's a problem with the  constitutional the sphinx in between probable cause to arrest him probable cause to search the only question is whether or not under the for so many probable cause to believe that evidence relating to the crime may be found in the house but the probable convince a magistrate that that house has anything to do with drug trafficking activity i mean it it really is no different than an el straight or postal service warehouse through which the package moved on well i think i think we should have an opportunity to cross examine agent martinez about what he would have done if he had done things right in the first place because he was so confused about the original whether the government can prove independent stores that's what they have raised in their appellate three we can show independent stores for the first time on appeal it's their burden to prove it and i think they should prove it to the magistrate with agent
county all of the children it's a high crime but it is a high crime area from the perspective of a police officer and the call they received is not just the cars suspicious because it's sitting  being turned on and off which could just be for more again because he has never the shoes or coat people are coming and going from the car and they approach the car he's there or don't really want to get out of the car he's being somewhat obstruct even what starts as a consensual can but does become a seizure fairly officer or whatever he said could be used for singer so drug use and i think i've seen it used that way before it find somebody sitting in a car that's not there so that they can't drive away and given the current given the phone
actually discussed the subject of testimony and to whether if he did that's a violation counsel that he had witnessed each and harry conferring with the prosecutor and the prosecutor statement that he didn't see anything wrong with that so there was conferring here a further question the court might be interested in remember doing it but he said well i must examine well he comes up with a very detailed explanation which is which contradicts the notion that he professed total absence of memory about having prepared to deal with before he went to testify or if that evidence that he actually did has some memory i just didn't want to completely reveal exactly what he had done and why he had done it do not think that i think that the court is correct that the prosecutor is charged with recognizing what he is saying but i don't think the prosecutor did recognize that and i think that's one of the reasons he asked for the time because he had anticipated  think it was a change in the testimony because he went from being a person who was surprised by what was going on to being a person who had been able to collect himself reflect on the offense look at things that the prosecutor then showed him on cross redirect and of course we don't know what else transpired during that conversation but suddenly he became a person who and i think the court might have noticed his i used a verb tenses during his explanation of what he thought he might have done and he has he gives a very detailed and rather somewhat difficult to understand explanation for what he said that i believe perfect it was certainly an attempt to give a credible explanation that wing prevents the jury from believing that he was somebody who had engaged in wrongdoing and so he had the opportunity to create again  regent perry the chance to collect himself to reflect on what has happened and to and ultimately the tool of cross examination which was considered so very important to the truth seeking function as any trial common that you revise your notes with a with an important obviously important statement and you don't even remember having done it because he regularly change the notes i have no idea here i mean it's not in the record because if it's examination the same concerns a change here the concern is that the cross examination eat meat performs an interview so that the truth can be brought out of the witness and here the governing council is able to overcome the impeachment in that  one united states of america versus two thousand one hundred sixty four watchers more or less
its best to get him to respond to the matters that were pending but it was just as actually he did respond to a most of her summary judgment in which the respondents filed and before you get to that issue which i'm interested in hearing from you on that point a couple of questions for you if i may be e mails between large loose or just no fall on the part of the client would you agree interrupting my question was do you agree that the emails in the record between lytle and luna suggests no fall on the part of the client and if you believe there is something that suggests that can you point it out to me please judgment motion yet never attempted to to contact a port never something to fire with saliva or she took no action to manage and monitor the case even though as an experienced paralegal who has worked on five this if it was her exclusive duty to manage the litigation in fact the district court had monitors the lawyer for trying to blame the paralegal for something which there's no indication she was a fall for and i will take another look at the e mail exchange to see your face report which you just said but let me move on to the next point since you and i can agree on that one apparently eighty five thousand dollars strikes me as somewhat excessive for certainly your requests for much more than that and for all your fees wasn't more needed under any example or rule how can we justify the award they just record may as bashfully because the district court made no analysis of the ultimate sanction or or disposition of dismissing the case for failure to prosecute your honor i believe  it was my experience when a to do this was you know i'd try monetary sanctions st against a lawyer see if that catches is it in their lawyers attention warning short notice that the whole entire race is going to be just as the child court obviously was aware and will never close their counsel you know is quick as possible after things you know is it called excuse out of a lack of better term i don't even honestly think that's credibility because if you look further on it misty's summary judgment response you respond to the  represent him and she didn't go pro se so i don't think you can hold a paralegal of the same sanity like myself or any of this is an attorney that attorneys out of all you have the option to sue someone for malpractise but i think if the court were to which i don't know respondents would disagree with it the court sanctioned mr awhile
regardless of their ability to read or understand english should receive notice at the time since the war is their home at the outset of the search for at least when they asked know what is going on spanish so even a record doesn't support the trial court's finding that the agent had a reasonable perception that mr martinez didn't speak english because the record reflects that the agent attempt to dispell he had a it which often illegal weapons are present in people with dealing drugs do they have a need to search at the outset right when they get there to check of wea search warrant in this case and it was presumptively and under reasonable when they failed to do so after the defendant indicated he didn't know what was going on he wanted to know what was going on is in order to meet the test a fourth amendment test you have to at least
it's amazing to for them to save this the people that have work to do it but the tea is really fun and it's been we've enjoyed seeing the  something like that so how valuable it's hard to humans put a value on a farm like this here but for somebody to have the forethought to preserve  remember when the other one is but this is a yearly event so if you haven't been here i think that you should come some of the things we do here is like we have johnny appleseed day and  a lot of fun that way it's really been nice being able to sit at the table with other where there's other children luke and i thought this is rosemary adam and rosemary my grandchildren
mr hamilton's motion did was it was a procedural motion seeking to have the court allow him to present his twenty to fifty four petition is the idea that if a person probably was innocently innocent person was probably convicted in the courts should hear the case and even if he were to file a new an actual new twenty two fifty four petition and label it a twenty two fifty four petition the courts would still say he's still entitled to hear it the court he still hadn't failed to have his claim heard because that claim of actual the new evidence is new evidence that after the trial crime the cut off date as far as the analysis on the flop and other cases go was this evidence presented at trial events comes to trial new evidence comes to light after the trial officers the two officers back in hall and showed how in effect saying if the if the jury had heard all this if the jury had heard how they as a matter of habit recorded every witness they interviewed as a matter of habit they never made any written reports even though it was contrary to their procedure so for the rest of significant evidence and we say that if you are allowed to present that rule sixty b motion to the district court that evidence becomes so strong that you say yes this is a horrible claim this is a plane where the court should hear this the court should consider whether that relies to bits of evidence cited and if i can digress the lodge a declaration was attached to the original petition is that the r ten it was relied on and the petition  that declaration obviously was attached to the to the original petition so it was an existence and discovered in fact before the petition was filed the other evidence is the alleged perjury of the two detectives that was public without a remedy he should go to to this court and go through the procedures of twenty to forty four and make his innocence claim that within and the the gateway of twenty to forty four to bring a  tension when it seeks to relate a gate claims that were raised and prior for tyshan first of all
about the defendants as applied challenge and here when it was eighteen so obviously we're dealing with an apples to apples comparison with our the supreme court program forty eight said we believe defendants find is also more appropriately raised in another proceeding after having specifically  post conviction so
which undergone will we require if you are going to come to us and argue but the washington constitution is broader in the federal constitution you have to lay out sort of the more broadly than the federal constitution if not the rule is that they're considering it under the federal constitution and you can't make your broader claims on let me just ask you one of three claims before state to determine whether or not you you have you meaning the state court position or have exhausted your state court remedies for example than was the question of whether or not you had to continue even though the request of the  do not get distracted by the red herring that was just put out regarding the gun while announced just say sorry yes that's what i said in fact the gun wont analysis in that mr fields opening three ft is
chain of emotion for a new trial from judge was in idaho following a cheery trial on for the first amendment issues of liability i was going through the if you were taken aback you would have called the bomb squad he would have cordoned off the area you wouldn't it just the fact that arrested him and then casually gone through the pack in the middle of a crowd of people i think there is no reasonable basis for a say well this is clearly not probable cause and therefore you know it doesn't matter what if you're a gas then there is the gray area in between and then there's an area that is clearly proper for whole building down but i think i would suspect a coffee can bomb filled with nails can do some damage to people and i'm not sure that there was actually any evidence regarding what
ok now given given laugh how do you deal with the statements on the application that are page three sixty six and three sixty nine and the administering record from which i think at least a plausible reading tells us that they didn't go back there this case is controlled by this course discussion and ran the ins there is no ambiguity as to what this court said in ram the ins and that holding should be applied to the seeking relief in the form of suspension of deportation by it's plain language section three zero nine a applies both to determination of continuous terminations and the continuous not that i'm aware of your honor government not the government will not go so far as to say that they were seeking to delay their proceedings however five of the seven continuances that took place during the immigration court proceedings were at behest of the camacho three of those were due to their former attorney and availability either hospitalization or because she was out of the country however two of those were to determine  requested citing the fact that they had a labor certification pending with the ins and they were waiting for a decision on that matter i think that even took place over a year and a half to two year period so i don't know to say that they were delaying their proceedings have been go so far as that but there is some indication that they're waiting for something else before they received a final deportation order regarding that castro garcia case the government's mistake that case is not applicable to the matter at hand section two forty eight two d regarding determination have certain breaks and and returned to the united states and said it didn't necessarily try to forty eight to eighty two but that was an exception and that was only after looking at whether or not two forty eighty two
meaning of the letters which is the aroma liberation front in english but she wasn't an english speaker correct your honor both parties could have brought this to the court's attention but again and here it's not i don't see it fully dispositive of the issue in that the immigration judge also found this mohammad incredible respect to called honestly airport she says it's not her but in fact it was well then it turns out well yeah then i think that evidence comes in to these are valid passport and it's her but then i  really and i mean obviously i would like people to be concerned about who's coming into our country and then you know and then other things come up that you know ok she and her parents were murdered now you could say a month this went out a good deal  than the other side of it you could say i mean i know people that have had tragic things happen in their lives and every year on that date that is the focus of their or you know you don't forget when someone calls you and speaks italian and then she doesn't speak this language i mean who is she yes identity was the main focus and again it's corresponded to how she was able to establish her kinds because if she was not home then who was from so it's almost taking apart that heighten standard and putting the burden soley on the alien to say come forth with all this documentation but nonetheless the immigration judge and agency is entitle to make it an adverse credibility finding in  immigration judge went through you know the six factors that he really relied on in making as just an average credibility determination in finding that she was not credible on establishing who she was and again and how that not going to send you out of court and say you don't know what you're talking about in this case because i mean we have and all of these cases we have all of these things and we know what we're looking at but because we always say and then i hear people say i run a railroad you know i don't know how do  credibly established where she was when her parents were allegedly murdered at various points in testimony she says she was with her parents when that occurred then she was with an uncle in the town of jima and i'm sorry for pronouncing it wrong she also couldn't recount what the flag looked like this this motto that she said that she saw every single day upon entering her house and she could not give an accurate description of that black she could also not give an accurate description of her hometown of fact saying that there was only a population of three hundred people one in fact you know that evidence and that is the record plenty more than just three hundred people so again there are there are multiple factors here that went into the  he made a more a more specific occasion about her eligibility outside the credibility issue saying that he didn't it was more likely than not if you never said that it wasn't more likely that there wasn't a probability of
nature of their complaints their impression or perception of it i think that's going too far to presume that just because there may have been some violence in their relationship and absolutely says that that is necessarily so efficient to support that kind  usually there's testimony in these cases found is progress in treatment but there wasn't that in this case it was an attack on to a second a second psychologist because i started out as a young warrior when he was starting out as a young guy chester and i mean i see this is an attack on the state's proof as opposed to someone coming in saying
know should have given them more information so my response to that i don't know is that the plaintiff did not provide more information in terms of what an environmental lawyer did what they did is they first established what was the occupation by looking at the job description in the time she's put into the and they say she was doing environmental law under the policy but they didn't do that is they said wait a second we don't see in the g o p the di from those time sheets they didn't look at attending meetings which means they actually said she took his preparation i don't see those in the records they said she went to a long court argument she did if you look she attended it she did not put on time sheets so the environmental law it distinguishes it from the general practice of law and in fact if you go to know his attention to harry definitions you will find that there is choice your client to measure her disability by the standards of the general practice is arbitrary and then to the extent there are some commonalities if you look at the her capability of executing the duties of an environmental attorney i don't want to be lost in this discussion because while the court has to determine is there substantial evidence in the record for the start date of because i would assume that there are three categories of evidence that supports standards the terminations here for most treatment records that's precisely why the evidence of what were the discussions communications between the planet and her physicians about her condition and the impact of work on her was no no no it comes back  standard operating procedure when a plane comes in and scatter sent a question to each of her three treating physicians with a very simple direct question when did you recommend that your patient stop working and and three there is additional substantial support for standards determination from opinions of three consulting psychiatry is as to the what i would like to address is where the consulting physicians they rely very heavily on them dr graham was the first one if you look she actually did not review any of dr white's records from december of two thousand and eleven so that's one  knowledgeable review records from the critical twenty eleven time period to extend they do rely upon trips except for the work that only occurred at a time when in fact standard founder to be disabled statements by dr white and dr peterson although they said recommended in february which was when they were asked to complete the form the form also said describe describe the changing condition