MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
in appropriate under our order in words if i can really be saying before the oral testimony is incredible i really simply pointing out respects in which there was nowhere in the documentary evidence any support supposed to do would justify the moving going here two way and we would not be in position to reverse that however there was a procedural due fall cation the a did not address seven or eight pieces of documentary evidence and so we sent it back to them with a specific mandate to review that documentary evidence and then there are some of them and i know you disagreed that they reviewed most of that but had clearly erred on that score what do you say to the wall the problem with respect to government participation at the hands over acquiescence where the board at least  said that you haven't made up a significant enough showing that the government would be unable or unwilling to protect her the question of whether valid legal standard was correctly applied it's a question  because they never reached a person to the front of the as a personal level of violence sufficient to get a persecution at all and not to confusion but i read the record the same way as judge breyer and i don't see that prong of past persecution as being an issue in this case so my question goes to the the potential for future persecution just assume that that there is a finding of past persecution good morning your owners you know you support the attorney general this is before this court once more after its three men requesting that the agency take a look at the objective evidence independent of the adverse credibility findings on remained the agency conducted its analysis kill in connection with violence which the other document don't so the very thing that baby identifies as features the lacking in the documents it doesn't mention but doesn't it doesn't mention the words you say we're not sure that even looked at has and both of those qualities it's not by a self serving speaker and it references a threat to kill in connection with violence so in those circumstances why wouldn't we go back  and so if we conclude they overlooked all and not just focusing on your future and i believe that the record does support that conclusion that the petitioner did sue get the assistance of the government and the government attempted to protect her government completely ignored because even the fact that the police seem to be sympathetic to the persecutors in that case and here we don't have that we don't have any evidence of the government's complicity or a complete lack of attempt to protect the individual at all so but we live in a real world here is that document really so insignificant that it's something that the board had it worked out it would not have mentioned to say nothing about that said the worley two
all was a benefit for diversity week at the high school so i want to hear a little bit more about that but first let me introduce my guests can introduce yoursel guess come and speak to all of you in the one and you maybe you could each tell me a little and some someone that you've sat in on at the school basically the school just gets a bunch of people to comment that are from all different groups like i sat in on  a race where they just talk to us about like the stereotypes and how you should follow them and they are no just an attempt to make everyone accept each other i guess did tolerant of each other and helps marco if you go to any one of the provinces i went to on indian music and i think it's just interesting to see like what is out there that some people aren't aware of and think it's great to open good sam if you could any you know there was a great presentation on drumming i actually didn't get to go to it but i heard a lot about it and yeah just to show diversity of music exactly exactly it's like african drumming and stuff and don't have presentations on gender and sexuality and things like that and i have a p flag ok and i'm get gathering that not everybody gets to go to every presentation and that is something that kind of is a little distressing to hear as a parent i think i'd be really great if you all could go to more presentation so i don't know how many teachers are watching our  higher ups but i really feel strongly that such a great week there's so much offered that maybe you know in the future maybe kids will get to go to more and more because sounds like there's some really great topics now before we get to the singing how long have you all been together as a group and i want to point out that they are nameless as of this point but maybe as the career climbs up they will come up with a name so you know words on that you name lots of people how long have you been playing together well what happened was freshman year at all i was with margot and basically we made an agreement that we would do it senior year we promised that we would and then we left well i'm very lucky that i'm getting this private concert i actually really do nicely done i know music program and how many wonderful artistic adults and younger people there are and i feel very lucky that you guys came here today and well deserved  let everybody else know belmont is very very lucky to have you guys and i know that people will be keeping their eyes on you know to see if and when you have a band name and how they can track you down on you to say one thing before yes
of representation would be in this instance he chose to live it is representation to the defense of the shell in their chancery proceeding where her one of her critter would be enough if the lawyer said to the client you understand don't you that i'm only representing you is the trustee i i'm not looking at any claims about you individually i'm not dealing with anything about you ind so you're saying this whole argument about keith i keep was this record walls but you're saying that this whole kind of duty to notify your client of other things that they might be going on legal world that are case truth she's not the caption i think we've all been long enough to see sloppy pleading they ask for relief against her individually i mean that trusts the state attorney but i can't imagine a scenario whereby a trustee could use
it doesn't matter for there's no reason the key conviction here is for the aggravated from a sexual assault that's one that carries a sentence that would make the difference say ah you just retry him not proven prejudiced as it so for them to do when they have to show that there was prejudice and have not shown the defense was prejudiced having to say one instruction there and in fact they can't because it based the state's burden and the first issue of proof beyond a reasonable doubt i think based on the facts of the case which basically broke down to the victim was told and the matter was told that there was no bearing on a date to a dinner and a movie which
any further amendments given five minutes to explain something to thank you mr chairman after some significant discussion between myself and some other members of this committee in the navy on april tenth the department of defen announced that the final decision on whether or not to permanently homeport a nuclear aircraft carrier mayport florida will be made during the two thousand and ten process the navy agreed to make the decision about whether or not to homeport nuclear care in mayport during the regular two thousand and ten q t r the amendment that i asked for that as part of the block amendment asked for a g a o review of the decision making process that goes into determining how best to make the decision on whether or not to locate a nuclear here in one port or another the a member that i propose twenty six forty seven i've put forth together with mr whitman and mr forbes because the navy though they have agreed to postpone final decision on the home port in question and until the two thousand and  ten completed also requested forty six million dollars for dredging at mayport which is specifically designed to support to accommodate a nuclear area we believe this is a subversion of the of the final determination that we made during the two thousand and ten q t r process what i have asked for today along with the ranking member for mr whitman is that instead we allocate that forty six million dollars to critical marine corps reserve reserve military construction projects general conway recently said that for many years we have recently funded only our most critical needs and as a result we have a backlog of repair and construction requirements and then our installations are in a four position to properly accommodate our increased number of marines there is over one hundred forty million dollars personally and milk on projects for our marine and naval  reserve proposing that instead of authorizing forty six million for dredging and thereby prejudging the outcome of the two thousand and ten decision on home porting that instead we allocate that money to help relieve that one hundred
you may proceed counsel created and then upon death passes the interest because that makes it complete so that you disclaiming the argument is disclaiming something that's not yet complete at the risk of going outside of the director's sealy for it has anything changed from the practitioner to stay on point in terms of a state planning in the manner in which title are so what i'm getting at though is i got the impression from the briefs that basically our rules are formulated after or in conjunction with the federal rules and so i'm wondering made you argue about the question i was trying to ask and that is where fee simple has transferred what is your authority for taking this circumstances out of twenty four what is the where's
that they knew then when they said the price they actually meant the
it be an issue without any merit squids looking only because of her just in the reason that the defendant can't show cause and prejudice is because he can't has his morning documentation even taken in its best light and even even accepting  only demonstrates that either one it was a community came to him over or even though he questioned even though he questioned i mean because this is part of this happening is that he questioned trial coun and he said i repeatedly questioned counsel about whether there was a plea offer and i was never told about why now that's two things one he has no personal knowledge of whether there was a plea offer or not  later is true has no memory of it and my keenly has memory of having a conversation about something in the past and in like just south of two thousand and seven and two thousand and
and as a release of that we referred to in there by the court in the classification of material number of property in addition to the crew failed to consider the proper factors of the distribution of marital property and also finally that the court should consider maintenance and that the waiver  i've had a lot of cases and then and i've heard people say things how offensive it is to say to someone who is the homemaker of the time worse the personal having the other individual marriage being the world and save the world at this point in time you know i know that's where you
to make sure that you understand the dangers and disadvantages of self representation of the p l o and then your request is knowing intelligent and unequivocal you understand that ye you have the right to counsel on this appeal if you can afford to retain counsel you are entitled to that counsel appointed to represent your government expense the court also has discretion to allow you to represent yourself if your request is knowing intelligent and unequivocal and this is not intended to delay the proceedings on appeal and i just wanted to clarify supreme court held that that constitutional rights that extend to appeals still in determining whether the court of appeals will actually assizes discretion to allow you to represent yourself the am hoping that you will listen carefully because in the end of this colloquy i'm going to ask you whether this anything further then you who would add to my description would give  is different from a trial the proceedings are occurring the through the written submissions called briefs and those british have to comply with specific court rules and if you represent yourself you will be expected to comply with those rules appeal could be dismissed if you do not comply you understand a teen and review the transcript of the trial proceedings and identify the potential legal errors committed during those proceedings in this case the those were all those proceedings in court that led up to for what occurred so for example  allows oral argument typically of ten to twenty minutes in some cases the oral argument is not a trinity for the parties to it sure that the judges understand the arguments it's also an opportunity for the judges dangers and disadvantages of suffer facts they can be found in the record below is my least of the lynchpin arguments for your entire appeal if you're going to be able to read any of the arguments that you've identified and finally you're going to have to get past this argument for and the reason i say that is because again the court is only going to be able to consider the court on appeal to make sure it only be able to consider those two facts or those those facts that have been actually as i was stating to you and that s as he believes and i think probably is correct that the issues than you are raising on our moe's properly this which issues you want to keep in there on the basis of being supported by the record no i they just you know have the opportunity at a later time to file a twenty to fifty five a looks to me like no matter what the outcome of the hearing yesterday you'll have an opportunity to file a brief and i hope that this hearing has been helpful to use in giving you some ideas about how to make that grief more
laid with the facts were familiar with the facts we're here to talk about two what would really help us is if you walked us through understanding well these discovery rules were like those of the internal grievance columns procedures you know the tradition and what we would be fine what discovery requests you or your representatives made for these e mails how do we know that these were specifically asked were not turned over because the investigation of those things but the underlying facts right up i see what you're saying obscured facts that undercut a company could really assertions that you're alleging or were misleading you received in the course us with her name on it and the content period it is really so he could look at it for the purpose of framing his own sort of us with what he did isn't in your position with the discipline morphed over time that was part of the sordid i understand you know your complaint to be that you know i was i was under attack here and i'm fighting and fighting
aggressively sought discovery and cross examined witnesses on the question of damages and whether damages they've been proven over the three hundred dollars rational for the felony charge and also aggressively on cross examine witnesses field it seems pretty straightforward based on the way you could read the record ah and that's what happened to him he was honest because he had a very brown is honest because he fired his attorneys
and goes back to the eastern district of new york he may have to go on trial and if you goes on trial he runs a certain risk for example of conviction on these charges and that that might expos greater penalties than those two which he is now exposed as he understand that i have no reason to believe that he does not mind he was there when this than that which was actually impose i think all i can say honor is that based on everything i know he's only aware of the consequences but i don't i can let me just say something about the consequences this isn't just the received less time than the maximum sentence that yorkies he could have received was two years as i said before he received significant benefits from the plea bargaining process including not only the acceptance of responsibility not only claim fails as well because the district court did not err in refusing to allow the defendant to withdraw its guilty plea because he does not provide a fair and just reason for the withdrawal of this filthy plea he's not asserting a legal innocence claim this is the point and as an adult this court said just a few years ago that until the supreme court comes and changes the operative definition of what constitutes sexual abuse of a minor for purposes of determining what an aggravated felon and forth between myself and this caffeine as well as an independent research on the airport and they concluded correctly that it was an aggravated felony just from our perspective this is not i'm surprised here because we do have the district  voluntarily decided this was in his best interest and then received a very favorable sense of fifteen months and backward come out and said he was originally thinking of imposing a twenty one month sentence and dropped down to fifteen months based on somebody arguments
was not at all because it was this poor suppressed that second search that is much more likely much more applicable to the situation here then this case of
keep to violation of the anti kickback
i'm just wondering if the concern that you have expressed about the trial court perhaps finding race to that or something could be avoided by the way we write an order to make sure that it's true but it does pose a risk for him and if the attorney came just recently to know about this theory that he thought was going to win the case without having to call
but under your scenario wouldn't be a loser are you saying the legislature intended if that was taken literally then all the company has to do is get insurance and then whenever there's a claim not tender and say we provide wouldn't that be an exception to the plain language when cases talk about reaching an absurd result why would you ever pay any premiums then again obligated to pay one on network if it gets they're the workers compensation benefits for the injured employee or the employer has failed to provide coverage and has failed to pay benefits so we know the employer has not paid benefits in this case but the employer provided coverage for this w negates coverage it doesn't create about payment it negates the obligation to perform i'm looking part of the carrier and that isn't merely compensation it negates the the carrier's obligation to perform under the policy there is no cover so you are merely in your focusing in favor to provide coverage to you means you never got insurance policy in the first place i mean that's really what you're saying is a neg somebody went out and purchased a legitimate insurance policy to cover its workers you're saying that's sufficient whether that they have to do anything after that it doesn't matter because they have quote unquote failed to provide coverage by initially taking out the policy and we're saying here to provide coverage is more than just taking out a policy and then doing no judgement can be under dense favor so i have a real problem with the jurisdiction to hear this thing to begin with without some something to do with the state and
abuse its power supreme court recently in case of this year and half the town states and those types of argument are for the legislature to iron out and it it is responsive to these various reports and task forces and information as it comes forward and chooses to change a public policy or to increase public policy on that basis and that
correctly she was paying her parents twelve hundred dollars a month to the point at which she was no longer paying maintenance to her at which point she ceased paying her parents with up to that point
in terms of when and how this matter actually will be decided it may or may i make that comment unless there is some preference by the court i thought i would offer a few brief comments regarding four of the issues that were raised language with respect to the necessity requirement that is one of the requirements of the wiretaps actually one of the things i did last night in preparation for the oral arguments you know review that in necessity arguments to almost any one of the paragraphs i get to one just a random and i found that the language with respect to the issue i was looking at was exactly the same and in each of the arguments and  case that is one of the factors when court evaluates whether or not the government is taking some particular care to really meet the necessity requirements or whether they're just offering some boil convince a court that in order to move first and in this case first the most intrusive method of wonderful you have to satisfy a court if there really is no other way to do this and then the that except for her testimony regarding those ninety nine and there's nothing for my client to those events then she takes the witness stand in the trial and she's asked questions did your not in this map operation which he was heavily involved in evidence of that in her testimony if there's nothing in the record that shows he was through at any time from any party conspiracy but there's also nothing in the record to show that he participated in the one nine hundred ninety six  threats but but again just repeating myself the only  was here for example if today let's let's say for example you have never heard my voice and there's a tape recording of this or a lot of and you listen to that tape recording two hundred times tonight that doesn't mean anything to me what do you mean from there yesterday that's another task that you say he has never seen him and talked to and person to form a foundation of that's this person's voice compared to france of life not enough you know he didn't see him enough ok he did me once and the government maybe can fill us in on that ok you know the one of the thing i just my last comment on this is one of the things that occurred prior to trial was the judge signed an order that conclusion unless you find in the record and i mean graham next and i'm getting down to the wire here on the large cap itself one of the arguments i heard this morning was that the defense never
down each of the loan agreement and five years later to denver twenty third the expansion agreement they were signed quite by mr hatfield was for the corporation and for member on significant difference between personal liability and additional tri lateral if you were hearing true or for a surety he may or may not be required to put up collateral the bank  court should reverse the trial court first of all find it to document was not ambiguous that there was no other possible reason for the second third nature decade we can all agree on that that's the only thing i'll agree with but counsel said quite simply this is a case where there's a real state project and it goes south when the market tanks and the bank gets the money from the sale of the property the gets to weigh the testimony based on his observations the witness you don't get that ability here you don't get to see my client were suspenders and inclined radio towers for a living ok and it was hi again you know my friends that i didn't get anything out of this they're trying to get interest late fees hundred thousand dollars an attorney speech