MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
a situation where the chapter says here's one alternative you can choose your own this isn't proscriptive statute which by its very nature says that if you include the provision it must have these minimal standards the carrier then shows for its own reasons to disregard arbitration by blue cross and the opposition by the plaintiffs that was the first time we came up with this and that's why i cited to the angry case out of the fifth circuit seating there's some prejudice here because we're going to be forced to relate to get a claim we thought was duration in one thousand nine hundred eight when this statute was passed in one thousand nine hundred five and did not bring up the statute at all until after the arbitration was unsuccessful as she asked and approximately eight hundred thousand dollars in damages from the arbitrator even know her claims that already been paid and then we get to the after that arbitration awards this year awards and i favorable award then is the first time we hear about the statute that's our primary argument i understood mr parsons to say that even if it's somewhere in the record and i'd like to know precisely where arbitrators record our decision does not reflect that the arbitrator's decision reflects that he decided that there was no preexisting condition of blue cross was never bound to pay these claims they paid them anyway so there should be no additional damages as far as emotional that's the only record we have of the arbitration your honor and that is all the arbitrator's decision addresses i don't it's from that i don't think we can be sure whether or not it was addressed in the arbitration or what the arbitrator's decision on that was as i said i was i think this is where we get into the briefing a little bit as far as risk sharing is an integral part of the policy relationship and does it that's the law regulating the insurance industry i would have to say that the first thing i want to arbitration contracts insurance contracts go to speak court and not arbitration are statue no matter how you read it doesn't have that our statute is still permissive whether you want to have it in a contract or not you can go to arbitration you can go to speak court you just common law interpretation of arbitration agreements i think with respect to risk sharing i think even the smith and enabler california cases cited by plaintiffs of courtney on this i don't see how dispute resolution can affect the risk sharing between between the again this is an optional statute no matter what and it doesn't particularly dictate the terms of the relationship between the parties there is no mandatory language in the statute doesn't say you need to have this language in a contract however i think that we're still talking about we're taking it another step away well if you think the answer to that question ensured is yes that undermines the statute was the objective of affecting and maybe protecting the rights of both
really raise his request for a recording of counsel it gives basically no information at all as to what to do next it is not on the record why mr pickett did not be racist notion but i think the we think the lack of notice given by this denial would likely suffice as an explanation so in the other cases that are from the score with regard to the council it's routine that the plaint didn't during the course of the litigation raise this request again in those other cases the court affirmatively denied and provided explanations for its denial the district court's intention was for mr pickett to reraises motion the order would have so stated well what do you think the words at this time mean at this time it could mean that the giant is reserving judgment advantage of nine hundred and eighty eight prisoners can't there's a very serious problem with prisoners getting represent the we haven't observed a problem with people who want to raise the age discrimination claims getting representation your honor there is always the chance that a pro se litigant may not be able to sufficiently articulate or show to a possible attorney that he or she approached thus far without any bar to those sorts of requests we have mr pickett had no reason to know that under such a statute and there is no go i must say i don't see that he was never properly in the white duty program he just showed off one day and the people who were in charge didn't know his circumstances and as soon as they found out they started this is a bureaucracy you fill out paperwork that doesn't sound like a violation of the following bit of evidence that would have put him in a good light but as far as i can see even with the benefit of counsel he hasn't been able to show that he qualified for the light duty program because he never filed an application removal of a benefit that one may or may not be entitled to may still be prejudicial or unlawful discrimination if that removal was based upon his being a member of the protected class
she have presented that evidence anyway pardon i don't understand why it is being surprised by the forensic evidence explains why she wouldn't have presented evidence that she was from around armenia and that was a known question why wouldn't didn't produce because she was a crime seems to me she would have produced whatever she had to produce the judge response question whether this is pharmacy or i heard you i thought i heard you say well she had evidence she could have produced demonstrate or nationality but it seems to me she would have untimely disclosure of the t h s for instance report there were a myriad of documents that she could have submitted to cure the allegations found within the t h s report it is true that there were statements allegedly made by the children that the i j a used as a means of have made these statements it's also more important tellingly that gore testified on page one ninety nine of the record that he had never saw or really met with attorney and on page one sixty one of the record a government testified that she had primarily consulted with attorney and that she told the attorney that she and her children were all born in feet on iran what the issue here points down to and our contention is is that i j was not able to credit forward gave them both a very limited way as far as the rest of the record evidence the fact that there were two conflicting stories being told by the family members and the fact that there were parts of the record that in there thinking well i don't have any problem proving i'm armenian i have these docs i mean i'm writing and i have documents but simply by themselves from iranian so she didn't have any reason to come up with anything else and while she didn't have any such reason to worry about the counter
policy and it's been criticised in the practice of china i have a little trouble with that we've also said that needs to be an individualized analysis and in this case you have specific testimony about what went on and the country report doesn't rule out of all the circumstances that he's alleging and says that is a matter of a generalization you know and as you just quoted but that doesn't nothing in the records indicate that his wife who has remained in china this whole time that has been sterilized and that she was one of the people there and it was a choice as she or her husband to appear for sterilization and there's nothing to indicates that in the province it is from that that would necessarily be the case especially considering the fact that he has daughter as his first child and that it's very likely in that province that the second child is permitted when the first child is daughter made a case to prosecute and secondly i don't know the state of the record but sometimes you have the if you well can that we will but it right by change conditions i don't know that and they can this case but those issues might be open and then finally in any event
is the problematic nature of whether or not she can do surveillance and monitor work must be remembered that the dictionary of occupational titles was last updated in one nine hundred seventy seven and the jobs are going system monitor is very different today than it was then it now involves more use of the hands and obviously i'm not a vocational expert but location experts are likely to testify that the job has changed and it involves different electronic controls and for right that would be possible remedy although i would put it to this court that you are able to find as a matter of law that she cannot perform those psychological evaluation for the agency weight based on the fact that she was also found to be only or in a secondary or secondary issues were present because we would say well the subjective testimony is based on on her allegations and her
questions might my time has expired score i think the court was asking some important questions here because below argued that in support of his motion to compel that the record did not allow for any and in addition some of the other documents that are in the record that were presented to the district court i think fairly reflect that he was not only seeking to provide information to mr black men but that he was doing it not only needed to evaluate theories flames and on that's where they were there were some areas of overlapping interest and when mr scaramella you know i think was referring to when he was saying that he did not want to be a part of other claims were certain court also referred to a non attorney's third party which to me suggests that it was thinking that mr brightman was somehow outside the scope of the privilege and was not considering whether they in fact had a common interest and in separate f simply nothing that mr black men can point to no clear error of fact that is is laid out in the record before this court that would compel reversal on a factual basis now for the first time he is saying well nonparty it's have no legal standing no legal right to assert the work product protection but there is no case at least not in this circuit that had to do with the office of special counsel's investigation into the clinton white house all suggests that not dead on the owners of a work product protection do you have a right to privilege of a common privilege where you have a common interest agreement or as in this case you have two clients of one law for that that one a holder of the  joint common interest or of a joint privilege but none of those he says deal with the entirely different situation that's presented here where one where one party to the train fly away ship desires to use the materials for cro honors i think that there has been no basis that has been suggested that the district court somehow committed some abuse of discretion in finding that the work product protection applied
the application for attorney's fees and objections from brian marine with respect to that application i'm limiting my arguments this morning with respect to the appeal on the application of section ten i believe the attorneys fees and those issues were discussed adequately in the brief and i prefer to highlight the arguments that we raised in the year with respect section ten these section ten of the longshore act provides for the as a nonunion longshoreman there is such a thing if you had fifteen dollars an hour and then had gotten a job as a union longshoremen making thirty two dollars and forty nine cents an hour for performing  tly the same work and been injured a couple of months after getting the new position the appropriate wage analysis would be just what the  dispositive that they are to be included whether they were a substitute for fringe benefits that might have been paid by a different employer or otherwise there is nothing whatsoever speculative about the value there was evidence of another davis bacon triton already has that schneider could have applied for it would have required him to relocate the evidence indicated not that he had decided bottle told the tritone manager who hired him that this was a permanent position and that he could expect to continue to receive that  of the board's award of fees for the work done before the great majority of the challenge entries certainly did relate directly to the appeal and tritones only argument against those and three is that they they did not relate to the issue of average weekly wage and that it's not good enough that they related to the appeal before the board if they did not relate to that specific issue now there are lots of services with respect to ok's which don't even relate to the issue for example or receipt of the employer's notice of appeal there are also of course services that don't result in the filing of anything such as for example the reasonable services which one must perform on behalf of a client is vital interests are at stake as mr schneider's were on this deal and are and they were reasonably perform standard not whether they relate to the specific issue but whether they are part of the service is performed before the tribunal if the court has any questions i'd be happy to address anything further otherwise
and the immigration court to provide her with notification of the removal proceedings and at the time and place for hearings none of the notices were returned as undeliverable therefore petitioners and it's fairly should be charged with receiving the notices to address under the statute because i think the a one f address requirement only applies if the non citizen actually receives the notice to appear which of course you do not in this particular days that does not mean that she should be charged with the presumption  globally is now half as charged with her san jose address she's never provided her washington and or student she never personally provided her washington address the us s have the address she's provided on her adjustment of status application am and you know what i'll show up when i want to be goes on now i think i have to leave through adjustment of status and callahan also go to your point you sort of asked at the end you know what's the pressure to here and what relief that she'll have going forward and crimes involving moral turpitude neither of which require a conviction it just requires that a person commit a crime involving moral to proceed and the person who met an immigration violation and there's evidence indication from the  court for their sessions down the germ
the broadcast think there's a power to stop here rick i'm relying on several different issues one is that the exception and to recall the looked an exception to the general rule is that it's focused on the fact that it was not disclosing information until somebody actually looks at it you know somebody goes to the website and clicked on a button that's been plagued by the army corps think give me this piece of information i just read the washington analyses is that in this world where we have internet postings that would be an unbearable burden and i recognize that what the statute is trying for here that is you know is right disclosure now if you want to apply the more traditional common law rules then you get the single publication rule and it's our position that what happened this case that is the decision to post on the internet falls right in with with television broadcast exhibit of motion picture or similar every communication is a single publication this was written before the internet became well known but it seems to me that as easily you could have added internet postings i think that the court was correct in in distinguishing those type of cases which requires you to go back and obtain information probably have a password and retrieve it and that's not this case this is an open publication all this information is available it doesn't require thousand and three and still on the same level thank you thank you back to the initial filing given the nature of noticed right but right threats and it's somebody at some point in november december made the affirmative act of taking it at the link from one place and moving it to another place duck when the clone received the complaint given the nature of notice pleading they were certainly on notice that that they should look into what exactly they have done as far as this web posting the case relation back has a lot of equitable language in the case regarding what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed as does the notice pleading th
say that it does not fall to that category because the court also said instruct her that the court is not allowed to look at the police report neither is that allowed to look at the complaint application and my position  statement in the in the plea agreement that didn't refer to the certificate of probable cause and then the government was urging that we have to look at it and similarly the government would have an easy time of it if if he had said explicitly i have met all facts in the c p c so i guess this one is a little bit ambiguous in between but it seems that that shepherd changed as i read it is this is what i did and i'm not contesting this a little more to what you said than that you sort of hear the evidence with my attorney i think there's a fair likelihood that i'll be convicted if i went to trial for that reason i'm taking the pl correct if it was just brought in by the government you know to back up a conviction where the plea agreement in the charging document or the jury verdict then the charging document or jury instructions didn't make out the generic offense that's pressure let me out at this point mention one of the the important things about sheppard and taylor as well is that these are cases that at some point according to consideration that underlay the tailor case was avoiding the need for many trials fail and also ensuring consistently the constitutional right that a that's correct your honor the board of immigration appeals has followed a process very similar to taylor you know before it was articulated the board did not adopt the taylor approach in response to that decision and it's free it's apply but furthermore the shepherd case is of relevance to this case only if the court chooses to decide on the basis of modify categorical approach and in this case the board clearly health that statute the latter case i would think probably not because i don't think a lot of cases of sexually predatory sexual predatory that's the first case i think the state court has that has been limited to mean sexually immoral purposes sexually predatory purposes let's say somebody called a minor and said you should come with me to watch you know some start again the nature of the fence is such that the mere exposure of the child sexually predatory language is abusive it's mentally
was required to show by her partner in so the evidence not by compelling evidence that it is more likely than not that he will suffer persecution on account of a protected ground or torture or the acquiescence of the mexican government agency concluded that its mission of fail to demonstrate past persecution for two reasons st because he didn't somebody physical harm and nd because of threats alone don't constitute persecution as a matter of law but that case stand constitute persecution in this case or action is a specially when combined with other forms that are meant even along i mean this case petitioner escaped the cartel and was informed thereafter that there was an assassination order against him  threats but if we look at the record of evidence as a whole we have an individual whose own words mark his parent before during his reasonable period of you before i decide on his or he specifically question on whether or not he was he was harmed by the cartels and he he's not i'll get away during question to answer session before the immigration judge he asked the question he's asked the question whether or not he's harmed by the cartel and he says no i think what we really have here is self serving self serving or so it's all serving him in with regard to seeking protection from the united states government all we have to review is the board's determination the you know what he suffered something as testimony doesn't amount to persecution and i wonder if you could address what i mean what are we to make of the fact that the board in its analysis of aspers q sion didn't mention at all the fact that he had been kidnapped for three days and also doesn't seem to thought about the cumulative effect of the of the kidnapping by the board of immigration appeals and when you marry those decisions together it seems quite clear that the agency here considered all those factors as they relate past persecution including the kidnapping including the allegations that when they are not a firm when they are not a foreigner rejected by the board when there is language of the assumption of credibility and whether or not that language feeling of itself taints the overall house persecution or fear persecution as this court has consistently found yes threats in a vacuum may or may not be big persecution i mean we are required to look at these cases in the aggregate as wolk amazes you which before working for the cartel in this regard based upon the record evidence it doesn't rise to the level of persecution as the facts redress on out here with regard to will come in to me as the do and i just want to talk just a little bit i know my time is running out here with regard to the convention against torture here is the immigration judge does a great job of summarizing the evidence here for regard to the mexico country conditions i think what is clear is that mexico suffers from a score of elin's in prague and i think we can all agree to that but we believe this court has consistently said the general violence in of itself does not rise to the level of persecution and there's no evidence
if he if he says he was never married and that you know that you it's may please the court anthony payne on behalf of the united states attorney general if i may start first with the jurisdictional question in this case namely the waiver is the government's position that this court lacks jurisdiction is i didn't know a brief the two thirty seven the twelve twelve twenty seven a one a waiver it's best of five because it includes the language in the discretion of the attorney general prove that he was married it provides that there was a april seventh ninety eight ceremony and indicates that there was the consent of the parents and it also lists as visa application also present substantial evidence of a willful misrepresentation in addition to indicating that there was no marriage the application indicates that there was no children i j reason reasonably concluded that there was no reason petitioner believed that there was no marriage there would be no reason for him not to indicate his children because in the list of whether or not they were  illegitimate he could have petitioned for those children at that point that i just recently concluded the reason he did not include his children is because he did not want to indicate his marriage at the same time because that would tend to