MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
but it doesn't really seem that this requires a full argument twenty minutes with his maximum argument i think it should be able to deal with the real issues you need to  the riverside undercover officer and interest in the cocaine i can't argue entrapment with any kind of a straight face obviously but it seems pretty outrageous to me that the money the drugs were obtained based on somewhat false a false statement as to where the target was it also seems to me and you know the only thing i can say to you to your question your honor is that obviously the case law in this circuit and elsewhere seems to have to be based on the assumption that the end justifies the means that at some point you know that we need these bad guys to get the other bad guys and therefore what we're doing is justified as long as we infiltrate and we catch big drug dealers what what my concern is jury had seen that it might have gone the other way i think that is strange to strike because of the hard part and that was that was something that the government what the court wants to do about the blakely issue i know you have heard through the grapevine that we're going to be getting a decision before the end of the year from the supreme court that we hold like everybody else in my office we've got twenty cases still money in this particular case the government's position is that first of all the history of the company through foreman has been through excuse me to the court but except for the fact that mr freddy admitted prior to the court case here that he had not paid his income taxes the other particular allegations have to do with violations of the ministry of policy not violations of the law and we offer does not rise to the level of such outrageous government conduct that we justify dismissal of the government i think became aware of that type of series of alleging this conduct in the past actually stealing drug money and it was proven up that would be the type of informing that you no longer be working for the federal government however and  questions with respect to the i think his conduct if you like i hope i'm not beating a dead horse but if you look at forty seven and forty eight of the excerpts of record that is mr
motion on terms a b and c and now i have in my complaint paragraph twenty eight and allegation that we agreed to a b c d e f and g that we would deem you restricted to work the board be a reveal with certain things are done and the idea is that that doesn't say that you wrote be fired without cause in the interim one could read that into it as an implied otherwise why they are saying what they're
he argues that the threatening telephone calls from members of the ultra nationalist trend ascii party quote do not amounts of persecution and that the internet nine hundred ninety four in which core of  even if the the court were to say that perhaps it was in part because he was still interfering with police business surely they went above and beyond what they needed to do to get him to said what he was saying was that he wasn't necessarily truthful with regard to his the captive fear and what he was basing that on he being the immigration judge was that had been here in the united states two times prior new york's times article the focus of the whole article is that the the fact that shoes are now more visible under the new governments and are in more aspects of society is actually creating judge and filing before the board of substantial evidence supports the immigration judges finding that particular fail to show that two of the three incidences that he testified were on account of a protected ground and that's not how it's testified to and he testified that he stopped just car she interrupted the police activity and they sprayed him immediately and then he heard a remark happening so the immigration judge found that the evidence did not a meeting that they discussed him specifically and identified him as jewish and decided to deny his lease it's not clear at all furthermore the immigration judge gave a continuance so allow her to put forth an affidavit or put his his religion furthermore the immigration judge found that even if all of these incidences that just has to apply to were on account of his religion they did not rise to the level of to the united states didn't seek asylum and returned back and again i'd like to note that in this particular case based on this record the immigration judge to consider that his tally of the circumstances petitioner with his parents and at the soviet regime was able to attend university graduated from college had only apartment cars was able to set up two very prosperous businesses was able to travel so taken as a whole the he had failed to show that he had been persecuted in the past he didn't show that the circumstances in russia to change such that he would now fear persecution in the future he failed to establish a well founded fear of future persecution and the immigration judge didn't stop there also notify are also identified the fact that petitioners individual that he had proffered a proof of regarding was a jewish businessman who resided in the area similar situated individual who was living there without incident and also petitioner fails with stablished that he couldn't relocate to another area within russia specifically under this point position in notice that she could he was able to obtain  elsewhere and he identified anti semitic first of all anti semitic feelings but he didn't indicate that he feared that he would be persecuted if you if you relocated i thought i could be wrong in th
probably should come off i don't know what's the significance of his feeling to fill out the travel report immediately upon shutting down the truck was coming back if you're doing it in the fashion he says he always do
approached the porch but before any force emus what we know is that mr smith disobeyed repeated coming as to put his hands on his had disobeyed commands to turn around and force whether you call it deadly or not would be excessive however that excessive force would not defeat the one forty eight violation because the one forty eight violation occurred  here we have forty eight was complete at the time the pepper spray was used the one point yeah it was complete you could say there were multiple one forty eight here but certainly there was a one to compel compliance pesher are no that's not my argument he an officer can use force to obviously make an arrest overcome resistance like cetera it's not an element of  sure if you treat the whole sequence from the time officer ryan ball gives his initial command to the time officer quinn gives his command put your hands on your head turn around as a single doesn't transmute the earlier one forty eight violation into a man by the action and you look at the martin it's kind of for a manager what i'm trying what i'm trying to do and i think what all all of us on the bench at the moment are trying to do is to figure out the application of hand hacks as they have to bring hey vs if a successful nine hundred eighty three suit would necessarily invalidate the earlier conviction and you're saying that because there were things that could it have to today and in your view did constitute one forty eight violations before the application of any force on necessary or otherwise a finding of excessive force does not martin is versus city of albuquerque if they can't circuit cases to deal with a new mexico law that is for all practical purposes the same as one for you know california law it's right in a reply brief and it's a very good analysis in martina's about this hack issue and how you reconcile it and facts are there with you has someone who was supposedly continually resisting right to the point of rolling the car window up on the officers arm one forty eight covers a wide range of pando in this case there's a lot of conduct it's defense burden to comment and the basis for the one forty eight conviction that's what record in the criminal case shows the record is silent as to the precise factual basis for the one for the charge and given what we know of the facts given that we know there's a one forty eight violation complete before any force is used
the mind right that it is because there's a minor and also i think it's different because there's not really an equitable polling argument although you might argue that when you get to the merits or through the minors implication is intact for true and in fact i think the or individually targeted that is wrong or are they've been actually denied the opportunity to return home to the only country that ever lived in the country they were born in that is individual har your honor if it's both either or both and regarding jordan i was actually just going to get to that so the country information that we have on jordan doesn't indicate any persecution of palestinians and in fact palestinians in jordan are treated report in two thousand and two even if you want to look to the to church claims that they have to i believe the female petitioners uncle was killed in one nine hundred seventy one during black september and have a link with the female petitioners need to husband who was involved in the world trade center bombing there's just no objective evidence on this record that they will be targeted by the jordanian government on that basis every indication is that if they are allowed back into jordan in the arab world is incredibly difficult at this point and so it was the immigration judge stating was merely that we're going forward with the question of persecution in kuwait and jordan under the understanding that it's quite possible that they would never be order removed to either of those two countries because we would simply be unable to obtain current travel documents and get the agreement of us to accept them and what was the basis for including jordan that all the  and they had travel documents from jordan and so theoretically they could obtain travel documents from jordan again and go back there and they would rather not documents individuals but it gives them the right to travel only it's simply a recognition by the arab states that the palestinians have no formal government from which to receive them that's which will document and to allow them to travel internationally that is one of them to remain  their stance here would be as removable ayling and they would have that removal order and at any point at which we could obtain travel documents they would be stuck back to that order until that point you know the government's hands are essentially tied if we can't get travel documents we sir or your honor i argue that forbidding people to return to the only country they've ever lived in and they were born in is a form of persecution and the reason they're not being allowed to return is because they're  government and its treatment of people with whom he was associated and so there are other reasons that were never even considered by the i j a it appears and the government hasn't mentioned that lead these petitioners to fear of persecution in jordan they have nothing to do merely with the fact that they're all sunni and the i j a in the government i've always suggested that this is merely about ethnic conflict it's much more than that i mean these petitioners are in a very unique circumstance and the i j a didn't consider any of the
and as a result of the flaming fire that has been sent against them so the devils and the jinn among them came back to their people who are them what is the matter with you why is it that you are unable to bring back far as news from the heaven and among them said they said that what could be the reason and they felt that the only reason that we are unable to bring this news is that something new has happened that is preventing us from yelling the news
gun law if there had not been a refund right in the case went forward and you prove no lost what would you have to show under alaska law in order to get something above and beyond to which would make it virtually impossible in many cases or companies to avoid lawsuits actively  quite simple and it's true that interest is often sexual as in saving for the abstract i'm right i can see but the law doesn't tailor pre judgment interest remedy crystalized injury suffered  one thousand dollars worth of clothes and that the card is linked to a non interest bearing checking that has a ten thousand dollars and she buys a one thousand dollars worth of clothing there's a fifty dollars charge because i guess what i'm suggesting is it's not an injury in fact even if it were recoverable as a type of the average is similar to because it were not more interesting that time because we've we've can see that it was in a not interest whatever she chose to do with her fifty dollars is her right and when she doesn't have access to the fifty dollars at a group that's right for just persons like a pretty straightforward injury the deprivation of the loss of your property or your money you're just saying well she may not have not offering a rule that treats interest could never be established as an injury in fact our rule is the one that we signed in a number of cases a simple allegation and a low interest is not
and to do that they assume a she wanted to go forward with a complaint which she did not was wrong that they were going to have to let him now that there was a complaint well accepted practice proved to be very important on our qualified immunity decision so this is what it comes down to where you move to dismiss it you could have put a few more facts into the record you chose not to they chose not to and were left in this position
because the card is for seventy two hours within twenty five miles for if it is conceded here someone uses the card for the purpose of living permanently in the united states why isn't that squarely in violation of the entry laws and i think i think there's two answers that the first one is the most important thing is these parts we should long before violation of law if you know that you're using that card and eight fraudulent needs to live in the united states it's not a problem if you're using it to come across for seventy two hours well document let's assume it is they'll if you use a facially valid document for the purpose of entering the united states to live here answer this just a simple question ok if the document that is facially valid allows you to come into the country for seventy two hours and within twenty four miles and you come across the border using that card to stay more than seventy two hours and to go to san francisco what's legal about it well if you are in that case anything that flooding statute but also involved a case where any employer in the united states had used border crossing passes in a very similar manner that they were used here to shuttle back and forth across the border for purposes they intended to avert suspicions of the and immigration service upon their entry there were a number of things that they did including for example mr rove had a work authorization card also planned to not bring the furniture over with their children and one trend and they admit it so that's the reason was because they didn't want the border patrol to be suspicious of the fact that they may be bringing their children's lives permanently in that states so i believe  this is going well i would say that it does i mean smuggling as defined in the planing and statute is simply knowing assisting and aiding an alien to ensure trying to enter the united states in violation of the law now doesn't specify that it has to be in violation of law and without valid papers and there can be such a thing as entering into united states with a valid papers but with a fraudulent intent to use those papers to obscure the purpose of your entry and what i at that point there could be a violation at the moment they cross really does that that is what the statute focuses on is at that moment they crossed whether or not the intent to violate the law and and in contrast to  across the border it's not concerned whether or not the alien has later on acquired an intent to remain in the united states and i believe two seventy four is a broader statute this one is more specific but the immigration well i think i mean i think the statute pretty clearly establishes that if there is a violation
jury questionnaires this case on that is provided for in the rhode island jury pool plant and my cane he requested requested that any time after the jury pool has been collected there is a well my argument is that they're missing the point when they're trying to say they couldn't get the questionnaire maybe it would have been harder during the actual why dear because you would have been using it for the idea but when the broader view was completed on
based on a recent preemption trust i was hired by the appellants to serve as a third party administrator with a purely ministerial function they never had any discussion area authority are never made a motion to dismiss right and it appeared it never appeared all right so the district court enters in order dismisses it based upon essentially the arguments of the co defendants me and you come around and wake up to the fact that the order includes trust are and on a motion to reconsider say wait a minute that's that you can't responsibilities and it had responsibilities for implementing and terminating the plan which it abused so how can you plead now today how can you clea the the the benefit program in the plan and that they were responsible for implementing the plans terminations all of which they did they had like right and all of those things explain to me to trial it might still be found to be in a really remote set the judiciary that's really yet to be that has not yet been determined right and it didn't get that far ye what about the amendment of the complaint and then when they did look as if you complied with their roles in that regard it's a case where to go back should you be allowed to amend the complaint and why did the but i just have one more question what would you are many to try to get out of the federal courts or stiction or would you are meant to try to come in under arrest and violation of arrests or no we would not know we weren't parties at the time that the court was considering dismissing the causes of action as a whole and because trust our was was named only in those causes of action that's the reason trust our was dismissed as well because there were no other remaining causes of was acting as a custodian of records of positive records just like it would any other customer and it wasn't specific to the plan here we have a case where the allegations in the complaint are very specific the plan i mean for a great example is that it's alleged that trust are failed to provide a proper benefit formula under article ten of the us a plan i mean you'd have to look at the plan to see if that were properly a pledge not this is you know if the way the complaint is alleged currently  about trust are failing to provide these services and its own right for failing to provide advice failing to properly calculate the contributions under the plan failing to implement the plan and properly take steps to do that gives the wrong advice as to the amount of planned contribution doesn't provide a proper benefit formula and doesn't decisions regarding the plan and how and what options the appellant's have regarding the plan and i think that if you look at section a loving three to two which refers to the other sections i mentioned i mean that's the real question
all right we'll call the case in france's st attorney general and i believe that the time has been split up between two advocate in this matter to yarn your honor i think the question is of course at the time of the i made that comment there's going to be some issues that they have not addressed but the question should be what is the dominant  mr tucker are you there yes i am talking for a reason and in this case i think it's i've already said all that a possible that there is no realistic probability here but i often think that until the board has had the opportunity to address that issue it's not an appropriate ground for decision this time more or less entirely in a footnote that was written only insofar as was necessary to show that the survey that petitioners offered in europe in greek was playing a lot more to the government now can see that modified surveys in a fairly on a fail because doing so would be inconsistent with all right thank you very much for thank you very much an aggravated felony this according to silva how that we managed to be ira is only appropriate in two instances one would be i if you have to consider the issue presented to the court or to when there's been a change in law or an intervening event neither properly conduct a categorical approach and that be our aid application of the categorical approach will not be accorded deference the court should not my man and instead consider the question to know just like and seeing that he did not properly applied to an appropriate and finally i while maybe saying that the government can feed it the issue of whether green within the minority might have been strong a bit of a strong statement we do not see the government making any sort of substantive parked at the supreme court and during a south press noted point to a single case in which the state courts apply the statute and nods and eric manner is sufficient for meeting the categorical approach it's reasonable probability requirement but then here we this court might have reason to think that this case would be overwhelmed by the new jersey supreme court and there is no evidence of that the government have been briefed in any argument regarding supreme court decision to the new jersey supreme court decision that would give evidence that that the new jersey supreme court overturned this and we don't see there being any evidence that would suggest any reason to ignore the intermediate court in this case