MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
because he doesn't want him to have the rights that are associated with that notification which are very important that you might not get notification through other ways but it wasn't as a result of that these officers did it and if you look at what they said to this court and  to the prosecutor when they said that the reason we didn't put him on there is because we had it married his name to the number but we did not list him as an unidentified male which they do on ten to fifteen times i have all four about the government's complete and substantial compliance with title three's requirement save for one unintentional and truly harmless mistake that is not the sort of mistake on the case so you know  think has since made clear in down the inherent in that kind of mistake that violation of the identification requirement does not rise to the level of a core concern it does not implicate the core concerns of title three and therefore when all the other precondition referenced that sentence and said he was released from that sentence on november third two thousand and twelve those gas come from the record they're not extrajudicial type findings or comments from law enforcement that were made either to me or the trial attorney just want to make that any one calls total out of thousands that were intercepted the government our position here on whether you can make a finding of bad faith in this record is that there is no evidence beyond the fact that he was not named to show that it was a deliberate and conscious attempt to disregard the requirements of title three or did you notice the biggest fact in our favor is that he was given notice and he was included in the body of the december twenty first application suggesting that he had a role in the criminal activity which also evidence is the fact that the government was not attempting to hide his identity from the district court and the policy the requirement of title three is that the inventory must be given not only to the targets but to judge must be given a list of all those who are intercepted in order to decide whether discretionary discretionary notice is required and the practice of this office and the policy of the department is to comply with that requirement and practice is to send those fifteen named targets just to you do something to this and that in the end didn't harm him at all so i think on this record it's very clear that there's no harm the government's mistake was at most and faith then then there is an analysis in terms of prejudice however read it is bad but a deliberate conscious decision to do that to violate that law which we have here your hon twenty three they knew at that time what its name was so so nice they didn't marry him ok that's not true he married a month before the october twenty fourth title three they married him not much
issue he adopted it exactly as the defendant has raised it and this is a situation that would choose a specific aspect of the trial rather overall he was considering that council had been too busy to handle this case allegations which resulted in denial now we don't know without tackling or without appointment of additional counsel whether there was married to those allegations and on or not so certainly counsel's failure to provide detail
a computer show dishes like for wish and then they don't have no recollection of this accident as you can tell we've let everybody down a little over when the red light comes on oh yes or not you give us a wrap up statement and then you've reserved a minute or a bottle and we'll hear from mr hertz or yes so if you would have a seat now for a minute we're going to hear from the attorney that your papers with yes please and we'll hear from the other attorney then you'll get one more minute to respond thank you very much mr cheese it please the court my name is nicholas herzl and i represent the police in this matter your honors i think the arguments that have been made are on preserved for appellate review and refer to documents which are outside the record i think that just to cut to the heart of the matter the order appeal from should be affirmed based on new work educational off thirty thirteen subsection four which provides that the defendant in this case is immune from liability absent a violation of a statu plaintiff has not articulated any reason on appeal to any why that is unsound and i can't articulate any better than judge towns did in the in the lower court and her decision in laying out why this decision was correctly made unless the court has any questions controlling issue as far as the regulations there are two at issue that the plaintiffs did argue in opposition papers but those were first of all new theories of liability made for the first time in opposition to the rule fifty six motion and also each statute does not apply one of them was that was relied upon was not in effect at the time of the accident that was a provision and then the other as just towns explained in her order is the only applies to the school district and not not to the bus company correct those two are and judge towns as decision that supplemental appendix to forty seven  of what controls all of us here and the district court of the procedures that get followed and there may have been some problems with the procedures that none of us can do anything about and that was up to your attorney to do something about but
and i just write my office is next to a fire department so if we hear any sounds i just want to apologize for that's a bit out of my control it won't be yourself no sir no just may please the court my name is gregory raided by law enforcement and during that raid the law enforcement asked for if he had any contracts that he had with some of his marketers and mr good excuse me mr camillo and i provided one of those contracts in the agent right away told him contracts two years prior to ever meeting mr goodman and other facts about mr kamil it was that he he contracted with another lab to handle some specimens that his own lab could not test and one of those that's what was the western slope laboratory you are the ones who slipped laboratory was actually on the medicare exclusion lest he could not handle or test samples that were going to be sent for reimbursement through medicare  despite testifying otherwise in our trial mr kamil instructed one of his associates robert sommer fell on earth to lie right to mr maccormack bed western slow and actually say no the samples were given you are not medicare samples so you can test them you can run them through your lab they will be in violation of the fact that you're on the exclusion mess the rd fact would be that when i mr camillo contracted with mr goodwin's company at the government and the states and the banks that are very experienced in medicare but mr goodman had no experience in these laboratory samples or anything like that he was essentially following the direction of anthony camillo who  i described as a con man who is someone who who i believe knew the truth while he was testifying didn't know the truth i was operating his business it was truly a complete greed scam that he was running the conversation you had with an employee about the requirements of the term all are you asking did he was he given any instruction from mr kamil about what medicare requires  my understanding is that when he signed that medicare application he was it was assumed that he would be made aware of those provisions and wouldn't it wasn't because of messed up you know d s that i'm not sure what that stands for that is the southwest disability services that's the him my argument for those would be that he was trying to operate the business appropriately and wanted to know everything that was going on and there were certain things that he just was not being
against whom similar kinds of allegations were pending in being investigated or treated differently than then he was it's our position that that he did not do that now to be sure there was a great deal of evidence well that other people had performed transactions for friends and family members and has not had either not been disciplined or the discipline had been archibald complains that he was treated differently the first was was being placed first from logically i guess was being placed on administrative leave at the time that he was think both the the the dismantling the terminations the the agency relied on the trim oil in the office but the didn't express really rely on on sexual conduct statistical things how quickly are the customers being served they have you know wait times they have standards for that and so she was generally overseeing the office the day to day supervision for substantial evidence i don't think that by filing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict based not on any legal failure of the soli based on factual failure adverse employment actions in the jury verdict was a simple form was he discriminated against yes what is your award of his favor so the jury was not asked to identify on what protected status they were bas enable otherwise failing applicants to obtain a driver's license respectfully declining offers of money or favors for services rendered not processing your relatives or friends transactions i've just read and again there were five adverse employment actions administrative leave was one of them being issued the previous mis the letter was another being the pre demotion letter was yet another so without the albany after he had been demoted and transferred and then have to do with the fact that he and a female coworker attended the community event on behalf of their employer female coworker apply for again here is that the evidence of discrimination just isn't there with your guard your profile white she was a ukrainian i believe working with a russian speaking population brand new employee still on probation well i think that i guess my response to that would be that perhaps that that is where the the same after inference is is appropriate the same
really that she did not use her husband's name and those tractors let's not go with the heart of the question whether or they had intent to establish a life together at the time of the marriage guy for a year introduced him asked her husband had a joint bank account and so on he didn't want any of that not true is that right correct right so yes and while that is true we don't have to well those past the joint bank account there's no there's no question about that we look together there's no question about that ok the issue in this case is what was her intent to be times they got married and important thing is that she actually testified in this case and she never testified why she got married  to tell us something about the bona fides of the marriage right in other words the fact that that they never left together that the guy walked out the first thing she arrives if you take that not alone it's possible and when you look at the facts after marriage during that year they never were able to establish any communication on the evidence is that she made no effort to learn english that they did fight about  them and i would like to address some of them with respect to the hastily arranged marriage with respect to the outdoors especially the nonreligious ceremony we wouldn't put a lot of weight on those factors however i  they had in common son he did not tell her so as to why she was going to marry scott much and testify why she was going to marry her in the hearing there was scant mention of son he's two children marriage was adequately explained according to the immigration sun he did not know this guy carefully and use drugs co workers that now testify or the hearing and none of his family
were caught in violation of something to minors or loosies or whatever other fine was either doubled or tripled in some cases and that's something i'd like to see if we can follow up on the maybe take a insert that into the legislation forward because i think it's a council resolution that a personal council person resolution and some just bring it forward to everyone to see if that's something we want to move forward in support of the development department did say that think i need to go through it again but i'm bringing it forward so we can all take a look at it and then discuss it the first cycle again larry come back to the table with our recommendations on the way to that one of the recommendations for the makeup of the board  board and no one has been meeting and we've talked to slick there really feel as if it would be beneficial to bring the board back into existence and we had talked about that
seems to me that you have a conflict of representing him now claiming that you were the lawyer that may well have caused the admission problem and you know he the most sophisticated client in the world understand why he would continue to have you represented either he doesn't believe that you were that they had or you know this is just part of your strategy so i think you're pretty effective because you came up with a creative defense and now you're moving forward on that well i think you have to understand the context of the lack of sophistication that you're dealing with that these clients i don't think you think some a bad person or dishonest person then i simply overlook the fan and what the matter of the last was which is the case relied upon by the immigration judge to set forth as the standard has and reasonable professional judgment that was not the the result of a reasonable tactical different if the motion had been filed without a nation first i mean that's a second issue for the court to decide and that would have been different and was he protected when he went two thousand and three to follow  that he needed to investigate the case there's no indication that you know that and then there was apparently some internal change in strategy but that's not something that can be attributed to the government in terms of being a due process clause violation it's something the main part of the government's case here their petition has argued that that information was furnished pursuant to legalization application and therefore was protected by the confidentiality creation of that act of that powers of our constitution and attempt to in fact overrule marbury vs madison there is no reasonable tactical decision that has been identified as the reason for  suppressed and that took and the proceedings terminated
and we ask you at that time to evaluate that statement in the light of all the circumstances of the case not solely as the immigration judge stated over the credibility findings of a train translated we don't know the setting the circumstances of that conversation but we do know it contradicts his credible fear asylum interview which was done by a trained officer who came to the conclusion my client had a credible plan we found a hostile judge who refused to look at anything else except come to the correct conclusion that my client's credible theory interview with his one testimony in cross examination match it was consi no inconsistency he said his father still leaned for ten thousand dollars to giving the money to come to america and then another part his father was just appeared  testimony that his father disappeared on the day of the rally on the day of the rally the question was did he disappear at home or did he disappear at the rally when he was picked up by the police there is some unclarity on that issue he wasn't he was just another guy hanging out there that's why it's unreliable how do we know what you just said well because you have no facts to go by what she just said mr but he never said i translated it back this time but he never said he signed it in my presence and somebody never said i am a certified and kind of record of but wait a minute your client you introduced into evidence so i understand i should use everything into evidence because i wanted the judge to look at the complete picture because i have no
on line is there any case that says it has to be done
read was the immigration judges failure to buy the now what interpreter and it was based on his impression that she was fluent in spanish even though now was was identified as her language show that she has some kind of ink and i'm having  know there were instances where she noted that she wasn't understand your question or something like that it was subsequently quote clarified to her and she was able to answer the question and i think that you know she  here he was able to testify and i have a question are we then putting the burden on the on the phone to make sure to make sure what if what if the person doesn't banishes her native language and then also list now want as a language if she's fluent in both those that she said she indicated the court twice that spanish was the language she was comfortable with there was a period of time when she was in cross examined by the just attorney in which adequate sufficient for her to be able to proceed and present your claim before the the immigration judge but it also turns up to the fact that even if there was and uses the language the president you haven't shown anything in terms of either on appeal to the board or before this court what manner she was in any way prejudiced by the language of the petition he references in her brief that there were a critical question she may have difficulty understanding but doesn't identify what this critical questions are doesn't identify what testimony or what aspect of her claim was impacted by the language interpretation though it is her burden demonstrating that there was a claim due process violation that the outcome of her proceedings were affected here by the language of interpretation and she doesn't do that i don't believe the ledgers any specific prejudice out of general misunderstanding of the proceedings but that in position she needed to feel more and she failed to do that here and just to be happened and the suffering in the what existed in the reasoning behind it but she never did that and that that's her burden demonstrating that she was in any way deprived of process regarding the design of the human so i think that that's where these claims evidence present further develop further the record on that issue she could have done that then or she could have filed with the board a motion to remain and including the additional evidence or the declaration stating this is what i would have presented but for the denial of the continuance and so that she had that opportunity to do so and she didn't do it then and she could have just laid out exactly what she was deprived from presenting exactly the details of that claim and she didn't do that again so
extension and forty five or ninety days for the regulation provide that's how i read the transcript or did i just rea am not familiar with the forty five day i don't know what that would be referring to what he did some reference to the fact that he thought that either the statute or the regulation i'm not sure which he was referring to sensually limited  n the amount of time that he could grant the continuous on and that he gave the longest continuance that he thought he was permitted to give under the law i don't recall that at all because as far as i know there is no limit t the application fire everyone was for discretionary relief and involved the consideration of any equity and there is a sort of an inequity in separating i clearly mine or trial ten years old at the time i do want to point out just for the record i know the court wants to discuss the notice of appeal issue and that we have a waiver argument in this case the only issue that was properly before the court was whether the board acted properly and summarily dismissing waiver by my colleague was not present in this case but i don't think the government should be penalized for offering a protective argument just in case the court shouldn't find the waiver was there when asked would you be doing it transfer two which is the board's order summarily dismissing the appeal moreover upon review of the record we are not persuaded that the immigration judges ultimate resolution of this case was in error certainly iro yes your honor i will and i will i will do so by first addressing point of information you have you had a conversation with my colleague and beginning his presentation you asked what's the status of the parents case he said that they are on appeal before the board that is not the case  maybe able to get cancellation of removal would you please not execute this move a lot until the parents cases are decided the immigration judge says that is what you should do that must go you must take that to the ins i cannot do that he had already explained he couldn't do now if you're going to make that argument to the board of immigration appeals on a robust garcia you need to at least give the board a reason why the immigration judge abused his discretion by not doing something that he had no power would do so with the board and then we have an opening brief on appeal in this court and you don't address that issue and i frankly i'm troubled by the fact that we have a compound ing of the figure out what the best argument is that you meant to make to us but when we go to your brief it isn't there and i receive your candor and hope hopefully oh yeah i mean this is i really started i understand the argument from respondent that what i j palm was telling me with who was going negotiate with them and i wish there was more regular opportunities to negotiate with them because they
that a totally different location it's a different location because i think very out there are four service registered agents at it there are registered