MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
they sued with an order to show cause why the the the vacation shouldn't card but there's also that in those very circumstances a court can decide there's no just reason for delaying entry of final judgment on the lee taken the essential decisions from new york that the controlling employment contract had a new york address and that contract had in new york address i thought it no none of them are with the authority for saying that sufficient to confer personal here is stiction because because of the connections with new york there is a choice of law provision in the contract demonstrated pretty persuasively that the relationship of new york was insufficient to sustain personal jurisdiction of the defendants what what is them are you saying the choice of law person that's the main connection of new york that was i'm wrong i'd like to be corrected it's diversity case right yes and the plaintiff you say is a resident of the county of antrim in northern ireland  is the plaintiff a citizen of any state of the united states so the plaintiff is an alien hand you've got at least two business entities who are defendants
met when a bar complaint is filed or an explanation is provided as to why one is not being filed in addition this finding this contrary to ninth circuit precedent which provides that  if i believe that there would be a fact specific analysis for each hate when this happened in both the ashcroft it was a similar situation in which a client chose to retain the attorney could mean the mistake before the immigration court that  two thousand and four before the ninth circuit decision came down that motion presented the claim that his daughter had naturalized eligible for a green card that motion did not make question but there was some were filed before january two thousand and nine are to be governed by laws that are in the filing with the court i actually quoted the age in which he made that provision so i would contend that the court doesn't have to reach that issue in this case at all however i'd like to bring to the instruct the board in the immigration judges within the seven circuits of which ninth circuit is to basically ignore that precedent and contend that there isn't a first and then right in order for that those circuit should reconsider those decisions what is notable is that the attorney general doesn't have the power to overturn the ninth circuit the attorney general doesn't have the power to overturn the other federal circuits in the right i thank you very much to search and the board didn't recognize the equitable tolling as you noted in the second paragraph of the board decision noting that equitable tolling is too often an untimely case i mean it's not its policy for the requirements for the parking plant and the bar complaints are helpful for the board it helps them draw on the expertise of the bar i don't think we question the validity of the requirement question here is was not a clearly says out that as an alternative as an explanation you can file the bar complaint or explain why not in this case they didn't file a bar complaint and at least information next motion as to why not the board's decision doesn't explain what's wrong with that you don't have to file a bar complaint when there's a council's decision on the record like their performance is deficient it's shown in the record that they've actually done something improper and in this case that's not the case i mean we don't have a clear glaring discretion
government has sort of vigorously argued in this particular case and i'd like to also receive two minutes at the end of my argument i think on the problems with this particular argument by the government is that they are very effective in terms of  challenge the concept of a criminal proceeding but i would hesitate to do that because he abandoned his appeal to the board in this case therefore he failed exhaust his administrative remedies and therefore he wouldn't get that type of review in the criminal proceeding what is  an alien whose attorney is in theory apparently making the right arguments who then says you know what i've been in jail for four and a half years i'm an ins custody i just want to go home to mexico and he had bannon's that type of appeals and of course things here was decided only six months later so this just a decent chance at that point of still having this case alive and the possibility of obtaining relief but he decided instead that he was going to abandon that now a person is not improperly denied something that they intentionally in a van and with the effect with the assistance of counsel who is aware of the proper arguments to make and yet still decides with all of that they just want to go home so going back to my original question it sounds like there's in your view nothing you can do it all it looks that way your honor because once he was you had an attorney who knew the arguments to make and decided that he just wanted to go home anyway he's actively abandon everything and because of that there's there's nothing to remedy and that's the way the court really does need to is that this person chose to leave the united states and leave all the possibilities he had before him and the court the courts are not here to save that type of person from their own i see that i still have four minutes left but if there are no further questions i think i can begin to sum up have a chance to present any witnesses were exhibits we're going to kind of deny you that's why there's no record in the near like immigration court to show that he wanted to place a defense and wanted to present testimony and witnesses
welcome to the ground church bicentennial we're pleased to have you all year and we think you were supporting this one we think is a very important event for the richmond community i want to think truly making this up right here longer than the round church is part of as you know the special to richmond and one thing it has required a lot of work to keep it maintained but one thing we didn't want to happen was to have that church on the go up in flames so the historical society works through the years putting in a sprinkler system and it took us a number of years as we office and village revitalization voting on getting this right we were able to get a grant of twenty five thousand dollars and then helped us complete the project so today oh senator leahy is here we want to thank him for work by getting us this great and helping us get desperate for a system in place because it doesn't matter whether you have insurance if the building burned down  might have insurance to replace it but it would be the same as the sprinkler system that's going up or we hope we never have to see it in operation but if it we have to it will protect that building and keep it so that one hundred years from appreciate it because this town this from church are very very special to the life family my sister buried my brother john dyer has no kids used to cover here we grew up in so so we have that just brings back a lot of memories but especially thank you for what you've done your work on this particular strike it is amazing when you think how good this committee hears it began two years ago and if you go over by your teacher
business into other markets to keep my client has a certain connection to the health care giver but it's not working and lapses working the medical i mean just not because i understand that argument but it's kind of funny and i thought other issues and i know the government is trying to build my way into this exclusion letter but you know when you look at the jury instructions in this case let's emphasize it's not the weather it's more kickbacks i think the letter itself tends to be sort of  a red herring in this situation in that they're not the question isn't exactly you know was in violating the terms of this letter and you know you said basically you know this is why it becomes involved in the company i don't know if he was specifically really hiding his involvement in that case i mean if he did if he did step back but his company i think that was going in the spirit of what that letter was trying to tell me do it his wife you know was based in the i manage an it manager of that so confused that he did manage to give statements to the special engine that would if they had been true execute it he did not evidence a lack of understanding of the nature of the agent's questions you did not express confusion dick was flat or get it from participating in any aspect of the medicare program as of november two thousand and four
statements were involuntary and so he excluded those statements but then he decided that the statement made an hour after that the third statement was voluntary because she initiated the contact and our contention is that the second statement was involuntary the evidence clearly supports that notwithstanding mr gardner's testimony that she made a statement rather rights it certainly makes it much more suspect when an agent continues to interrogate after a person has said i don't want to talk about this and then the aide says then she broke down and cried and  writes that certainly sounds like they were disregarding her rights anyways because they didn't believe that she was telling them the truth machine to my knowledge of the marijuana and that in that state it was suppressed i think it was suppressed but the reason i suggest that it encounter has to be suppressed because in violation of around that but he does not say that's not really rule directly on the or so question are sort of come down here before so it was it was there did you make any argument to the judge she says i don't want to charge she continues to deny any knowledge but they continue to interrogate her anyways and i suggest that that because of the constitutional dimension of miranda that is of course if you can to continue to morning my name's nathan leonardo and i'm here for the district of arizona the district court in this case it's not clearly air when it found me this actually finding that the defendant in this third statement initiated the conversation
did have drugs so it seems to me that at the at the point which he feels what's there he has is obtained a probable cause or at least reasonable suspicion under terry to go fact that they found no drowns in the room therefore it was likely to be on his person and we can disregard the fact that only part of down the district court credited the testimony of the officer and found that based on the officers testimony it was immediately apparent to the officer that this was contraband that he had been committing nature and that's what's i'm not and i'm not going to give an opinion on this but this may be another instance of that and i do think the prosecution needs to be careful about that series it chooses to
i distinguish with that respect for your honor because they we look at their decision they're saying i'm not looking at their decision i'm looking at what the election was that mr to  life time he had a menu of payment options that he could have elected and he elected one that provided no survivor benefits that's correct and the divorce decree that was entered between the parties at the time of the divorce and that remediate in effect at the time of his death gave him the right as between the smiles this gave him the right to elect the payment option just say that it says she was to receive one third of whatever benefits he'll like that and gave him the right to make that election she could have bargained for a particular amount of it but she didn't such workers can increase retrospectively the amount of benefits that the company is what the pension fund is obligated to pay i mean i'm not unsympathetic to your position mr maccormack i'm just struggling to discern or a plausible rationale for can you give me the single best case for your position that i have the single best case in the position is the against the proposition that he goes post mortem domestic relations order did not in effect rewrite the one nine hundred ninety seven marital separation agreement which i believe is the were no precedings whatsoever so how can you say that the entend parties was to give her survivor benefits when that is not why the spouse if she's entitled to any benefits back to  survivor benefits portion of it and if she says she testifies to the judge it was my intention all along to get comes out but the decision comes out after an adversary proceeding and the report believes her and the forms the and degree  reforms the election and benefits and say is actually the intent was she gets the benefits and after an adversary proceeding i find it let's assume he facts i think there would be a much stronger argument there for ms to to pursue but that would be enforceable domestic relations order as a quarter but of course that's not even close to what we have here  the question of whether the theory should be always and not all circumstances a bright line rule that as soon as he dies it's  quadro guidance there's guides out there that says the timing of a quad go to domestic relations order those not necessarily that can be the sole reason that it would not qualify and so i think under that guidance that would sit more neatly within your for its actual liabilities which if allowing an expert to come back years to five ten years after the fact to obtain benefits against no less a prior divorce decree where she's
men can be done and it's a movement in the right direction to recognize that we are calling up these folks on a more regular basis and that we should continue to provide them and their families with some security measures enlisted personnel it seeks to protect all members of the guard and reserve from an enlisted standpoint and give them the opportunity to reduce their retirement age from sixty down to fifty i think it's fair i think it's reasonable and i think it's affordable without objection now mr president i strongly support the chambliss the men and i want bring to the attention colleagues just minutes ago we except that another amendment which would go to conference and i'm quite confident out of that conference will come a package of further compensation to the men and women of the guard and reserve for the reasons good valid but mr president we are in this bill adding he know most benefits the men and women the armed forces all  just in many areas the senator has picked out an area which has been under consideration for some period of time but i point out the cost of the durban second degree which vote follows this one must be considered in the area of a billion for this two thousand and six and ten billion over the next ten years this is ten times according to my calculation the cost of the federal tax pair of the amendment from georgia am i correct in that urge my colleagues to we must show some restraint as we're going through a number of valid and important increments of pay and benefits for the men and women the armed forces an essence it your amendment is just an adaptation of the durban amendment but is one tenth the cost because i think you are more equitably treating those who have served on periods of active service  equity relative to retirement the senator from georgia has described as a member and i will not describe it again because he is accurately described and i commend him for this amendment it is an important member i would ask the senator out asked presiding officer whether or not there is time between the vote on the chambliss amendment and on the durbin amendment for an explanation of the durbin amendment there's two minutes equally divided between i think presiding officer  earlier retirement where there has been twenty five years of service for instance a retirement would be allowed at age fifty five where there's been twenty four years of service under the durbin amendment retirement would be allowed at age fifty six there is a greater cost but i think it's justified and so we'll talk more about that in that minute but you'll be allowed to the durable all time is expired and all time is expired i would ask unanimous consent that a letter from the naval reserve association
because it found she knew anyhow and was out there slipping and sliding on the floor intentionally in a bathing suit that's that's an interesting question your honor first of all there is no evidence in this ok so there is a breach of the duty the duty being they should warn us that the soon as a breach but you also need proximate causation you need proof that had they warned her then it would have prevented her from engaging in the accident and when they found out what decided that she knew what the floor was like and was sliding anyhow they could decide that the failure to give her a warning didn't cause anything no no no runner and reason the reason  assumption of risk which should've the jury should have gotten to the separate question and they didn't have a good point but what requires us to find that the jury would have necessarily decided that the duty was to keep people off the and based upon that this court has to analyze whether or not it's a really a reasonable jury could decide that a hotel can permit negligent that would be negligence of of coming off the floor and assuming the risk of of slipping and sliding on my floor well first of all there's one doctrine of assume the assumption of risk and puerto  first point which we agreed was wrong which was the hotel put it on the dance floor that's right they just put it on the dance floor and if you're arguing the hotel's duty is that once they did that the hotel had to prevent people from using  that brings you back why in the for the jurors in gauging what was reasonable and what was not in the absence of any regulation or law why couldn't the jurors have decided that the duty of reasonableness was to the the the issue with respect to the rule first we think that the court and if you read the transcript of when we presented that motion the host of the wedding party the mr michael dixon heat after her warning to stop the conduct he went into the kitchen i'm brought out the so from the kitchen floor it onto  thank you thank you all right
fifteen years running as newspaper that there's no actual prejudice because the the lack of an asking even if the report had been asked for not given the regulations stated clearly that that did not make have no problem with finding the witnesses credible and accepting their testimony generally as credible that doesn't mean that all of their conclusions about disability are to be a person can be a credible a witness and not lying and accurately reporting their observations of what has gone on over a period of years but that doesn't the causation of certain patterns of behavior is you look like you're about to ask and the third issue is with that goes on over about five pages and i think it's forty five to fifty in the exorcist i believe that the a l j asked me the question i signing my don't have limitations in the ability to maintain one's attention and moderate limitations in the ability to maintain concentration which is very much the same thing and i believe that that is an adequate and acceptable but i think that even including that you have the lease says ok that's a problem with regard to the small process somewhere you have two hundred thousand other jobs that are available as cafeterias and cafeterias systems i think they have it and then the plaintiff's attorney and then he went back and forth on that and there is some resistance on the part of the if you look at the record to the idea that she's right but i don't i don't think that the records including statements of the father necessarily supports that every time this person working in a cafeteria every time someone comes across the screen of his field of vision that he's going to drop what he's doing and look up i think that it was perfectly fair for the l j to  and he also testifi
we have a full day for us today we have had different frame of reference they use or frame of reference i mean you don't want the the device to have a frame of reference that's different than what's on the screen because then it's not showing on the screen properly there are other differences that inertial frame of reference is only going saying our device you don't have to do kind of anything it just automatically hooks up with the screen and recognizes that the screen is in a certain rotation and does it and then controls for the rotation thereafter
there was evidence going both ways in this case i thought there was your argument you presented to the c d c but i didn't really see that or even in your brief hearing that was your point number one on the of a medical opinion is not a fact question it's something that we can tend to pin your view on his own mom and b if we can do that this is one of those rare occasions where there is a violation due process and in rebutting the presumption sounds and we all agree that the kids computers machine where we're flying we hold that we had no jurisdiction to review the underlying facts as to whether or not the suppose because the court's holding in because what we have challenged in this court is the sufficiency of the evidence i don't think that is i don't think that it is it is a stretch to home the argument here at all arguments to do more specifically answer your that point decision makers mind they have to consider what's before them whether it's positive or negative evidence and so when somebody suggests that a clear analysis not the compass and examination of get some other viewing body to look at it given the prohibition facts review by seventy two ninety three d they come up with alternative arguments like the ones that are presented here that point particular soon there had been no reference in there to the minimal beta cell phone tree simply had been a conclusion the veteran doesn't have d m to the veteran has di is secondary to the have is subsequent to that this development of the record review by the medical examiner and reliance on the operation removing most anxious so perhaps you can you because you have a situation where in trying your honor so i think the discussion here this morning highlights  computers addresses this is a very particular question which i may not be saying right is there some important piece of evidence that was submitted in the proceedings below after the last time the board had the case there is and i can get the dates the board of veterans appeals in january two thousand and nine and a ninety eight appendix ninety eight re mandated to go in and get more evidence planning knows that there was a packet out of me and substantially all of the papers in the room i just want to know what and we know now that the actual report on the on the whether or not she knew whether or not the an apologist knew about everything that i need that she needed to know about things i like mr occupy had i'm not a doctor i don't know i don't know if it would have made a difference in what she ultimately said but i do know that under the plain language of the regulation
justin justin says he looked up and suddenly demetrius was right in front of him and he shot seventy and downward trying to get him away so there was some evidence from my client from his brother that he shot w late at night with his family around and with this me and continuing to charge it in fanning to the errors of this trial not only did the jury not have the proper evidence about demetrius lucas they had gun he was not be deterred and he was not leaving and the sting crew mistake best going to be a credibility determination yes there are credibility determinations in this case and those are the province of the jury felon for the purposes of that of the camp or the weapons position case however when he's testifying and his prior there is getting a question before the judge are you going to allow him to be impeached for this prior convictions value of allowing the jury to hear exactly what they were two different things at play here the stipulation because of the firearms events and the fact that eventually this thing and now we're talking about the jury finding out what his priors are he did