MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
here and i'm sure as you know all the you know the government raises that's something of a jurisdictional challenge to this petition you want to respond to that are you referring to  appeal from the immigration got this time denial based on the three reasons given by the immigration judge for the first credibility determination and in addition the board gave another reason affirming  will commemoration of this particular operation then the normal person would remember the date because it had been something significant to stand out in its mind immigration judge that not by mr singh's claim that oh i was beaten so badly that i can't immigration judge gave machine much opportunity in fact his own attorney just constantly texting in order to get answers out of him and then when the answers came out they were still inconsistent there was one inconsistency upon another regarding the date but yet he couldn't remember the days in which he last saw his brother and initially said the last time we saw his brother was asked for a rally and he was arrested because his brother's participation in this rally but yet later on he turned around he gives another thing i believe was probably distant or something board's despiser credibility terminations based on demeanor that doing that is going to be fatal to an italian asylum claim now here's what's important well even if this court determines that the immigration judges determination was wrong the reasons are for just believing or challenging the immigration the board's final order she didn't do that for the board so consequently the boat was left to basically guess what it is that mr singh was arguing with the immigration judge about
provides of the reason why it provided is to encourage whistleblowers to reveal the problems serious problems that need to be remedied which cry out to remedy this reaction well the board didn't even reach the issue of whether what happened without regard to anything at all to do with the emails in fact there was an agency investigation about something he was in two thousand and thought i believe that the response to the first one was oh yeah i think that's a good idea but i'm sure we should harm our staff but i don't know that we have to warn you that we may not have the time to go ahead and try to find some theory he has the burden to allege and not minimize non frivolous allegation of that he disclosed information that a reasonable person would say was evidence of this showing any correlation between staff levels and bad outcomes in the program presumably congress specially wanted to encourage them to disclosure of the government to promote their remediation and then they and that's why they put in this limitation the statute presumably also they recognize that statement about allocation of resources level if you look at senate seventy one this is you know the answer to this question
that why because you're married me all but almost understand actually you have a wonderful catch in me brilliant young surgeon fresh from an exciting career as an underpaid in but ready now to conquer the medical world tremendous ovation and make my acceptance to for i even had my first regular  some yes sir we have to get this man to a hospital goes wrong with the machinery i don't know doesn't seem right to me this is part of a doctor's job to do everything you can to prevent accidents and sickness as well as security of course but within reason you can't close every millon factory in town a job where you wouldn't have to do what i left in my head lifting jobs all the time but if you keep on lifting judd that then you're back going to get worse you'll be laid up maybe for a long time my advice is go see your family doctor isn't just through work this afternoon to give you back a story kind of nation and see what he advises you to do well all right if you say so but i thought maybe you could give me something to rub in and take the pain away when doing a good job i don't put out saying your doc do you dress this yourself yeah how about putting stuff in here i don't use this box anymore as i'm a quite a medical problem and credit medical department one morning about three weeks later dr randall sr was reading a newspaper but he saw it didn't exactly please don't doctor and take his advice i think wrong with that what i mean is you should have stayed away from the factory in the first place and kind of i'm going to seriously suggest the from now on you do your practicing in this office of the hospital surgery that your mother i've always felt that for a man to be a success in his own eyes he's got to be more than just a competent member of his profession i don't quite see what you're getting i mean to be really successful maybe i should say with a carpenter to make it engineer a preacher or a doctor should contribute something to the advancement of human progress through his profession maybe it's just finding new ways to make something better or cheaper maybe it's fighting and working on selfishly via just cause can you sound just like a high school valedictorian  maybe so but but i mean it and as far as i'm concerned i'm beginning to think that that my job is doing something for the advancement up of a new kind of medical practice  what way well you see the point of view of a doctor working to cut down sickness and accidents in the town factories and mills as i i suppose you could call  i'm going to go by right now i don't know i really don't know i'm going to do something and mr gregg and i have been talking over the idea of your coming into the plant for a regular period each day by saying the idea of a doctor in a factory seems quite unusual to me to say the least sa no gentleman there's nothing new about a doctor in industry and i've been interested in the idea ever some time when you said you want to see me i came right over
principle what's your response to the government's prison or my response to that there could be circumstances kate that would have negative just brought we will never know that because i mean that couldn't be brought up i don't know if you would permit me to bring it up but i can bring up a actually do your honor  on this situation if you assume argue wendell's that the demand with charges in this case was taken away by his friends what impact if any should long given the fact that he fled in this particular instance i'm trying to understand the government's position how we reconcile throwing the sabras for with this issue if he if he pled but the fact is that
order or the court's order and finally and this we believe is particularly important where the district court appears to have a certain jurisdiction the possibility that it remained in the case for lack of only issue presented to the district court in this case with the math we have made a motion to dismiss the case because we claim it was preempted and of course the pla opposed that was the issue that was what was brief before the district court there was no oral argument so you can't look to the oral argument there is however an order in the order which is there was an a risk the plan if you didn't find it was in the lease the plan there was no jurisdiction but there was no preemption clock because there was no plan to preempt arguably the plaintiffs quite so it was not apart from  could not have been apart from that and so i think then yes of course i'm having problems with the argument i'm looking at the language in lyons that hox about the fact that it is the question of  reexamining so i don't see how this is inconsistent with line well if that's the course of you it seems to mean the lions is contradictory because what happened in that house is the same thing and i submit that is exactly what happened in that one why can't we view it as a suit jurisdiction to determine whether or not we have your state which we frequently do you understand except i think that's back to it depends on how the district court structures its order if the district court wants to indicate seventeen two hundred cases which is what the plaintiffs position comes down to if you look at the legislative history of the statute solution it is absolutely clear that what congress was about was trying to fill up
day of mr taylor's trial the head of car has security informed the judge that a juror jerky a i told him that she had been followed from the courthouse during her break and it's this incident which is the focus of this appeal the issue stated that she absolutely a susie a good being followed with her participation in the trial and that's what matters here this was an easy fix the judge could have dismissed jerky and put in a that she wasn't scared her actions demonstrated otherwise p a a interpreted what could have been a coincidence a car traveling behind her in same direction to be a threat to her safety she attempted to license plate she felt compelled to hide from the car in a grocery store parking lot she sought protection from police and she sought protection from courthouse security in addition she told her fellow jurors to watch out for themselves the judge had an obligation to protect mr taylor's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury and in failing to remove jerk yang from the jury and replace her with the ultimate alternate juror and just violated fact right and let her statements that she could remain fair and impartial weren't conclusive evidence of that fact and it was the judge's obligation to object and we discern whether or not that was actually true and here because of whether or not she is suzy to being followed with a particular party it's clear that she again believed that she was in danger and that danger was directly associated and to her jury service and like i said before is that that she would know definitively either way and she said no i would have no idea which side and so she again and i think her language there is and is particularly important she and again and i think it's important to note here too is that really the big the only link and the only discernible link between at the incidence and and the trial was that the description of the shooter at trials in this or taylor is on trial for being the shooter in this case he's the shooter was described as being an african american wearing a hooded sweatshirt and the juror described the person who who had heard jerk p a explain the incident and said that they personally didn't they thought that she was had read more into it basically than that it was necessary and that they they believed it was you know just kind of one of those things but that she seemed concerned and worried and upset and so forth was she was lying and that's i guess where the unconscious bias comes in is because i'm not saying that this was intentional it's that she was at one point maybe not only aware of how this was affecting her even coincidence it was a person who tappan to be travelling in the same direction as her and again she testified that you know she had turned into a parking lot and went to the laughter in this person who was supposedly following her turn into the parking lot and went in the opposite direction and so at that point but she still considers herself in danger so she still even though the person who again had happened to be traveling in seemed or are standing in the stores
in front of the trial judge however was the fact that mr naylor wasn't getting the medications that he needed to control his symptoms and so when the trial judge did actually make a determination they believe the seizure was faked i was to look at that determination is unreasonable in light of the fades but even assuming the seizure was fetes i think that that would actually support the idea that perhaps he's delusional disorder was what was preventing him from fully rationally and having a rational and factual understanding of the trial  think the discussion so far as focused on the facts that were in front of the charges that should have raised a bonafide doubt but i think the second apart from that what i believe was an unreasonable determination of fact the tragedy actually made a legal air you know plan a wrong and heightened fide doubt that arises during trial that has down on competence i think hearing is required that the case that actually stashes that wills papers is robinson and in that case there was no psychiatric testimony to suggest that the defend it was incompetent the judge rule now the trial just didn't find it that was enough to hold a hearing but when during the course of trial the defendant actually the defense attorney bright light the fact is if anyone had believed that his own attorney and the judge were a conspiracy against him at that point the true is that a problem you know i don't think it is your life because there really still there still there are so many explanations for why somebody would be on meds that wouldn't have anything really to do with the legal standard of whether or not opinion i don't think that's so if you read the state court of appeal opinion the court will see that the state court of appeal applied alternative standards including one that tested whether or not the judge should have ordered  of the trial doesn't doesn't actually impact whether a trial judge has to have a hearing where there's conflicting evidence on the issue and i think the misfortune patients are clear and hearing still have to be held of a final point is that it's enough that mr naylor a few incompetent at any point during his trial for example on the fourth day this trial he was actually behaving so erratic when he was thrown out of the court and wasn't present during voir dire and that's clearly would impact one's ability to
law or non frivolous argument for extensions of the law is sometimes viable i take further comfort of the fact that orders repeatedly said  the problem with that is i did graduate right i may not have used the word promptly in my response but but i think that's the whole tenor of the whole point i think that i think that if i had not filed this  monetary sanction there's two reasons for this court for bankruptcy order and first is that the bankruptcy court in out of use discretion would have found that mr baker made his sanctionable argument and his going for sanctions against bank of america as this court has already recognized this morning at the time that mr baker filed a motion for sanctions bank of america had only issued a single continuance of the bankruptcy sale of the foreclosure sale and the  postponed date was still about two months away and in his motion for sanctions mr baker cited a number of cases which plainly provided that a single continuance of the foreclosure sale was not will not violate bankruptc long as a creditor moves for a leave before a postpone the mr baker turned around and argue that those same cases supported his position but he never provided a coherent just cation while that was so therefore the bankruptcy court  use discretion in buying is a sanction for mr baker made his second sanction but argument in his response to a motion to dismiss or her that motion was based on his client improperly using cash collateral mr baker argued that there was no consent or authorization was required to use cash collateral because section three sixty three of the bankruptcy code provides that cask lateral means cash or other property subject to a security interest as provided in section five the problem with this argument is that it effectively amounted to a rewriting of section three sixty three a bankruptcy code which finds cash collateral that definition has cash collateral defined by section three sixty three revised general definition and then two statutory examples mr baker made it appear as if the entire definition was just one of those examples and he left out the heart of the definition of cash  result the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in the side and mr baker selectively quoted this statue in a way that effectively rewrote the statue and therefore the bankruptcy court also properly found this to be a sanction argument  so it seems you have done in your brief to us exactly what the bankruptcy court was concerned you were doing below you've taken a lip service to merge two sentences to say something that is not at
of the evidence and for standing seems to be talking about the adequacy of the pleading the pleading has to say we are prepared to prove that this real property was acquired using the proceeds of criminal activity after it files its complaint so it couldn't be that they have to prove their case in the complaint but but are you saying that the allegations as such are insufficient irrespective of what the evidence turns out to  filed a complaint and you're not conceding but for the sake of discussion we're going to get past this they think that's standing to be in court ok they then say that this property was fraudulently conveyed and therefore  dispositive motion and they have to they have to establish that all right but what happens here is the that the your clients try to get in the case the government says well no that my car is can't get in the case because they they don't own any things  fraudulent conveyance they don't oppose that that that determination gets made and so then there's an on a post motion for summary judgment of forfeiture ok and so you're saying that the evidence is insufficient to support the ation that your clients don't have standing i mean we can challenge you might have had standing in the first instance but but your clients didn't oppose the summary judgment motion that the district court determined that was a fraudulent conveyance without any assistance from your clients but we can challenge court judge can be pointed out in the united states versus hooper there are two different inquiries state law determines whether or not you have an interest and probably whether or not you have article three standing at a law the term is whether or not that interest can be formed it you give you one minute
might be in ride many times that support the growing me still represent one of the old as the enterprise it's all the mason dixon line today impressive administration building businessman and all the others who turn for the telephone to get the message through while the sections are still being laid out or is really special underwater cable and equipment which includes a cable laying by e through which tiny radio waves pass from antenna to amplify our back to antenna seven bell has responded by bringing you right erecting new buildings laying new cable installing new equipment connecting new telephones in record breaking proportion yet the call of the few tourists were still more and more for more investments and equipment than serving people the telephone business is a business that we make your telephone and then come alive when you look at your
from the very beginning six questions into the direct examination after his attorney asked simple questions like where were you born it's natural that the judge jumped in and proceeded to grill him on why he didn't know his exact birthday and she ended by asking a bunch of confusing questions and telling him are you telling me that for the last ten years you were eighteen years old every single year that's pretty much if you really look at the transcript when he was asked you know what happened when they came in and he said my father was was with him but i think it's been pretty much the next sentence he described that he was in the other room if it did exist number two they look at to see whether it was material right that makes sense and this obviously is material and then i'm a three judge supposed to consider whether or not there was a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy with a gun and this testimony was it was knocked unconscious when the soldier threw him against the law and again we're not you know privy to that information to be able to make the decision in the first place but that seems to be kind of a different version of what happened and this is classic in a nothing was actually argued for introduced by the government to indicate that he didn't think more than one thing to the asylum officer so in other words his that's nation was i was growing against the wall and i was hit on the head morning once again jan redfern for the respond if you're on a substantial evidence supports the immigration judge do not decide on the polling and convention against torture protection because the future failed to prevent to present sufficient credible evidence of past said he was confused at the time events occurred which doesn't explain why his different varying accounts of the same incident in his declaration and in his testimony with respect to the attack on his father and sister his declaration stated that i after he saw his father if the floor hit in the head with a rifle his sister was raped and murdered he testified his sister was in the other room she was raped and murdered but he doesn't have to fight how he know she was raped and murdered if he was in the other room he doesn't have a full with regard to which country his agent identity i also point out that a somali translator was used and there was never so the issue of what countries from clearly he's he's from somalia with regard to the declaration of the statement that he submitted with his asylum application i simply point out that the events that we're talking about occurred when he was about ten years old when he was very young when he first came in the country and to apply for asylum his english was very poor now even though the statement itself doesn't i didn't prepare that statement if it did it didn't go through as as it probably should have a