MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
honor the fact that those documents may have been a trial does not waiver diminish the privacy interest in this court's president and the supreme court those privacy interests remain significant where they were not publicly available or telling me well the medical records for instance any single medical record would contain many many pages of information and so that document was introduced as a exhibit or a pair of exhibits in many cases  to the point of hasn't established a significant public interest that would outweigh these privacy interests but most importantly he hasn't shown that the luminous public information private information rather about these  ordinarily we would look at whether we would look at the judicial records law case law to decide whether to release but that's not what this case is this is a case governed by a statute to tell me why it's important or why it was necessary or why it was a correct use the judicial records approach and can speak for the judge your honor but again i believe the fact that they were not sealed i think goes to the government's believe that argument that there are that the government remains that there are very strong privacy concerns in these records i think even if they were sealed we would still have the to to apply to those records ok let's assume hypothetically that the district corey used them on the standard s this case was to come home and my client we filed for cross summary judgment this isn't in the record before the district corner i believe that all of the necessary records balancing test up for i think it's pretty clear isn't it that we are talking about really extreme behavior you don't really ass with very little all testimony about those records i don't believe that it would simply be to too close as for i think it would be a much more difficult question to piece together the transcript with his redacted medical records especially in light of the district court's order that the trial exhibit numbers also be redacted as an extra step to try to protect these innocent third parties with respect to their medical information and there were twenty seven witnesses that testified and their records did come in as exhibits and additionally there were records that he met and the patient some of whom are deceased for example obviously did not testify criminal trial
good morning my name is heather mcelroy and i represent the petitioner mr ali asking t for help so i want to give you a little tip off here i have questions for your adversary ok and i'm sure you're going to need some remaining out of somalia but then three days later three days after she saw and heard mr schieffer testify the judge changed her mind issued a written opinion that contradicted the first one in many ways for the didn't know any english and then just five weeks after arriving here he had a nonprofessional pre print preparer help him complete the spiral application where she had to translate into a nominated native language the traumatic events of over eleven years didn't begin to write she began to talk sure it's different because you're talking with on the record so what i would expect it's it's kind of like going to court publishes an opinion and then publishes an amended opinion i kind of like to see some obvious reason for the change and i i can't find maybe tell me where it is some explanation for why she changed her view but the consul i think you're absolutely right you're in that this is not a situation where she sometimes the writing may be more complex different to routine matter bites there but you get a window into what the judge actually thinks by reading the judge's toff and here she says supposing that that's what happened well i think it's a lot of what happened if you say so if you change your tune now did she say is there anything in the record to explain why this opinion seems to cut off before you started talking well i know yes but nonetheless i need it given the benefit of let me ask you a couple questions about those things sure i was thinking about her concern on the dates and they were ten years before you testified so sit in my chair yesterday thinking about things that have happened to me within the last five ten fifteen years big things really big fix and very upsetting things and i can't remember what year they work as they approached ten years ago i can remember what happened this year and last year in the year before and i can remember all the events but it's hard for me to remember that ninety seven was in ninety nine  explains why it's different i was wondering if a staff writer wrote the written opinion and didn't even know about or well it again i don't think there's anything in the record that reflects that they have  timeline does have a sensible explanation of which was proffered and that is that it was the revolution that started at the end of december not the attack on him that if i could make one more comment i think one issue that that was evidently troubling the court was the fact that the immigration judge didn't offer an explanation for why she was coming out a different way but i'm certainly not aware of anything  reasonable and within her privacy ok thank you very much
in the first paragraph to be taking place at a time much earlier than it really was information to find some link to connect the claim with the record for the documentary evidence that is because he misunderstood the claim the factual basis for the claim and therefore it would be impossible for him
superiors which is one of the contention that they are trying to do more what type of persons they want and what type of speech the person may do in their own free time but this is not how this is not critical of the end of ruled with respect to the first amendment and i don't think which of the merits but i could be mistaken and i didn't want to leave the colorado river stench in question quite yet ok so let's say hypothetically that that  colorado river does not apply the standards can't be met with there have been anything to prevent to have prevented the district court from simply stating the action as a matter of comedy to terminate him and without violating his friend's amendment rights
drugs are in the back of the van we're going to focus on the van but they see certain vandals girlfriend leaving the two or they look in the back and they see the same type of chords or boxes in the back of the toward that although in the back of the van agent crippled with eighteen years tourists for forty five minutes they fall that green towards the driver very cute it suspicious manner it goes from monroe eight miles over to the town of the home and then it goes to the airport and hope it doesn't drive directly there goes up and down manner so they try to avoid the police and look for a place to meet then it's what after forty five minutes of doing this they pull your parking line and this is the first time someone gets out of a vehicle slot holds them from that there's going to be meeting taking place his observation of the law was brief as he was attempting to appear to be of casual passer by and i would add that she found earlier he was driving by in a curving road at night trying not to look like different cards with what we have here are two people or more seen there they could have been the two people from the torah stretching their legs the other thing the government does with the facts is argue additional facts that the court did not find observe the cars comment and go home quickly in other words it come there for a few minutes get loaded and then leave they never stop the toyota come here they have no idea they had no idea whether the toilet was there for five minutes or five there is testimony in the records that something there were people near the tourist and the only car moving when the officers come and is that toyota and why can't they start just say ok stop let's see what's happening and according to what the government said the evidence is and if you want to differ on what the facts are that that's when the op or the officer said ok start both cars i'm checking out what's going but you know why can't they just you know i mean they've they've watched this whole thing that you know someone that's involved in trying to solve this counter surveillance you know the box it's in a parking lot at seven o'clock at night and then there's  at gunpoint because that's what they did on the twelfth i don't think we want to go that far reasonable suspicion requires particularized facts as to the individual stuff and not generalized facts to an area and that's what the government's position really
cumulative of what if you argue well you know i thought you might be arguing that well it's cumulative because there's already evidence in the record about this and we've heard some discussion about that
a career and a tender and so his level started seven and defend its argument that you should go through sort of the guidelines methodology and convert the methamphetamine into marijuana and then come they are the defendant into a controlled random author and he was instructing her so there's plenty of evidence in the record just like that as well according to reach that if you're finally on on the issue that's time he was in sentencing him and considering the government's motion for downward departure and as a result of the district court went to levels further than the government had requested on the downward departure for his
secure distribution distribution so are you saying that this
that start the statute of limitations running ok that is a story just out your honor because one does not express no it is under under we have to understand that would is a concept of this notice ok and it has to be i sales never happened that's not on the record the record says from his own letter that sales were only going to perch sales that was their basis for the complaint and they're on the basis for i think it's difficult to think of a more statement than that evading it's a stronger case of basic control it's if you remember the facts in basic control that's when i had the principal who had it was why only from the facts of this case the case law supporting the use of equitable istambul first of all the
court but you don't say which defended what representation they were where can we find evidence particular people made particular not asking about the investigation report if you say that false statements were made to the judge or warrant your dealing with statements in the affidavit made to get the w honorable district court to assume eighty four month long landmark tenant when there was none on that court the district court docket number one forty six at page one  banks so council you're referencing page two documentary one of the six which says quote she refused an addiction case on june seventh well that's referencing judicial circuit to have this bad more an issue and you know to be quite honest with your honor the suspend problem that we've had in the litigation this matter given that there has never really been arrest warrant you generally can't raise also reskilling there is an additional there's an exception were you show that the oxer at the time that he's serving the warrant i did not believe that there was probable cause taken with the case and from the plain an ordinary meaning of the language contained in that agreed judgment order it clearly says it's correct and so what difference  well it makes a difference your honor it didn't you know they're alleging that it can't be an attempt to practice because it didn't doesn't involve property it involves solomon and so the issue that they're try to chip away at if i understand it when oil law paying a settlement with a tract no one to be false is itself an attempted deceptive practice so what difference does it make what the check there is an element of the deceptive practice a statute honored that does that that we're dealing with a sucker going to be that deals with that that the payment is made for property and that includes rental property and so that's the that's the battleground that we've been working with and i don't disagree on i think it's you know in a certain level kind of irrelevant but on the other hand you know i had to wade through a bunch of pages of  probable cause those issues really shouldn't have any bearing on the score extermination we really think that this is a very straightforward probable cause case and we believe that there was certainly sufficient  will thank you thank you very much counsel the case is taken under advisement court will be in re
money and recently the police procedure with it to search the alley and then he was arrested and he's not found with any transfer money because he's coming down the alley as he's arrested they have a team here five officers at least was to the conclusion that the police are lead to that they believe to be dreads on the streets and fact that the surveillance officer will really really expect to testify i say they may exchange something affirmative who says she doesn't see mr malone do anything with his hands all those factors taiko together  crime to do that so we have here she says here she could spare it was on the balance removes the contents from the packaging then this is the bags on the balance to get the weight of the powder she doesn't say she weighed the bags individually she doesn't say she weighed one bag mention she's talking about case number c one three zero two five five seven four entirely different number and she there she's been where i ski she says for over eleven years you think these things would be connected out somewhat that they're not and the purpose of the unique identifier is to help establish that chain of custody so they can know that that's recovered from the defendant is actually what's the same same from it's been tested but here we have two different morning again your honour's and perino may danny wakely for the people on the jury trial really found defendant guilty of delivery in this case the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution showed that on june twenty seventh twenty thirteen doing this with the rest of us there first i meant to point out that based on my reading of the record it was an officer grabs who testified to the point zero four grams it was actually officer johnson the inventory estimation point four is nothing like one point three how do you explain that and what does that say about her credibility her credibility just based on the offense that occurred which was th clear testimony of rebadging the protective measures that were taken regarding the keeping of these drugs and how they were inventory i'm defending this to share any evidence of tampering i do direct the skirts attention against him that doesn't do anything for us for thirty one b because the point is to make sure that the potential jurors understand when they're being subjected bad understand and accept all the principles after the fact that doesn't do much for
the metal require more gibberish and they do believe the nation the expert witness testify that a customer will buy fish that provides insufficient light simply because he or she likes the way it looks that a customer  to consider and everything goes into the pot you consider things like the fact that people want to put out why we've always said that you should and well what causes you say all of the other elements out of the pot and the fact is decorative on nuff however they found that these other things work decorative enough and therefore the structures of cake that's just awesome of those wanting to take over for the course job of
it has a motor with a motor sh
rod and there's some trash cans underneath the neck now stuff that was used for heating even for the office building from that time frame that day so so physically from a physical appearance looking at it
required require the twenty that he paid six point four million so it would have been a grand total of eighteen point four that's if you're completely complied and paid everything back but there wasn't a  facts that i after he paid them back the can point four million dollars after paid back the ten point four million dollars he then started to pay obligation under the  make any sense of these facts together looks like i'm seriously out  we propose we take this incredible times we are in two months if they have never to this day corrected we have our personal confrontation a change of ownership from michigan control to  he says internet trust context try to apply it racial discrimination case which potentially would include hundreds of applications these cases are expensive discovery is expensive it can be a distraction from business and so  of discrimination sex discrimination or what have you you need something more and i think if you look at those cases in the context of the key case which we have cited no papers before the court and the case that the
around the issue of whether or not the deconditioning is related to the i work a student and back about his response and then i've also clearly indicated for the court the are traitors finding that in fact mr schorr who was disabled from work based on the f c but he did not consider it that disability resulted from the work injury but instead was as risotto being decondition and then when he was in his deposition testimony where is really asked about whether this deep condition state which he feels is a basis for him being disabled is related to the work actually says yes and so whether you subscribe to  but he certainly says that the worker sam was a factor in his deep conditioning and i guess enough that's enough to sustain a connection and that's what's troubling about the decision it's a reconcilable it's internally inconsistent you can't you know that there are a traitor indicates that the petitioner was decondition because he didn't have the treatment that was being recommended by the treating doctor which was where harming physical therapy but he saying that they did conditioning was not his result of the work injury and we know that the evidence shows that it was as a result of the work injury there's no getting around to sway i'm sorry back to square dr slack was not a doctor in be something that you're going to rely on a lay opinion or lay testimony this is something that has to be established by medical evidence and you've got to doctors only i'm escapes you've got the traitor who has its own and the the are a traitor and a commission by doubting the arbitrator are essentially saying that he requires a day's decondition because he didn't have the benefit of work hardening or therapy so it's very troubling the commission has the ability to choose one doctor over the other and but i also a very nice sentence say how well you know that they mischaracterized the testimony and that he should be permitted to have the then he was decondition as a result of the injury he's not able to return to work and the the arbitrator in the arbitrator's decision indicated that because he had had the benefit of work harming or physical therapy he was the condition now if he was not if he was doing condition and it has nothing to do with the work injury and that would be a different case but dr boller is is the testimony and there's nothing that  or i'm sorry that the bill is said in the arguments before the court that addresses that and that is the whole basis of this appeal there is no other evidence to dispute it that the doctor that the commission is relying on has said
was head man there was gathered together more information about your home town the new yourself know the german geo politician the world is not made up of men and women and children  well natural resource australia and all the islands of the world including japan comprises one third of the land area the other area which consists of europe and africa makes up the other two  world conquest can be summarized this way conquer eastern europe and you dominate the heartland conquer the heartland and you the district leaders from our or germany's personal allegiance to him hypnotized that they were members of a master ra hitler with  everything else was new tanks motorized equipment and one of our own invention  cheney had a military alliance with friends and friends had a military alliance with her had to move careful of slovakia norway sweden china the united states or timbuktu want no check democracy has not convictions for which people would be willing to stake their lives but what about the russians the light began to burn all night and my british and french military in which they agreed not to fight each other here where they admitted archenemy in a state of apparent french it was too fantastic to make any sense didn't the germans  else people of poland prepared for the inevitable lovely new britain and france that guaranteed their borders they also knew those countries were a long way off militarily the best to laugh at the best line of defense our making a stand here would have meant surrendering was on the richest part of the country the alternative was to accept battle on the border that was the polish  six thousand modern planes the polish air force less than one thousand the been stereotyped but german army secretly made reading the way of living for the next thousand years was to be decided loyal police neighbors
and he was sentenced to a class two felony of because of his prior felony convictions but the only reference in the statute to felony convictions is in the sentencing subsection directed at this particular statute an argument there was made about an element of a section where there was an element or something back there and the court cle and also if something subsection obviously cannot stand alone this court recognized recently in mostly the interdependency of the sentencing and the elements subsections of the ag e w statu there the sensing provision was directed to people who not only violated the statute under a three a that's involved here but also the forty vision and the court said that because it's as if the law had never been passed and the state understood this they filed in it refusing aguilar saying that the effect of aguilar was to invalidate convictions for felons and i submit that the modified aguilar opinion did not change that result and still held that that subsection was void the birds conviction under that void section has to be i don't think so that that was the issue before it i think that it was it dealt with the class or form of the offense in terms of that was the that was the class for  sentencing range it didn't apply it said it didn't apply and they're holding us to any other part of the statute it just felt that  this statute is is the boy and it just happened that the defendant there had a class for sometimes chief justice or honors i am veronica calderon i'm a cook county assistant state's attorney representing the people of the state of illinois in this case there is no dispute that defendant is a convicted felon who was charged with and found guilty of a class two gallon based on crime in fact he does not achieve an attempt to claim that he has second amendment rights but he wants this court to reverse this conviction under the second amendment and in doing severability is appropriate because the class war in class two forms of section eight three can stand alone the legislature expressly intentionally separated felons a portion of that statue that but he was convicted under statute that was withheld boy there's there's just there's no way around it because the state has inside any case where there was a void offense nevertheless was held in forcible against a particular class of defendants who had they been properly convicted under that statute would be subject to some enhanced sentence because it's inconceivable