MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
that there was some kind of retaliatory act there was retaliatory intent on behalf of the defendants that was done because plaintiffs were participating in that constitutionally protected act and third was there some sort of injury or chilling effect complaints not verified to begin with and the claim that was given numerous notices on what they needed to do to oppose the motion there was a notice filed by defendant saying look at rule fifty six here's what you need to do and i'm a twenty second two thousand order you know they said that we never held that there needs to be a total chilling effect and at one point just as there is no chilling effect other cases this court decided i mean every case we talked about in our brief times i was talking about national i'll get back to action get in after that but assuming again that the those statements get in again there's still no chilling effect what we're talking about here is an employment case to an employer and a supervisor employee aren't getting along appeal filed saying i didn't know about that rule take it back and then he says he files then you're not doing a good job you have this ongoing but does that rise to a level of a constitutional case and there's no one right to win the job and in federal court there's no constitutionally protected right to a job there's no constitutionally protected right not to go to ad say well get somebody into federal court is the chilling effect on the first amendment and some of the stench of the truth for a year certainly that rises to the level of the gets to it and the reason is there is no evidence which college or intent the court mentioned the opposition itself is thirty nine pages in the middle of this thirty nine pages on page eleven is this declaration was actually called declaration slash statement  back to the chronology argument really the chronology is a weak evidence to begin with there was only the warm sixto to really talking about the bible's not talking about him not getting along with the defendant and that's only six o two prior to the the evidence  the ones twenty eight stating that he's a bad worker and wanting him out of the job so the chronology is pretty weak and as the court in cologne for scotland talks about that the inevitability of which a prisoner is going to is the main issue and that they're the ones that deal with these cases every day and as i discussed earlier that there's a lot of these cases in the district court and they're the ones that know at this point should this case go forward and in this case the district
yes your honor adams even on behalf of the leverage point trust funds we actually have four fairly distinct issues today which i think the second one is probably deserves the most attention the first issue we raised was whether pending party that's right now our position is that the district court did not fall into the one of the four factors that it had to fall into to decline jurisdiction in the executive software case the main circuit is taking the position that the supplemental jurisdiction statute has an act dismissed the case but that really actually emphasizes the extent to which there was an abuse of discretion here because neither party asked for the case to be dismissed on the discretional grounds the court did itself ar bly did that because of the default judgment but if that's true it was unfair to wait that entire year while the rest of discovery was completed and the entire case ran its course and came up to calendar call before the didn't do any additional not finding one of the particular four factors there is the district court did not do the second step on declining supplemental jurisdiction and that is to determine whether doing  certainly undermines the extent that this could ever be thought to be an economical thing to do because what we have hanging over our heads right now is the prospect of starting over in state court certainly there's no convenience factor here because all over and frankly i don't know that it's fair to the other side they have to do their case again as well so and the court doesn't actually put those into the order in the court doesn't tell us in its order exactly what his his reasoning was for us to exactly sort of cast a guess here based on  it doesn't really go to any particular overwhelming policy issues so to the extent comics he comes into play here i don't think there are strong arguments in favor of letting the state court decide that issue entitled i think to to have the court tell us and articulate what the basis might have been for declining jurisdiction we think that that decision should be reversed as an abuse of discretion and as a backup to that we think  have all the time about wages being questioned from the farms to secure a backlash after richardson primary the stance against the amounts here is that there is no original arista liability on behalf of the subcontractor only the federal court ca that issue under the complete preemption doctrine belongs in federal court
of the proceedings all right well i don't want you to lose any more of your time here we don't have that motion here in front of us but it will be oh hold on here and record and allow you c was confronted with a situation where she was going to lose or might lose and actually did those the custody parent control of her children and clearly this is a has a right to be present under the united states constitution she also has a right to be present granted that that right is not an absolute right and as presented in both parties three an all day hearing as the stipulation of facts show there was every very significant and serious snowstorm the night before and to the early morning hours and the  understandable de lay as a result of the terrible road conditions i will tell the court that i am proud to say that in adams county the way we operate any of those turning it was an hour late to court because the snow the night before we would have to light because of courtesy towards one another we take that seriously it's important to us it's also important  but the dispositional hearing took place immediately following that is that correct that's correct we're not having any issues with that it was clearly bifurcated herring's i guess my point is there is an opportunity for parent to maybe offer alternatives to placement with d c s best dispositional hearing in terms of you know the care of the children in the near future and your client would have been deprived of that as well correct that that is for her and followed by this decision hearing counsel if you look over this matter i must admit there i was very troubled by the timeline when i consider the requirements of the juvenile court act as to w adjudicatory hearing is supposed to take place when a dispositional hearing is supposed to take place and it was just rather astounding to me that these kids came into care march of two thousand and fourteen and were not having energy victoria hearing until number ten continuances in the big and the beginning a matter of organizing the case and getting everybody with their discovery and being able to present the case but then the continuance started with mr j situation where the father mr pollack had advised counsel that he was going to admit petition and that would result the case and then the attorneys could go on the rest of their days  out of the band or the snow guy she wasn't in the courtroom until the case was over everybody had spurs they move faster than i have and i was still there and you hadn't had
next case for argument is credible against very wonder whether we should be doing anything other than putting us on the back burner until the supreme court has decided the government would have no objection your honor however we don't think it's necessary to do so we think under current  expert is really learning and it's not a substitute for it here it was not a substitute for cross examination plaintiff counsel had the opportunity to cross examine the vocational expert and in fact did so for several pages in the transcript starting on identified that he was using that particular source during the hearing itself which is the procedure that this court has embraced in donahue and breakfast we know that by page ninety seven when cross counsel is cross examining to vocational  and that cross counsel is familiar with that with the source because the questions that counsel is asking are exactly the objections that he identifies in his subpoena and as objections to this particular source the wisconsin department of workforce development he didn't ask for any additional materials during the course of the testimony to me that's correct given that and given that the elderly in this case probably relied on the subpoena regulation production at that hearing would be acceptable ok so you view this as not seeking discovery one of the reasons i ask that is because these tax breaks has been filed in the supreme court and disagree that there is a straight line in britain saying that there is not preparing discovery it doesn't matter what britain said right the supreme court will make its own decision based on the statute and the regulations and richardson against par they will pay let's just say negligible attention to the decisions of courts of appeals right so i'm i'm trying to figure out whether there is a difference between the position you are taking and the position th choosing to undergo a medical examination just like you would see a three year and discover pretrial discovery in a worker's compensation there are forms of pretrial discovery that we do not find examples charity for instance we're not allowed to post vocational expert before the trial even though we would have that right in federal court most of the time so there are differences and that's what britain and i expect the supreme court will recognize but the this case is about the subpoena regulation and the discord said that the was read the magistrate george's opinion as limited to disclosure after the vocational expert testified as there was certainly a good deal of language for vocational custody or for information about the claimants work history or for a course of the medical history it's that's what this case is about it's very narrow and it's primarily a case it's about the commissioner's regulations and about the duty to outcome although it may have impact on the final outcome but you're you're arguing about the peanuts and whether or not the a l j properly tonight in looking at that particular issue what standard of proof you should we apply you have to apply
and he apparently met with some sort of medical staff person the day after from the complaint it appears that he saw from outside and was refused any sort of medical attention on the ground that he could not pay his arizona attorney general's office today i plan to discuss and provide additional guidance to the court q main issues st is that the district court correctly determined that mr mcfarlane had failed to state a claim for an adequate medical care based also not in the event this does get remanded we would be a party to the case and after reviewing the briefing we decided to defend the areas that we felt were the most defensible of the district court order and that's why it's so that
to release she reveres as he attempted to break her grip on him he hit her in the face ashrawi the defense asked record which if believed by the jury would support a defendant claim self defense the defendant is entitled to have the jury hear hear there was a minimal slight the face as he was trying to remove himself from her and she refused to let him go he could not move he pushed away from her and pushing away from he hit her in the  blocking his path and striking him he would have had no conversation or interaction at all with further there was at least slight evidence that mr paramor reasonably he was shorter or at the same height as in a sling as they stood on the boss she was beautiful she appeared bigger than he was in the videotape you have him run it by this woman who's an imposing figure that's commanding him to stop and preventing him from continuing on this way and refusing to let him go he simply pushed away and pushing away from her trying to release some salt from the breath he hit her in the face there was at a minimum slight evidence to justify the giving the cell phones instructions aggressor and the continuing pressers defendant argue with a swipe at the bus stop aggressively trying to prevent her from getting on the bus by blocking her way with his arms and shoving her and then he ran after his wife onto the b factor states of the danger of harm is imminent in this case more ended do not threaten force against the defendant and definitely not such that danger of harm was eminent taking defendant's testimony he thought that she had grabbed him because when his momentum was stopped and testified that she raised her forearm and elbow putting for elbow to his chest her touching was merely incidental and a product of her blocking his way in addition melinda was holding a cup of coffee and a phone at the time of her encounter with defendant so clearly she did not grab him the state disagrees that they videotape shows that melinda gates was stopping defend described that he was he in a way felt he was in danger or that danger existed or that he believed he was being attacked or that force was necessary to her every need danger he did not testify that he was afraid and if you go not proof or shown by the defendant he testified he felt he had the right to make contact back not that he felt he was in any danger or in jeopardy or threaten us retaliate he was insulted or offended  seventy six in that case the evidence indicated that the defendant returned a blow not to prevent subsequent attack but in retaliation in bailey a second district ninety eighty two case defendant testif that she scratched officer when he grabbed her arm defendant did not indicate that she believed he was she she was defending herself from excessive force and bratcher the defendant testified he struck out in anger and surprise as and and that the defendant has a claim of self defense and here there was  this was a matter of health and i asked
i guess a guy has to have a car to impress a girl like you along with some phony shoulders when your best friend better watch out because you might meet a guy with a cock some day and then  they deserve each other hand they probably didn't turn out to football practice all week because i quit the crummy team that's why coach he doesn't know what he's doing it seems going downhill so fast it isn't even funny and one of the see what you say excuse me to your mother for being late i'm simon excuse me your mother can't keep dinner waiting just because you feel like hanging around the streets a little longer i said i was sorry i didn't know it's just another indication of your he saved his money and bought that car himself that you could let me have the car not know i am that you're too young to be running around in cars at night with girls i'm sixteen or nine i've got a license what's the sense of having a license if other kids do and there she is you always give me his money all right that's about enough young man i didn't come up from a hard day's work just to get impertinent from you you always treat me as though i were about six years old that's because you act like you were six years old your son he he wants to be like you you want to copy you and you have to admit you blow your top athlete easily sometimes like tonight you brought him out without even asking him why he was late and lately you've i wish you to arrange something nice for the two of you something you could do together could you get together for a saturday i don't mean to be hard on the boy ring look i'll try to think up something that we can do together in the meantime how about you going up and talking to him about being more responsible frankly is that it too worries me you want to help me with anything doesn't trust me leave your dessert in the refrigerator for you well i certainly didn't get very far you can be terribly stubborn you know fred he said you never notice when he tries to please you sometimes i wonder we don't set of standards that are just a little too high for him and then when he can't talk to them he gets angry with everyone i think is really anxious to please you have i'm sorry about our argument but i wish you'd try to see my point of view about this car business look since you won't be with the team saturday i'd like to see the game with me you didn't even try to respond like that like a human being something's going to be done about you how did they get into a situation like this it seems impossible but they was emotionally unstable he didn't think straight about what he was doing they face facts and accept life as it is why does he have such an exaggerated idea of his own importance and ability that he can't see things as they are because he can't fit the real world into is unreal idea of how it should be he is so frustrated that he loses control of himself with help they can learn to control these emotions and develop more mature attitude but how could his emotional instability have been prevented
appeal then there would be a remedy of obtaining the property back as all the orders or actions would be poor but in this case there is at least the fact that there is the remedy of damages circuit held in a moment was only an element of the stay was only justified under extreme circumstances so it was that would be more difficult circumstances to to satisfy and owning unlimited holdings mr sas representing to the owner of the property that mr rouhani wanted to purchase the property or the party could take out another loan the fact that she chose to take out a loan and  told that the interest was paid for a year and within a month's time they said no you have to pay you're five thousand dollars in a rear now arrears out and we're going to foreclose on the fact that unlimited holding i think the ninth circuit certainly could decide and could decide using the exceptional circumstances case law regarding that all the facts are before the ninth circuit so i think it would be appropriate not to mention the fact that personal matter i don't think we can unwind this deal there are there have been a number of events that taken place since that story was in all the most important which is that we have a final an appeal the state court judgment quieting title to this property initially my have a list pendant that's expunged operation of lot any subsequent transferee becomes a bona fide a for bona fide a purchaser so that person with a clear take frankly or any other in the other claims so there's no way to unwind this deal with respect to finding that he's a bona fide purchaser necessarily include the finding that he didn't know about the stay at the time you were at the property well just just for clarification in regard to violation of the say you know have to know that you
brief distinguishing this case from our current case but from what i've just read of it briefly before coming before you that this case is distinguishable from our current case in holland hand the defendant twice on the record specifically chose a bench trial over a jury trial before proceeding to his guilty plea he had waived his right to a jury trial informing the trial court that he wanted to proceed on a bench trial he then did subsequently plead a right to a jury trial which he didn't have at that point i think we can all agree one says with a guilty plea was withdrawn he was put back in the same position as he was before he entered the guilty plea and at that point he had to break for jury trial without reading forming him that he had he had this right he could have been under the mistaken impression that his original guilty plea was still valid the jury waiver was still about which it was not and their court specifically informing him that he had a right to a jury trial it was it was imperative because otherwise he would have been potentially confused or misled to believe that he no longer have that right because his prior jury where you were was still in effect which that this is substantial compliance with world to the in one thing that's really important to recall about this also in history where a defendant at least on three occasions r type of which i was and you have you have a right to have the trial you're going to have trial in the way i read it just doesn't seem like it's clear that he's talking about your right to have had a jury trial but you've chosen not to
motion in this case as well as the career offender determination however we recognize that the career offender issue is very close by circuit precedent and we requested to preserve it because of a circuit split so i wouldn't sign my remarks here to the suppression i where a legitimate justification and as a result the fruits of the seizure including the controlled substances found in the front passenger seat and on mr warren's person must be suppressed the basis cited by the district court in the government seated and the question of course as to whether or not this was a seizure was whether or not a reasonable person in that position would have understood himself to have had his freedom of motion restrained and it's our position that mr no your honor and we will concede that of course that there were individuals in the house who had warrants and that there were some form of officer safety concerns present as there always are when our procedures interact with members about it's simply  you're served and just stay in there for me please thank you i appreciate it while he investigated the driver for driving without a valid driver's license based on the situation the officer in  question is that no these are a perch and tell the defendant was ordered out of the t f will and hand caught which happened after one officer had marijuana and another had noticed it in a bag inside the vehicle and it's difficult because so many officers are at the one time who testified in the hearing with different observation in fact we don't have a body camera reporting in there if we only had an audio and so you have to why officers of your what other that was a case involving a and i would hate us and stephan that was a car wash day where the court ultimately how that happens or of course these two individuals were outside of their car washing their far  detention i doesn't come into play until a capital allocation and of course this is what we know from the line of passenger stop cases including brandon and wilson but oh you mean here is that this situation is distinguish from the traffic stop cases and is more similar to individuals being found out of doors seen on a bench or something to that effect the rationale by which all passengers are seized underground one thing is that when a t stop is made the individuals in the car already detained on their way to wherever they're going so their liberty has already been imposed on and in addition to that that the officers investigation is not clearly targeted at the driver until further events occurred here the officer was in fact it was in effect investigating a previous violation of the driving was the license was by the driver but he did not stop the car on the path to its destination and his investigation was very clearly right jenkins who had been driving but as reading noted the record is silent as to whether the car's engine was currently running so for all those reasons we would ask to resist t