MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
sack then you still have the conviction problem that you have to maybe go through the modified categorical approach to the term and whether the child abuse fell within the category of child abuse on the end so you're saying shouldn't have to go back and do that because he was there's no record of his conviction in the first place let me ask you a question i think both counsel or both my colleagues judge my point but if i don't agree that there's a categorical match with that particular statute under which he was convicted shouldn't i send it back character but it seems to me that what we're really talking about here is the crime of child abuse isn't it we're not talking about a crime involving moral turpitude we're talking about the and that's why i was saying to you we're really looking at child abuse here as for the government when regardless of where you think they ought to have gone they went with child abuse if we took your argument that they ought to have to choose a certain one one could just as easily say they could have a look at it under child neglect and still i don't really believe that we can really go there we have to look at child abuse itself do and if we do that give me your best argument why the statute in california there's not allege appropriately  well i'll be fair counsel i'm i'm a little confused too because i agree with my colleague it seems to me that this particular opinion does not suggest as harm or stuff some time and that was that the language that you're reading about negligent after a mission has to do with what creates the actual harm or injury but there still has to be some as on page five twelve makes clear now i and now you're suggesting that it is not that based on what the board says i can't even see it in the written language in the statute well perhaps the clarification comes in how the board is defining applying harm in its definition there if there is a distinction between an injury and other conduct which may harm the child here we have in danger mainspring maltreatment both of which are harming to the point of definition
me reserve a few minutes for every battle if they like to do that i'm going to try to stay on time because there's another case that yours and with that an mr rich hit her or strangled her i'm he did note however that she appeared intoxicated which is consistent with her own testimony at trial that she was intoxicated on that day and called the police because she was angry a mystery which chances and they they drafted it on and then when the jury says something question the state's attorney sitting there and he has to know that it doesn't match with with the definitional instruction that said there well you know this the state doesn't trust
coffin plane is taken off and will drop the demolition bombs on the shack in a few minutes leave the shack immediately come on the plane will be over in no time hey betty you are right everybody here is they're all here to get a paper ready a cat oh it's no trouble at all all right then i must get to my home immediately it's a pleasure that will come on already all set let's get out of here man attacked me when i came in here of course i can but it's not the way it's going to the house be glad to and planned on searching your house anyway i have no objections come on
inconsistency between this testimony and his medical records in seoul are you saying that this sort of bootstrap this other incident that took place after the witnesses testified improperly to use that they misconstrue it well what  back i don't think that's really i don't want to see you go off and came here because let's assume that they believe the two witnesses one hundred percent sure it doesn't mean that they were justified in even considering the stuff because they had already testified in the commission makes a very curious acknowledgements ruling although the encounter is not explicitly relevant to the issues addressed here the legal one to bring it in when the analogy it's not relevant to any issues in the even if we be if we buy your argument and reactivate considered improper evidence and making your credibility determination wouldn't we tell it and send it back in from do it over and don't consider that evidence for  have anything to do with their testimony
we will hear the st case on bar vs high miller and then proceed to kinds versus bernstein each side will have two minutes of uninterrupted argument and then questioning maybe  eluded the case before he provided his testimony so therefore he knew what he was about to testify was about was and was going to be a lot less fabricated evidence and tainted evidence that is statute fi probation and my question is have you appealed that decision to the connecticut's prison yes i did and that yes i did and that is what they're supposed to answer to they asked with a right to appear a fair trial another trial represented before probation revocation revocation case which the case the criminal case that i would try for was put to sleep so the state presumed my probation sneakily under false pretense and they had to capture a ma shady so he didn't want to bylines so he told me to report it to mark up my public bender which i did i told that my brewer did not want to buy that she could get this case missed because it was a false report everything in the report is false i never committed a large in the federal appellate court what are you saying that the federal court the federal district court did was wrong that we should defend the federal district court the appellate lawyer that my st appeal w acquitted the probation throughout the i was convicted for crimes that never happened sir and i think that's not that's not just way too far systemic racism just misconduct and police misconduct is my case had not been invalidated in fact they had been affirmed by the connecticut appellate court and had missed some bars indicated she did appeal to the connecticut supreme court on may th of two thousand and nineteen the connecticut supreme court did deny her certification your honors unless you have any questions at this time the defendants rest on the briefs i just have eleven question how would you respond to is prostitution defamation are these claims also borne by a hack that's correct your anger under malicious prosecution state law claims she still would be held to a favorable terminations element and in this  only has her sentence and violation of probation connection not been invalidated they've been in affirmed by the connecticut documents that he had which are all it was no way for me to as well as there was no for way for the public public defender to represent this case because he is the document that had my probation back riley i had no charges  on me this is about officers corruption police corruption too where they painted in fabricated other other surveillances added my name in the list to have me arrested there is no grounds of an arrest probable cause there's no problem two thousand and sixteen is the reason of my probation violation which is invalid the false affidavit thank you sir i thank you ma'am i'm sorry and our thank you very much for your
please call the next case good afternoon if you please the court my name is stephen saw and i represent the defendant first of all i i want to of apologize to the court in preparation for today i saw that there were numerous errors manifest weight of evidence a simply put the circuit court re weighed the evidence substituted its judgment for the commission who would rule the doctor not his diagnosis was incorrect young man who worked in a chicken processing plant he worked there for a couple months whose job was as a laborer he was craving and packaging chicken he lived to trace twenty five to one hundred forty pounds he had no history of was the mechanism of the accident he had immediate pain was was found to be by a supervisor not if you were to regularly and he was sent by his employer immediately that they to an occupational clinic claims he feels a bomb on his shoulder so clinically we have evidence of a bed separation the distant clavicle being elevated slightly as of the date of the accident the only thing that he didn't tender that x ray it's not part of the record no doctor ever saw the x ray the only thing we know about x ray number one is that it was negative for gross fractures and we know that the petitioner had complaints of  that there was fluid swelling along the right a c joint line bony density along the a c j joint line and increased signal he testified that in his opinion was evidence of an acute ligament injury and he testified on equivocally that when he reviewed the m r i film he saw the fluid and he saw that the joint separation significantly dr heller never reviewed tell me where in the reports there's any indication that you ever reviewed any x rays i'm asking dr heller he said i don't see any reference to any x rays question so that it would be a fair conclusion that you did not review any x rays in moreover i don't think the commission actually found that a bill that's not in it and it says we as a circuit court in my opinion correctly noted they found that the commission decision was against the man of the evidence based doctor noms opinions which they found to be contrary to the record and consistent with the treatment history and i would submit to you that there is not there are not sufficient facts to support the commission's finding the right shoulder on that time was negative as well was no written demand in addition to the request for medical bills it's in the record payment of medical bills the actual medical bills are not connected  and nine that's when he first goes to the scene he claims to have felt a bump in a shoulder from the accident going forward but in fact that's not in any of the medical records until march sixteenth two thousand  with respect to the medical bills and what we're talking about one hundred fifty physical therapy in chiropractic sessions that marquis medical reports here in this case the commission ignored selling evidence and they manufactured their own
evidence our border to to neighboring countries they're displaced and it's my argument that people who like staying in like neighboring countries like your trains what they do is they used to go to sudan and sometimes egypt because those are the neighboring countries and try to what we're asking basically is that that this case be remanded back to the board on the whole issue about whether or not safe haven should be statement i compared the statement for the physician who was part of the motion to reopen his affidavit but he wants science it's after the after the decision of the judge she was able to convince the physician force all these operators to track that person down and get that testimony so what we're saying is that if this gets back before there's a gratian judge you know he will be able to resolve anything he would he wants including the medical information we  right your standing is that we are to take this case on the basis that she was found credible yes or however he was found credible why it was before looking for that says that we have to resign and there's a credibility fine but the thing is we also have to keep into account the regulations that suggests that credible testimony alone is not sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof and here we have a case i now whether she was treated correct john because what we have if anything as if we assume the credibility that she happened had this problem where she was beaten and she had problems with regard to it but then also that she never even bothered to attempt to obtain with regard to her uncle statement even though that i didn't give her a continuance in order to do so when we take a look at this case we have to remember that there's two different ground it doesn't here secondly as far as the discretionary factor we have to consider whether or not there's an abuse of discretion in finding that this went back to her staying in egypt is something that
was the testimony that stared he was tortured and then he the next day he went to work and then he went back to the same security office that had tortured him and to report the break into the cafe that she found  detained and beaten in the police station she found it incredible he went back to work the next day what was she using for her parameters of judgement as to what w the identity card the first time that's talked about by the in court interpreter let's get back to the issue but that all what was the reason given by the judge or that you can give me why the judge could say all right i'll give you three minutes to cross examine for this reason your honor you've had four years he says one for two you're presenting great ones with as a lover been cross examined correct your honor but the the other evidence before the judge that day was mr activists and any other
in the major misconduct ticket was watching television while on loss of privileges status and that child was actually dismissed because that was sent by god only enforced at the facility it was only the subsequent charges disobeying a a quick points of clarification there's some argument concerning taking the factual allegations as true i just want to clarify for sure that this was a summary judgment motion not a twenty six motion so therefore were the rules of summary judgment apply were not under the twelve m b and ashcroft pleading standard type system so i hear clearly and when faced with a motion for summary judgment with the burden shifting
and the second issue is does it have merit under either subsection b five or zap sections but that i mean really when you get that may have been an issue but that's not an issue for us to decide really is it if we decide that it is have been vacated is as a result of the supreme court's you then that is excessive hey b s but then i mean it gets all confused and i mean from my point of view the way reading these briefs i think it's a six to be five i would send it back i'm just speaking for one judge and they can say that so they can address what i'm thinking and straighten me out if i'm wrong so it's just me out for well if you want to answer that you can but  does it you have to give us some support for your hey b s against the new valid very full opinion of the intermediate louisiana court i present that to to you and the other counsel do we have  why you have an objection now that you have a full response by the regarding discrimination of a grand jury for person and the wheezy and a fist circuits imposition of a prejudice requirement on that and that's in our reply brief that is one that we gave that is no last heard of purpose  t the the issue though that is before the court is truly a procedural one in that this scheme of twenty to fifty four is based on this letter where you have to go up the state court system before you are right and be remanded can that consider sixty five and six absolutely i think it is our position that both should be considered the facts of this case illustrate both we we have both a decision a federal court decision that is based on an order that has been vacated we also have extraordinary circumstances in this case i think if there was a but if sixty five apply you don't go to determine whether that nobody needs and evident tree the reason we are asking for an evidentiary hearing in this case is because the magistrate judge applied the wrong standard in the first that maybe we don't i don't think i think maybe you're asking for too much there at the right at the end that do i think we've got your argument in hand ok and i'm not going to take you time away from me if you need it but later but i think that for rebuttal but we're going to let the state here determine what that this court decided in two thousand and twelve where the petitioner there wanted to review the claims that he raised in his first twenty two fifty four have occasion based on new facts regarding purportedly improper
officers knock on the door and the time that they head might find under arrest sometime within that twenty four minutes because one of the backup had arrived backup arrived who finally emerged from the bathroom multiple verbal exchanges and demands for a gun for cation before the defendant the false name and then there were additional exchanges before the defendant gave false information regarding whether he had id and there was infact in illinois id card and the defendant in the hotel room by the way the officers did run the false name to cooking williams and that's it records like two three four so from that evidence that i rationally could have concluded that the defendant knew he was talking to a police officer through the bathroom door not that he was joking around with a  that can be seen by looking at the plain language of the obstructing justice statute itself which states that a person who fired just false information with a specific intent is guilty of obstructing justice with the intent either to prevent someone's apprehension bed of the hotel room the taylor case did not require the state to prove that the defendant materially impeded law enforcement and the state is going to argue that even if taylor has some amount of authority there is evidence for much of the national jury could have found that the defendant didn't tell you and pete law enforcement but i want to talk about taylor for a minute because in that case the defendant was charged with obstructing justice based on the theory the fa theory that he committed an act of obstructing obstructing his identification in other words the defendant in this case was charged with the physical act of french and false information defending it taylor was charged with an act defendant ended a standoff through a closed door i mean a closed door is literally material an impediment also as you are pointed out the officer in taylor did know who the defendant was with almost one hundred percent certainty was th information carries the high potential of compromising an investigation which is why the crime can be completed at the moment that false information is provided again showing that no additional element of material and putting that must be must that he thought that the that the person was in the bathroom flushing but cannabis that he smelled and and he didn't mention a specific threat of that that he believed that there might be a gun but of course can be drawn any time that there's a refusal to obey a police order in that case it was the order to get out of the car at a traffic stop but the same with would certainly hope to hear this was this was a standoff that went on for some period of time i mean i was with alec and the defendant didn't come out until he was told that that is actually that it was useless and that and that  officers weren't leaving
was the trustee and there you have me here but here's the passes saying that everything that you say is true taken everything that you say is true ok were placed never needed to me and for possession of the truth of the property which is one of the elements of a conversion claim in the plainest response that is the original complaint suffices as a demand for return of the property but in fact the case is the
go to track with three other cases which are seen where the other three children they are in other words sounds like he's going to make the decision of when to return all of them at the same time and is that an abuse of discretion i believe
any other issue she may have just as easily done before the district director asked before the immigration court constantly asking question me the first issue is  you say you're breaking tourist also that there was absolutely no discretion to grant a continuance or not as a matter of fact you make the amazing statement at least from the judge standpoint  or do you want to stand on the concept that there is absolutely no discretion and if i'm nice i'll give them the courtesy of asking them for a continuance but i don't have to do that just respect to saying are you it looks to me like you saying that the only this year is before us is that they had a mandatory duty to granted two periods and even asking was just nice to them to ask them that's it use arguing i'm trying to get are you really trying to say it was just news or discretion it was an abuse of discretion if the court had for me the opportunity to educate just the status or because some ality of origin i still don't know wanted to have this other document from the department of homeland security or ins before before did that well then that's fine and play along but at least the petitioner should have had the nor was it specifically brought to the attention of its fighting people in the that this case will come down and should make a change in the approach to these cases don't see a issue right i know i'm not i'm not suggesting he's a problem i'm just in reading a record it looks in the eyes to me thought that she was going to be the former ins now department of homeland security  immigration review i exactly but sort of knocks out matter of arthur and says now from this point forward at least somebody in her situation has a much better s case is decided and they have before them a calling that the i g a as we know now abused his discretion because he didn't apply these rules for everyone why did everyone think that that she was going to be all right if she just got i don't i don't know your honor that is what appears from the conversation on of the re
your client's motion to in effect set aside the in a removal order what's the proper entity to decide that we believe that the witness testimony in the light and that seems to me that the immigration judge who issued the removal order is the one that should hear from your client on why he was unable to appear because of the hospitalization am i wrong about that you know we would still argue that the board could do this kind of challenges however if that is is the rule of law doesn't change the fact that the start to sex is not jurisdiction inclined to assume that the board does know what has jurisdiction us and that it doesn't know what it's doing and it referred this back to the immigration court maybe not artfully maybe there was a little ambiguity about what if intended to happen next but i'm just exhibits and that's the area that was here i'm going to get out of your way but let me just clarify to make sure that we're understanding communicating on this one point if do you agree that if the board treated th you can't hear anything  and slightly ambiguous as to what returning the record meant whether they just met the physical copy of the record of the immigration court or whether they were hoping that the immigration judge would act on this there are two points st is that the immigration judge of order and that's uncontested i'm sure you're not going to contest that either right or it could not right and so then if they had lacked jurisdiction all they could really have done is dismiss and they didn't do that which tells me that you know they see a whole lot more in light of that long history in the context of the well there's a lot of history going both ways there's also a long history of the board sometimes transferring these cases to be so so i'm not sure what that's all we have here and that's language is it to me this order does not speak in terms of simple pro se clearly a statement saying hey i was in the emergency room it's very clear what he was trying to do here and it seems to me clear the be a new that because it didn't dismiss well in our
know that this is has nothing to do with the substance of the merits for the score that's a change of justice in this case as we know happens to al fayed across the street to cause some difficulty and it did this case there's no doubt from the ship left their land and having duty to have somebody there with a potential area attentional the fact their vehicle if that was the argument that was presented before trial or it wasn't presented that there that was presented the way we understood it in the original pleading was that he had a duty to cast a few quotes he maintained and i think that this could have been circumvented with the best of some kind of contract for david to suggest