MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
newly retained lawyers to amend the complaint the real specific issue on the fair housing claim it is whether or not the district court could properly concluded that any attempting to get out of her complaint however in our film what she tried to express was that she had met with other women and discussed with them a disparate impact upon them of you could never under these circumstances consider these past to be outrageous i think just as pious as you recently concluded even the giving of flowers and certain circumstances could amount to scream cruelty with a  that it was causing her emotional distress and physical injury they continued that repeated pattern of conduct i don't believe you can state that under no circumstances could that ever be considered outrageous moving on  continuing this and some of the common law the court construed as a mobile home residency act claim even if the court was prop in doing so she did in fact give a thirty day notice as counsel when i came into the case we only discovered that the thirty day notice that she had written in fact a thirty day notice said just notice that i'm going to bring a lawsuit for continuing nuisance it didn't say anything about mobile home residents here but was a thirty day notice she gave that notice to we discovered only after all the briefs have been filed because the district court did not allow oral argument on the matter we were able to present that it print at that time it was presented to the court and as a part of this record when we opposed the motion for attorney s four days to review twelve hundred pages and or more of documents that in a case i just recently got into to be able to comply with that order and i don't believe that compliance with that order was truly really possible i believe it was women being targeted for violations when other violations existed by other male tenants that were ignored and i would point to page forty two of the excerpt of record which is the beginning of a letter that was written on july eighteenth two thousand and one to the legislature to several members of the legislature including the governor's office including housing office housing and community development center and on page forty three have ten days or twenty days left on then the time potentially would have even been expanded by the three day rule for mailing but we didn't have that here we literally got the notice within a day or two four days at most when we had to i'm going to consider ruhleben sanctions if you can't back up what you say i had very little time with any clear confidence that i could amend that complaint and not be a foul of the court's order without time to review the
unequivocally told you today was the first time she told anyone what happened so she does the state was trying to argue that all over me she talked to these attorneys she's this is the first time she's telling this version that what they were saying to the something that's not true that suit to twist what she's that and make it sound as though she testified to the fact that she never told anyone this happened before what had happened before and that that wasn't true that there was even just one there was a string therefore when the prosecutor says that dixon adequately told you today it was the very first time she told anyone what she was testifying to the jury was not confused that he did that the prosecutor was referring to the fact that she seen dixon says no the prosecutor that says did you ever go to the elders and police department to talk to for example a supervisor there about what he had seen she says now and again did you ever come to the stupid choice office and tell them what you had seen  these three times she had said no these are these questions and it was only after this line of questioning that the prosecutor then says so this is the first time that you have told anyone about what happened to it and looking at the context it seems as though the supreme court has there's a division and these standard of review the it i believe it is  so she's just witnessed her boyfriend being by her testimony finally thrown to the ground by the police it makes sense that she wouldn't feel safe going to the police talking with the police and risk for perhaps her own safety at that point
contains a integration costs in the integration costs a disagreement is the full and complete agreement relating to the resolution of disputes covered d by this agreement a principle resolution of disputes through mediation so if the agreement to stop their interests of this agreement is or complete agreement relating to the resolution of disputes period then that might be a better argument for the other side and that's very critical piece of the puzzle missing it doesn't say anything about  mediation agreement is inconsistent with the arbitration agreement and the mediation agreement signed afterwards it seems to me that send one that your client made a mistake  possible to do one or the other if any possible to forego mediation and go straight for which ration because it may be a situation where the parties don't think mediation is or there's no condition in the agreement that says  and look at this is that parole evidence situation you can't you can't walk away from it that's why this clause is there so if you're going to go to the parole evidence would you gotta look to see if there's a title i still have there all right but suppose  analytical approach should have been that applies to the so i don't think you have a waiver when you have what appears to be just a pure legal issue you know only thing i see that's changed is the paragraph or of the state in regards to the distinction between arbitration and mediation it is it's purely not the intent of everybody that  we to make the fact that the only thing that's changed is that paragraph involving whether you're going to mediate a claim or you're going to arbitrate way seemed like there or not bo
absolutely natural to be concerned when someone you don't know gets a quick trial and starts to rock that something really bad is about to happen i'm a fan even a mystery year old i understand that well that can cer ten steps is not enough maybe if you had taken twenty five steps away and kept walking but maybe that would've been enough either that maybe you had to wait until he that his intent is in fact to secretly can fight if that makes sense
argument based on and we see it often is that something is a continuum ok and the legislature has said you know this is the end point this is the beginning point of the basic point and you can  all this stuff to point to find a point on i can to you know so your argument is as many of these arguments are is that if you have a maximum and point interact that somehow that prejudices
without prejudice when you read the findings of the court with respect to property interest with respect to no gender motives i mean the motivation factor with respect to i mean what contest in which you not only did not hear directly from her you didn't even read words that she had written that is correct but the complaint and said that the key credibility determination change out was more credible than john doe without having assessed her with that with having assess all the evidence that was made available without having assessed all of the evidence and without having seen jane do in the last jondo was not able to convincingly explain this text messages we have to remember the context of the allegation the allegation was that this was a little penetration or not about her failure to testify her his allegations are that we did that there were sexual assault awareness month that there was circumstantial evidence that that that report was relied on in making the final determination it wasn't aggressive asian that's what title nine called for it was a report of the investigation that was relied on in making a final determination that yes john certainly very recently and they have done so against going to my reading of that opinion respectfully a blank slate i mean there is not a grounding for that conclusion in the title  so he did have an opportunity to the question of a great meeting of those taxes frankly not developed in the complaint and there are reasons for that the evidence was inquired into the victim and the tennessee exact opposite of what you're arguing provided character witnesses who provided no identification of other eyewitnesses there is no contention in this event that there were other eyewitnesses rank material or the other evidence decide what they think is most appropriate and focus their efforts i think it would frame that as whether or not not talking to them was an act of bias because that's what the allegations are satisfied his burden of stating a claim right there would be a different case but i don't think the case maps up well to this case so the campus is a free speech environment his central decision maker dean summertime to suggest that she did anything other than evaluate the evidence in front of her so a bootstrap against her from the fact that somebody else of prisoners know who that statement had been written by of course yes i guess i kind of go back to the point i was making it just strikes me it was an imprint into the people who in fact conducted the weighing of the evidence are associated with care so the fact that there is a resource organization on in this search has found that that should not be construed as a conflict of interest that holding more than one responsibility such as perhaps was not mean that those individuals should be but the cases it may be on  the just literary files but not on the transcript that would be available to the public and that's not true that he will have to disclose that in any number of contacts when he's asked the question have you ever been suspended have you ever been disciplined have you ever been a
action shot of the neighbor that's a typical slap or an f i slap situation to allow them to allow that litigation to to be filed and and to proceed through the motions stage and order it doesn't dispose of the case the case is still hanging open for three hundred sixty five days right but i have to admit i don't know the answer to that  here find that section twenty five mean the lady i mean what is it about this fact when it doesn't say anything about it that somehow trumps what is a discretionary act the court in saying ok
say no to the spec that each claim that there's three basic issues in regards to case like this we have asylum withholding if you partition and convention against torture because they all come from the same facts they ought to come from the same facts but they're held under different standards of all this case didn't go before the immigration judge which is why we're asking for remand we don't know what the immigration judge denied him upon we understand that the had the case before but we don't know if it was denied based on country conditions in regards to them being that's that's fine but that's not the question the question is can we consider the asylum decision and in this i think whether the torture decision properly considers factors reviewing court order and also that what you must do is that could be separation from his wife should be considered now how it weighs in the balance of favorable and unfavorable factors should be the review where the attorney general when they set up this type of review state that reviewing courtship take a look at both what the board has written and what the immigration judge has written the immigration but the explanation of the weight you give that factor and why you know if you say well being separated from your wife have such a bad thing it's going to help like or you can say being separated from your wife is a very serious factor which we consider outweighs almost everything but not drunk driver any anything type of violence or whatever on account of anything on account of the fact that the father used to be part of the military forces  was speaking of the only issue i have and that is that this is just circuit case and therefore that suggests that it is only persuasive and that's not controlling on this court and that is a matter if it were to be a matter of first impression for this court whether
immediate the interesting thing about this case is that he receives a notice to appear it's the same old defective notice that we've seen in a one million cases but  the hearing is set for a very short period of time after and he attends it maybe because he's just taken there but he attends pro se so the problem can't be the level of notice he's right there at the hearing whether it's enough time and whether being required you know on a very short leash to defend yourself and not have time to get a lawyer me i could imagine arguments about prejudice that you could make but notice doesn't seem to me to be the problem here the board certainly is a very concerned here about the fraud in the initial entry into the country and how does he get prejudiced here that he didn't have enough time to prepare for the hearing or didn't have enough time to get a lawyer how do you get around the other aspect of forfeiture the excusable  y because this lack of notice or lack of the one complete document to the extent you have to have it in one including all the information you need that's an argument that was available to him years ago and he didn't raise it in till recently so how do you get around excusable to lay especially given that he's been in the united states supervision he he's different from a lot of other people that we see if that's if that's the case and it may be that he thought he was doing everything you need to do keep his case in  know regular status i don't know me but if this is an unusual circumstance if that turns out to be the fact if he decided to slip below the radar screen as some people do that's a different matter altogether right  show some form of prejudice because claims processing rules are in fact rules that are supposed to be followed and the board for years was not following particular rules for notices to hear so what concerns me  corruption case is precisely one of the things that are key santiago to that if you only know for a three day time period that you have a hearing that's going to change your life i don't think we would allow a criminal trial to be scheduled within three days i don't think we would allow that you know eminent domain case to be scheduled within three day so the what is in the notice is one thing but what amount of me about mr cruncher this case that there just wasn't enough time for him to make the kinds of arguments that we're all sitting around saying oh you can make this argument that argument a white person wouldn't think of it maybe a trained lawyer might have in which case forfeit argument it's based on prejudice separate at the time of the hearing and the fact that he didn't have time to get a lawyer the fact that he didn't have time to look into himself what his  might be why wouldn't that be enough at least to raise a question of prejudice that if you meet the other forfeiture aspects would be sufficient to
who've already overpaid well my question is and sure why you're here and that sure how this went before the supreme court if they were asking for more than what the it said that you had paid four thousand sixteen seventy three on the p p p award but the actual awards five thousand nine hundred fifty four dollars fifty one cents was that one thousand nine hundred  thirty seven dollars every day didn't do that because when we got the decision from the commission i thought that was appropriate they filed an appeal i never thought that there was an issue with regard to medical bills but the medical bills that they paid that's not necessar credit against the p p p or other p p gear ward would have been that sixteen seventy eight point forty eight minus six seventy two forty two thirty four that was that you w money and then i they didn't pay that so i filed the section one thousand g which is the method used to enforce judgments in that and some time and i don't know if that's the correct way to do it if they say that they forfeit it quick they certainly didn't raise it in a specific way beforehand and i'm always defending the case up until i went to the
are our supreme court martial vs burger king so this is one of the factors the reasonable force see ability of the injury if there is no c c just so the landlord should have known that the tenant completely broken off is it what you meant to say beginning in twenty two
sorry i hate to think you've gone away i know we've been telling around together ever since we were kids i've got what you got to fix with your dad so you can go i would like to say i'm i'd like to see you wait wait a minute i said i would like to but military schools are expensive and right now absolutely our request but  you're old enough to understand i tell you i cannot afford it building a beautiful home like that out here what are you thinking about so seriously
the defendant was the only witness on his own but it also took place on the people's drek case with the two key prosecution witnesses the detectives where it was water and basically  stress this enough in my brain but i want to stress that now that armstrong nation the prosecutor said and this is on page twenty two or eighty seven the confidential up and look here's what the story  and something using his silence to the police even in the summation to cut it there was no there was no objection and there was no cure these typical ways in which you can   but we have the police officers coming in saying from the circumstances it's absolutely possible that i did this to the bullis and then the police officers testified to different detectives that they can appoint  lives then we have the friend who went down and said well yes it's true open to the point that we have a signed statement that says it's absolutely possible that i didn't want what i said was that it's absolutely when you try to develop an omission from this trial version as compared to the  i just never said anything inculpatory i never touched the boy just what i told him i think you can't have a clear contradiction between the two versions and that i think when that happens when the f on the issue of prejudice they just claim that there was another person as well you know with some sort of contamination but they conceded that his his his d n a was there fifty five point nine million to one that was one appears a pinch three to six to the transcript the prosecutor stated if there are problems with the parents he would have told the police that he had problems with her but then she agrees that it's all moot because he said he testified there were no problems with the parents the other one the second one it appears
been to a number of my colleagues presenting cases this morning and we're all we all seem to be focused pretty much in the same question and that is credibility i think our case now probably ratchets up a little bit the issue of credibility because we know that the vendor saying vance will file one application in nine hundred ninety five contains all false information and listen to what you have to say and believe anything to be true or are you if you will are you condemned to eternal damnation for having made that application be one step removed from that you can come back and perhaps first way the immigration judge that you're credible but if the operation just enclose that you're not credible can we say that no reasonable fact finder could reach that conclusion and the face of admitted evidence that he turned an entirely fabricated application and was repaired and presumably signed out on apparently perjury a lot of all the fine print after that point can anybody second guess and i js determination that credibility is lacking i think this fact had been a member of the the organization in the past and for more than twenty years there was there was no investigation there nothing was done despite the fact that the original a testimony about erast and simply says you're not being truthful even now you're not you weren't telling me the truth and then the information with regard to what activities and what he did in india before he came over to the certificates of his brother's even birth certificates of his children if none of that material is going to make any difference to the judge it seems to me that there is absolutely no way to have a clean slate for him when he goes in front of the church anything that he can say that will make it ok again i think what she was saying was i'm giving you i gave you an opportunity to overcome this but you didn't and then in the end she still took into account and had i don't think at any point did she say ok now i'm putting on blinders and saying oh i forgot there's been a fraud what she said was i care you know how to knit which actually you know was very  against you when when you first presented yourself with all this history of fraud entirely clear but it is at least referenced here particular eliana has such a propensity for lying that he has a show mothers persecution or torture or whether he's been arrested seven times or two times i know time because if we look at page one of ministry records page one eighty eight the judge the judge indicates that
problem because the authorization for the care that changed in order to be founded m m physical examination the region imaging and its six months post injury court we would expect much greater function fewer complaints or discomfort and he also wrote i don't think any further intervention
so we can do this when there's knowledge still be imputed to the other trustee for the period when they were setting this up absolutely so at the time they closed the deal maybe he's no longer a trustee but and it had nothing to do with infusing knowledge but it is talking about is whether under the insight or badges of pride you could say that best our trust happening was a insider because they purportedly shared some undefined information not that you could ever bona fide purchased or if without knowledge of the fraud he's value to the agent and that in this case he received five hundred eighty thousand dollars investment trusts not to keep his personalized state by state in the property is the avenue to go you don't go after the best of our trust company which just six months due diligence and determines whether it's appropriate asset of the trust and actually keys out five hundred eighty thousand for that property if you say that that which is that it's set up for the benefit of her children and so to now say it will because foster told it to the to trust and got five hundred eighty thousand from it now you have to give it seller of property and even if they wouldn't run a credit check there's certainly nothing in the records to indicate that they would find anything bad i mean when he's every quested that they purchased this property and that had never even been explained files and i children were the principal beneficiaries of the trust and that no money could be used from the trust to go to the trust or which would be foster and tell after other trust record the trust itself is in the record i believe i would have to check i don't think it's in the record but it's my understanding it might be in the record as part of the actually one of the developers of the cataract surgery that they've been doing for the last fifteen years you know the old was used to happy hour for an hour and a half and now they do it in fifteen minutes he was one of the developers of that at that surgery my doctor told me  him for many years developing this surgery so he was one of the developers going to go to medical school i'm not sure where he went to medical school you on i know in practice for a very long period of time to san diego where he met bill foster at the country club