MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
so you may proceed that is true and we don't we don't make that decision do we i mean isn't it the commission that the site is accountability and that we can we view we can't agree with your position because commission did they were much better position to determine what the nature of the fall by looking at the video are they not going to doctors who have never seen the video  brief which you shouldn't have been allowed to file
testimony with respect to the documents that previously submitted by attributing that to core memory and the fact that significant time it passed between the time of the incidents in question and his testimony in court you know it's not it is actually a transitional rule case but however since the immigration and naturalization service does not exist anymore and is currently the department of homeland security that those were believable that then the immigration judge could look to me whether that the fact that they arrested her for years prior whether that would go to a well founded fear of persecution so i think it is the last case for argument on today's calend
become entrepreneurs we have to do our duties as well
had a lot of problems with his credibility and i realize in a foreign country with a foreign country it can be hard to come up with that some kinds of proof but gee you know the most routine personal injury cases a person has that and damn he says he was never arrested for violating the law but then it another place he says he was  dealing with that issue five people without a permit finally the immigration judge found there was no evidence that the police were looking for mr be there before he decided to flee decision and the board reached their decision right that's correct and what how long ago was that the board had not adequately considered a claim that the petitioner had made and ensure the board did not have an opportunity to consider the client however in this instance all claims made by
and it was for twenty four hours supervision which i think is a somewhat more ambiguous term and is that all the judge needed to to know we think not your honor and we can start with constant attendance and that's that's i think where that where the facts start to become disputed and where the board overstepped its bounds around he doesn't need someone around all the time you need someone in the senate so are you  and the only real question was whether the person have to be live and or not but that you needed a tendon here twenty four hours a day regardless of which expert you  four hours a day and what was the best measure for the plane to provide someone to be around to be a reasonably astute person and have all of the examples that were given either occurred very early within the first couple of months after mr carroll returned home from the hospital the hearing was still the better part of two years later or they occurred during times when there's absolutely no married depending on where they are or are not getting along with their spouse depending on the level of alertness of their spouse where why isn't their interpretation of the statute if not the only possible one perfectly again when once you take the bride mandate the unexplained prescription and and put it in an actual setting which is the only way it can be applied and i think this is what what the court what the court has if h somebody needs to be spent in and the employer doesn't dispute that on times that mrs carroll is at home somebody needs to be there and well w to the best i can understand employers argument it's that mr carroll needs somebody in the home and so if at the time that his wife is allowed to be on a respite or has to be away they'll provide the care know the board correctly said whether it's paid is a matter of law under an unambiguous information of the statute that's not a factual question the only factual question is whether he can be left alone or not right whether he needs that attend  he doesn't get up you know that in night time he doesn't he only means daytime care but that wasn't in the finding is even at night that babysitting he requires is an other attendance within the meaning of section a is the board said and the only maybe be fulfilled by somebody at a lower rate of pay exec actually i mean that's exactly where that would factor in as does not strenuous so perhaps somebody wouldn't be paid as much for that time period and that may be what the employer has found and i'm here but still there's a need for
that but the officer went ahead and went outside of this fold whatever to officer may have been permitted to do by escalating the situation immediately and asking questions the person sitting in a car that's obviously been driven there and it doesn't have license plates who are on the road certainly could pull it over she could've pulled it over why couldn't she just put out you get you're in a car without a license plate you're committing a violation of california law there you are in a car sitting in the driver's seat you have no license plates i want to talk to you about that what's wrong with that well one officer didn't even from the officer got to they do they concerning drugs in our politics because there were numerous i think there were there were six different things like who'd be specifically pointed to that in fact they create reasonable suspicion that the individual in the vehicle was transporting drugs guess again and just what my position would be that you know i don't think an officer should be permitted to go ahead and if they stop me going home because i have my taillight was broken immediately go into a questioning concerning whether i have one weapons and you know an order you out of the car that or i'm sorry for which you can order you out of the car correct she can go ahead to stop certainly yes once they can or you out of the basically the officer should go ahead and limit himself or herself to just go off what is being handled in that matter and in this case certainly we don't have anything which is remotely indicate an indicative  absolutely no indication that the individual was armed dangerous had any weapons that threaten anybody had had been aggressive in any matter and well now if you look at the totality of the circumstances the an informant told the police that there were two individuals going through cars and indicating breaking in the cars actually used some kind of weapon perhaps to get into those cars so why should or or anything to that effect saw it again i don't think that and when the officer arrived she didn't see anything that could have could give her any reason to believe that this was dangerous individual the officer basically saw an individual that was seated at the car the officer didn't see the individual being aggressive he in threatening the individual didn't have anything in his hand the individual complied well what's wrong with well my you know my point is that it again was outside of the scope of what the officers should have been permitted to do with what she had they justified that very stop in this case and again obviously argues that she didn't have sufficient information to go ahead and justify a carry stuff for the purposes of say a car theft she didn't have that you
if because you find today that want to go into the past except for just bare minimum details i just want to hear about the future so it appears that off the record they had discussed possibly him accepting the fact that this was there was past persecution so are we conclusion he never says rebut it your honor but it's clear from the records from this decision that he looked at it and if you look at the posture of the case as well that he looked at this evidence and just said you know i'm i don't really want to go into the past as much i will look into the future yes your honor from from the immigration judge's decision it isn't clear but it's clear from the record what he did was he said these are the reasons why i find there's no no future persecution he looked at the arrest nine hundred ninety one in  beginning of his decision and why he believes there was past persecution that that analysis is not in this record which indicates that in fact he had done that analysis of past persecution off the record indicate he did the analysis in light of why doesn't indicate he didn't  that and your honor and maybe he didn't use very precise language in this oral decision but if you look at the record of a whole the government in fact did request and he goes through each one in detail and says this is what causes leaders aside that in fact this this is africa is not deserving of asyl it's your honor he dresses the cat claim in the fact that he denies the torture convention protection and interestingly enough very little of this record indicates that there was even even a besides the mere allegation i've been tortured evidence the immigration judge found that evidence not not worth what he did make an adverse credibility determination in my opinion he just said it isn't worth that much weight in this case he gave a last wait that he would have other evidence he can he said to examples both from i believe two thousand country before where an a p o worker was shot and also somebody had been arrested and had apparently had tuberculosis and had been in prison and died in prison in just body was released those are two instances however those two instances that's the state department more likely than not it's not evidence that there's a probability this individual would be subject to persecution if returned to ethiopia in fact the immigration judge noted and this goes to the a p o which is the even a donor support of fun well your honor in this case it's if you didn't recognize a presumption he wouldn't even to mention the evidence presented by the petitioner you just present when you're just not recognizing the evidence by the petition you just mentioned i just find this refuted by the two thousand two thousand  the of the problems that he he complains about his past persecution and then the the delay between that and the time he found his way out of the country and here is that posing a problem for you and your
waiting the law in this case her contention was that by remaining in mexico following deportation she would be harshly treated jeweler's work and they are the only facts she  trial were that when she was living in mexico at the age of ten and younger she had been teased in school so she failed to meet her burden of showing at this point in time following any of her three deportations to mexico that contention and the second ground for the court's departure is based on the fact the defendant had an infant when she was arrested this time around she contends it's the departure first on a lesser the government would argue the fact that she had previously received this departure and it didn't seem to make a difference at all that's where they're arguing that she's been deported how many times before i believe three hundred and in addition to the three departure she's also got a prior with respect to the other departure which was for a combination of factors the entire point of a combination of factors departure is that no one factor merited on its own a downward departure so the fact that and i would certainly agree that the facts in this case would not have merited a downward departure on each of the individual factors that the court considered but each of those both being at the war and being in mexico and i'm not sure we need to confine ourselves to her evidence with respect only to the specific example she gave restriction is almost racist to say that mexican street the father to take care of but yet she in fact had custody of the child at the time and of course there was the what the court found was the unusual request from the jury which was an expression of sympathy for the jury  facts in favor of the fact that she'd be treated poorly do or divorced status she had lived there in twenty seven years she didn't stay long enough after any of the deportations to experience
valley we could have had an objection and a fact finding because the reality is there in the district of my tampa from what i know we have two federal juvenile facilities that we use and the community of this juvenile we don't have a juvenile facility available in cutbank montana where he was living so there's going to be some issues that we have to address as to whether it meets within a community corrections center versus i a structured environment treatment abilities now the issue is going to raise is whether it crosses into imprisonment what i can tell you all i can tell you is what i know this is not our secure facility for juvenile think i can only assume but i think what was what i understood the judge's ruling to be is that he wanted him to stay there for eighteen months and if there was in need of additional time that would be something if you would look at that carry even despite the language of the probation officer and the proceeding of this case if you know that there was a program set up that was i think more of a typical residential treatment center in the our home officers are are very much in tune to how our juveniles are sentenced in the district of my tennis and i do not think it's left up to the facility it is in direct discussion with the probation officer a very direct link to judge had it was surprised me greatly the judge had has not visited this facility and knows all of the ins and outs of it not just through the advice of the probation officer but she is very hands on in terms of the juvenile sentencings in our district we have a number of them lots more than most districts and i think that these that this facility in my knowledge of it is that they are
and let me ask you this in terms of the medical records he testified regarding the number of injuries he sustained as a result of beatings and hospital records in the hospital records only show he was treated  he was treated for hepatitis on one day his testimony had been that he spent ten days in the jaffna medical center a private hospital that said administrative record one twenty two you have the medical   was put on notice an administrative record one hundred nine that his credibility was an issue and then the immigration judge told him that his hospitalization records were it is because there was a lengthy discussion at the administrative record one twenty one twenty seven that the administrative i'm sorry that the immigration judge wanted the hospitalization records there was a long discussion about them on those pages beating that issue was never brought to the attention of the applicant and therefore this information cannot be used as an adverse credibility supporting documents so what's your response to that there isn't a specific response to that because that was not brought up but the fact that there was a specific issue about his injuries and about the medical records was absolutely brought to
would have had ten no interest in the proceeds of that policy because she had going to be benefited from his having died in triggered the release of the person is benefit from the proceeds of that  six and
witnesses were in fact going to be called the other source of the information would have been the witnesses having been informed themselves by the government they were going to be called and that's i still don't quite understand when  guess what i found out you're going to be called against me that doesn't necessarily mean that he wants to warn the proceeded to make a threat is not your argument well that would be part of my argument yes the the other part is there's  linking of the people who this is largely elk asian in these to use panic people with my client at all i'd like to point out to the court that my client receives the low end of the guidelines guideline range which was three hundred  talk to anybody their family that somehow that information didn't get out through the witnesses and then given the district court finding no matter what standard one talks about to say that the sole source is the defendant when there's no evidence that these folks were approached or talked to by the dismantling or anybody on his behalf and the witnesses themselves knew about it and they are ju likely to have let it slip even if they didn't intend to have seemed problematical to me i appreciate your concern in this case over the record shows that the witness list was filed under seal there is no indication would want anyone else to know in the circumstances that they're going to testify their common motivation would be not to disclose that i do i get all of your concerns but i think terms of the circumstantial evidence in this case are the government proved  preponderance of the evidence that these were done in directly by the defendant or on the on behalf of the defendant because they were specific to the testimony that he did not want these witnesses to provide our guest one of the major reasons for th specific to their testimony at this trial as opposed to really being a snitch for a rag or somebody who's not in favor of the drug media if you will these were specific to their testimony at trial all those factors circumstantially indicated these threats to me  distributed the drugs he also had a telephone number listed in his name at that address and perhaps more importantly the agent indicated that his training and experience showed that drug traffickers are people in the business of distributing drugs commonly retain
period of his career would have made one hundred twenty thousand dollars a year the next thirty years but the whole meeting was based in part from their conclusion mr never have demonstrated throughout to get to one hundred twenty thousand dollars well you're looking at the evidence which they got from the record on what should pay the other people what should i and eight other people during that period did that seemed to be a logical obviously thought well enough of obviously to pay him a significant sum of money for a few months work and if he had been injured you would have expected that that would have continued have to consume the fish will kill that but the problem is that
and it's just simply refer to the record without with those without really giving any indication of what was in there and all that its conclusion was that somehow the government harm fifty you know continuously update and every one of the connections between what happened just prior to his departure and the attack on his relative a couple of years later the doesn't return they go out of the police go to his residence because that's where his nephew was staying and then they brutalize the of the nephew so i think if you take a look in the context of the who goodman subjected to similar abuse and there's simply no connection that's been presented that that is true unfortunately for those living in armenia police brutality first suspects it's quite comm have many of these recruit me plus cases you have the government coming and saying you know we believe you're working for the enemy we believe you're against us none of those sort opinion if you look to those television statements in the record what it says is he said that they just weren't using the right that is he wasn't the right man for the job they should be using truth serum or something that would be more effective he wasn't coming out and saying you know the government is wrong for fact my family is suffering so he says he was taken into custody if you read the transcript of the whole it seems that the government was taking in i guess almost a job interview a recruitment tactic saying you know  detainee or you know anything of that nature into the country reports the minute is key support the idea that political dissidents are not being imprisoned are not being killed they're simply not that in the country as a whole there's nothing that's been said that there's nothing in the record that's armenian politics don't allow you to have these real opinions it's it it's you know it's got a free media there's hard to say there's now a political there that there is political harmony in armenia not to say that you know everything is great and no but i mean we ordered relief and other armenian cases so i think it would be that program that he appeared on before he left and that's in one thirty five of the first record he said that his the whole appearance on the show was political he said that that he felt that the government  during that program that the government was trying to cover up what went on with the killings in the army and and so i think again there's been he pretty much it's not just you know he didn't want to take a
in treating among other conditions i have left now the judge found of the fact fact that has an appeal that really is a was an exact unit and it was specifically disclosed as a specifically disclosed member of that that there was no we need to go to an analysis of hundreds of thousands and whether or not something's specifically pointed out or not we believe this court's recent holding in the poor country because if we address that point that there is no need to specifically call out demonstrate that really just all would be effective it's enough if you look and see that really is all is one of those specifically those supposed and that's taught to be effective and one can then see reading had no expectation that anything would effectively create this was a disease that one hundred years without treatment and there certainly was no expectation that if anything was ever discovered to treat as a whole it starts out and says these compounds are useful for treating conditions associated with the effects of glutamate that is the practice it manners and states and has actually has
and this is in the written notice it appears that page two twenty two to twenty three of the record effective immediately practicing under the names even if you can turn it off in our office building  has been found to be in contempt of court and sanctioned over eleven thousand dollars to the mission first you failed to identify the firm's bookkeeper as hannigan down from clients persons to retain him in his individual serious problem here is that the reading  when asked so the significance of the january two thousand nine hundred twenty ten agreement before to the transcript was with respect to any cases that might be reopening of the hanging in the house and firm the transcript of the old adage about the lawyer who represents himself and course i suppose it's true now was it ever him right here on let me start first by commenting on some of the shortly after the announcement of dissolution wasn't that's correct and in the t r o did you ask about all of this use of funds to pay employees and things of that nature to your office later in january of two thousand and nine the dissolution henry twelve so i wasn't aware that this was going to be a problem with time what i was concerned about was the possible converting line phones from you obviously valid t r o and you got some and got some relief and i guess and brother moved out fifteen months later joe it's not a matter knowing michael weiss which i know we are and don't know it is a matter of gradually becoming sought places that were signed up after the dissolution well as i understood mr hartman starting at the time because my brotherhood continued to use the goodwill of the the documentary order there's all sorts of stuff listed there and i certainly find everything bar the content own that's what he was saying yes you agree with that i hate you paid but i don't necessarily agree that thirty two is a great number it's again as i say and it turns out that it doesn't work out either so come in sure it's my and my argument that what happened here was different purposes of contempt as far as i'm concerned because this is as i say is a way to try and recruit some expenses for the handler for the prosecution because it's winning when it seems clear that the defendant is is constructing and is not doing what he now so in your mind there's different a difference between the question i asked which were found to be on duty to and and admitting that he was in town we never did that we understood that we were