MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
injunction carries just charge their liability to u s bank chapter seven bankruptcy proceeding some time later they obtained a loan in the u s bank seized from their bank account twenty one thousand dollars to debt that had been discharged in bankruptcy the perrys pursued criminal and civil proceedings before the bankruptcy court starting in two thousand and two in two thousand and three in the bankruptcy court granted all you see what i'm saying i do i think this is the intersection of some tough areas of law bankruptcy jurisdiction has been tough for twenty years contempt has been tough for a long time let me ask you what the issue is it your position that the bankruptcy court and section one fifty seven c i believe there is a distinction between core and non core and matters core matters the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to decide without any questions non core matters as i understand it the dire does not suggest that it is just a matter of remedies dyer's says is that because of the concerns with the exercise of judicial power by an article three court bankruptcy courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever if if dire had wanted to cast it in terms of those kinds of issues that the bankruptcy court didn't have jurisdiction but that it would have been in the core and not been core analysis of the bankruptcy court or the dire  any additional money to be paid why didn't they just move this whole thing because criminal contempt is an entirely different separate but you were seeking you were seeking additional money you were seeking fugitive damage and it might initiate i think that a private party can present to the court facts which would suggest that a criminal contempt of proceeding is a program he's going to prosecute in front of the jury well that's part of the motion that we also filed  the case law makes clear that there must be an independent prosecutor so we ask the court to are advised the defendants they have the right to an independent prosecutor and other process rights and that if either he did either needed to  into jail for criminal contempt for three years right right so if you start with a crime without a bankruptcy court has no jurisdiction to entertain a criminal contempt for sheeting then there's no need to  in order to use its inherent powers to do that which i agree it's possible that it could i would i would mention as i indicated in the chambers case of course the court supreme court indicated that the court should use its inher of the bankruptcy code will be enforced and the court felt that that is sufficient and the appropriate remedy for a violation of the destruction junction unlike searching three sixty two age for a violation thank you thank you
but for some months now cindy carter has lived looking forward to each saturday that's when she takes flying lessons at the centerville airport this particular saturday she is hoping it will be one she would never forget happy girl a bit of a giggle there with a little on her mind right now except are flying and the possibility she might solo today it seems a fine day for flying calm air and no low hanging clouds but appearances can be deceiving a low pressure system is drawing in warm exceptionally moist surface air from the gulf of mexico with low level of very dry hot air from the southwest and cold dry surface air from the north on a where the dramatic weather changes just over the horizon cindy and her instructor continue the joyous moment never to be forgotten alone in control a powerful engine throbbing up an empty sky above all right with the world are so it  these are the ingredients needed to trigger tornadoes trying do expect the unexpected weatherman today have the incredible advantage of being able to see the weather from high abo though tornadoes remain largely a mystery in laboratory work sponsored by the national do tornadoes are created by our extensive study to help man better understand the nature of these but the real thing is still the yawn the control of man across the state far from cindy the first tornado of the day forms and quickly dies look the storm cloud that spawned it lives the building with power from the sun and unstable air as it moves towards its destiny in center fortunately the ominous signs of potential danger have been spotted by weather satellites and relate to the severe weather center in kansas city in a given year more than six hundred tornadoes can be expected to touch down in the united states though prevailing temperatures and air currents make the central states most vulnerable tornadoes can happen any place at any time day or night five five nine or seven intent on her solo find cindy has a radio turned off and cannot hear the urgent call  the about thirty more degrees and then try to line it up on final now you'll be landing on twenty three hundred feet there's a little bit of a killdeer that we run airplanes in and out of here every day so it's all right i've got trays and wires over your threshold so i want you to come in it's just a curiosity till it touches down to earth than anything in its path may be totally destroyed the most violent and on predictable storm in nature the next day cindy brings the airplane back home through now quiet skies over centerville she finds a different town than she left yesterday and it was like a thousand others today of her parents safety cindy can finally realize it's been a narrow escape but fortunately this time there was just enough of a warning to save many lives and tomorrow may bring even more advanced warning techniques to help forecast exactly when and where tornadoes will strike meanwhile the satellites developed by nasa will continue to look for the tornado
record show that you discovered any expert who would indeed say that these prints were not match a match well i don't think that you know that needs to be estab point do you think the trial court would have granted a new trial after the conviction you're saying you think the court with a grin and a trial at that point or before the trial options in order to determine the optimal strategy for his client under the circumstances let's look at what the trial counsel in fact did first he arranged to limit the government to calling a single fingerprint expert defendant himself and in fact his efforts nearly succeeded in having the case before the trial jury even after a trial trial counsel of appealed the denial of the motion to dismiss as well as motion to possible reason for the thing not to file a motion for you your honor i think there were two primary reasons it's clear from the record the defense counsel had in mind even at trial because of how it options there are several places in the record moved for and i mean a new trial as the record went up the first time he was able to say i reasonably far that my defense expert was going to be available he wasn't available through the government's misconduct  honor i believe that was the primary goal the other reason that it was reasonable for him not to move for a new trial is there's no chance that would have been granted if you recall judge king ind but what actually happened the trial was even more favorable to the fans then what the defendant himself through this council had negotiated first there was supposed to be a limiting instruction on howard exactly what the fence counsel argued and as fact at each to ninety three of the government's excerpts of record judge payne says at one point i did hear of you meaning defense counsel suggest in virtually well yes judge king you did this me everything i wanted and last i did in fact get even more than i was entitle to but now that i realize my client's been convicted i wish i hadn't done this and i'd like to go back and do the whole trial over one pay number two i certainly intend to give you an adequate opportunity to find another thing or print expert who will testify in your behalf you laugh and you smile maybe that suggest to me that you really think that if it is more closer the fact that opinion as you were suggesting now of course is not in the record but just being fortunately they say it wrong he burst into laughter when judge king said i'll give you an opportunity to find clearly wrong he knew there was no way that he was going to find a fingerprint expert who's going to testify that the fingerprints didn't mash after six experts including two retained by the defense found a very good match with one hundred percent certain action your honor in this context i think laughter speaks louder than words but certainly in terms of his words you can see that he did i also want to address briefly the
counsel that i would be willing to yield any time the court would otherwise give me to the obvious counsel to provide the argument i will be on hand here should the court have any question to direct directly thank you very very much mr burke we really appreciate that  all the requirements as you know under the standard argument that it means somehow the burden the immigration judges assessment of the strength of the evidence before you know in ruling on whether the petitioner has met the burden of establishing california license and certificate of marriage which is available on our two seventy five she also did in fact demonstrate that her prior marriage was terminated and that her spouse is primary let's turn it as well she did provide her mexican library of congress the court also indicated that the library of congress was not qualified nor authorized to rule on the authenticity of such documents and so neither report  specific findings in regards to those documents and the circumstances surrounding those documents and should have ruled that those reports were unhelpful expert but i don't understand how you can take that position in the face that is offered to support the position of claim that the marriage with legitimate right and the immigrations read obviously credited the report which suggests that the documents are not what they purport to but it remains petitioners burden to prove the validity of her marriage to prove that qualifying relationship with this is a real i d act cases and it is and so the rules change with the real idea there isn't our jurisprudence there that one has to credit the testimony of the petitioner unless there is affirmatively an adverse credibility determination made which was not correct which meant that her california marriage which was host eighty seven was valid correct that at but that is not dispositive of the increase in to whether she met her burden before the agency to prove a marry we it's instructive as your honour's disgusting system is opening to stuff hurries the nature of these proceedings for the agency from what kind of you know arguments and considerations we might have where we in state court or wors marriage license in a different context now wasn't she confronted with this document at the hearing yesterday she left she didn't have any opportunity to to confront the evidence dropped on her right here in the hearing i gather there were many continuances in this case in which she should not have had an opportunity to further support her claims and i  she didn't know they were questionable documents she got them from her husband correct but i believe that was they didn't know she had a burden to to document that this was an authentic document which really was being a poll impose case just argued will be submitted for decision but before going to the next case that i would like to the case is over the on behalf of the panel representation as i am because in these two cases we appreciate your help very much thank you the next case for argument is europe versus
the incredible important witness for the defense in many criminal cases is the defendant himself this is the night of that opportunity to be his own witness during this trial  the come would have been different because the jury would have had the opportunity to hear his testimony and what it he would have the possibility of being with his family he has already  sentencing twenty two fifty five hearing transcript page when asked if he advises hiring of his rights testified the attorney said yes we explained to them that it was a consensus among the attorneys that it was testify in individual defendants offering testimony but that to meet is a far different thing than someone saying  to him his involvement on the could be gotten before the jury we know in this case that he there was additional information that would have been offered that amount to lack of knowledge the court found that the
of this chapter shall not apply to quote any claim and then i think the important languages for which a remedy is provided by section seven forty one through seven fifty two and seventy one through seven  case clearly held that three of the plaintiffs are the parents of the deceased and the estate of the deceased not citizens of the united states and therefore quote may not bring a claim under the p b s a or s a a because of the actual reciprocity provision the government itself agreed with that and in its brief to this court the government said the mandatory record rest of prosody requirements of the maritime statutes remedy is barred i don't believe that i don't believe that they have a remedy but the remedy is barred because indeed then they would have no remedy whatsoever and i think congress could have easily stated as it has done over and over well no i think if there is a remedy that what that means is that that they point to would have a right to go to trial on that remedy i don't think it would mean that they would have to prevail on that remedy to go to trial but what the decisions of the of the courts that would indicate otherwise in the supreme court or otherwise and then under those circumstances yesterday i think they would be limited to twenty one of the f t c i think that's not a favorable way to go in other words i think what congress did here in essence why did people with a preferred remedy and that heard remedy was to go in and maritime laws i mean that has numerous preferences you do not have to file administrative procedure now they don't say that and again have they said that i wouldn't be here what they said was if you have a remedy under the maritime act then go to the maritime act they didn't have to say if you have a remedy they could have just said if you had any calling you out here and that's not what they said they added the words if you have a remedy under those provisions then that's the avenue you have to take and i wanted to do that surprised me because there are there are significant advantages and possibly some disadvantages but in an entirely separate scheme going under the under the maritime laws and so had congress wanted to achieve that result it's not that the words discretionary function does not apply you're not helping matters like the absolutely wrong lack of citizenship there was no waiver of immunity by the united states and russia across you've got to get into the history of why this occurred this is dealing with public vessels which are basically war vessels and a wave of clearly adult thing and this would have been true to novelty act in terms of communications why and this again is why the nine hundred sixty amendments came into effect because there was no government vessel or cargo
it clear of most recently in robbins b social security administration that in pain cases that they all jane must consider the effects of symptoms including pain that are reasonably attributed to a medical the medically  think at the outset that your view is that we would be mandan with a direction from an award of benefits and i'm wondering in cases like this we generally i thought if we were to agree with your argument w that he tried to take community college classes he had to quit two of the three classes he was taking because he couldn't go regularly enough to take the test third class he was only able to completely because the professor essentially gave him unlimited grades to make up classes that of the elderly could be could reach fish for mr bush testimony other than that he is disabled and can't work the vocational expert already provided the necessary evidence when coupled with his testimony about his pain and what he can do during the day certainly part of this disability but they're not the whole thing and the sports face was quite clear that when penn payne testimony was offered and when it's supported by objective medical evidence and it is here i was illustrated in the extracts from the record that i handed here to sixty two there's a report from dr sanford right clearly states that he came in suffering from he came in complaining about pain this whole problem started with this war injuries in one nine hundred sixty eight there was no question it doesn't address the pain issue and it doesn't provide any evidence one way or the other as to how much pain mr gold is suffering from a lot of the panel as any further questions will save the remainder of my time  about the activities of daily living but when you look at everything all together you see that this person is capable of working the medical evidence here shows that he had even exaggerated and out of proportion and pain and it was his effort was out of proportion it was like the doctors that exact words out of proportion and tolerance to lifting compared to what his actual limitations were dr wright that he could do work that was let me let me see here she actually gave an opinion that she was able to perform like work with essentially the same thought it was in two thousand and two and that she thought he was permanently disabled but then the other report is later and says that he can do meaningful work if it has certain limitation english and even good english speakers have trouble with this job let me go just for striking is a very sensible proposition and i don't know what to make of the idea that there are five hundred of these jobs in the state of washington out of two thousand in the entire country  and he stopped doing that job even after he applied for disability he tried to go to community college to see if there was work that he could do it didn't work out but the point is he tried someone who was exaggerating the pain or the lingering or trying to produce symptoms that weren't really there
this is that activities that were charged in the indictment involved basically a trip from salem to colorado from colorado to florida from florida back to no there hadn't been any true answers to that either there's some general testimony and it's not very clear what it applies to the while they were on the road they would pull over for a rest stops and they would be sexual acts in the car it's not clear when those security which trips but what about the general testimony that during the entire that it doesn't because the testimony in the case involved many road trips and the government put i'm has to money regarding this entire relationship and specific to the other issues the defendant in this case but it's appropriately found guilty of cas seven and eight those counts have very limited elements to them each of them requires first proof of transportation from one state level i do think that it could make a difference depending upon the supreme court's ultimate decision in booker and fanfan that there might be some interplay with the number of house i don't know that  one in to charge the defendant with traveling from oregon to excuse me from colorado to washington and how to relate it to transporting him from colorado to washington those were grouped together so those are the two casts i was referring to so of the various legs and the charity only two legs are not being challenged on sufficiency claim the other leg is from florida back to colorado so florida colorado colorado to washington are not being challenged it's the initial leg from oregon to colorado and then colorado just florida that are being challenged and it's the government's submission your honor them for the whole period of time you're out of there was some evidence that they had they had as i believe your honor pointed out earlier that there was some evidence that they pulled over to the sides of the road and engaged in sex you know it and when i asked him did you have sex in florida he said i don't remember but because of that additional evidence about pulling the side of the road i don't want to simply come out and say that they didn't have sex anywhere along the strip did we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they had sex in florida no we did not did they did we prove that they had sex in colorado during that first like no we did not get the government prove that the defendant transported him for the purpose of sex i believe the evidence in total would be would convince at least one rational fact five that yes that was their purpose for that actually and for each of the journeys charged unless the court has any other questions and any of the other issues i believe the court has reason for that i could not see and your honor i think that's a fair question and i can't see any distinction quite frankly and why the court did it other than he got sidetracked on other issues but he did find asked to i think he could court to consider whether he wants to do anything before the supreme court x years in all the options of saying i'm going to waive could the supreme court decision i'm going to reconsider
favor of a one thousand dollar industry up front and this is our here is a hotel they also have a banker facility here yes and so this is where people come from my understanding is money typically they stay there discussion of details is reasonable stand for a factual question and then another separate standard of review for the legal question here we do indeed have the next question of law in fact that be whether or not this seat in the restaurant and the danger quest  located in the restaurant which satisfies their that part of the reasons because they have several people who frequent the restaurant that are in wheelchairs and they can pull off to their tables easily and there are other others who recently had surgery may find it very comfortable to sit in the lounge chairs because so when you really connect all of the three requirements of your needs it fits the purpose of requiring or allowing alcohol only at a restaurant it's not going to become a bar seriously members of the restaurant