MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
i am blown away too by all the collaboration in all the organizations that you voted in talk about we do have a great community that was to work together were you able to talk to all those
said i can't go out of the house without my son's permission anymore or it's no longer mine to go come and go it was a director or even circumstantial evidence on your side because one of the problems is found no evidence to dispute that if she were able or says that she could not go there at any time and i've reviewed the record once again let's i'm missing something i don't think there's any affirmative evidence in this record that after the two weeks
reinstated a previously reopened order without reviewing facts or the royal eight years after the record had been closed and without conducting any new legal analysis client and that was being appealed correct back in two thousand and ten exactly and at that point the parties reach some agreement let's put things on hold happens now when that agreement was made you completely finished all proceedings at the board it broadcast but you still had a right to preserve right to challenge the board proceeding board decision so you wanted to hold on to that and you did there's no indication that the government wanted to give up anything it had in policy that supposedly order had been the with your repeal of what's happened here it seems different potentially is that instead of three days you have five years which opens up the possibility that new facts have now arisen that motion about what's changed in the five years in a sense to me and not pressing the motion to reopen based on the change and even in your brief to us unless i missed something you're not telling us what is if it changed in the five years reversed they were just putting you back to get back where you were when the brian so they were ready to come back to the st circuit to do that they had put their order back in place just like it had been before you guys are breached the agreement so you can drop to the st circuit which you would have done had it been only three days but it's position of having to fight against a much more stringent stand for  back to the judge for review of new facts in evidence thank you saying there was never a calendar and that you recently thought they would just start up the calendar but not reinstitute get the order and then you could have to ask them to
by the ideo see something they did on their own i did intervene or try to get that done but does it illustrate the generation to ration mr salzman vision and the fact that he did have opinion it came up during the nd trial was an opinion by someone that attorney levin hired who said did not give any opinion on insanity one way or another but he said back as he arm he conform the intent that's a slightly bizarre opinion i think i don't think it was necessarily admissible there was an oral motion made to put that in and that was the end of it in terms of the examination of his sanity which is generally the case in the nd stage also are to looking to look at questions of credibility you have to really be in the rd and for example in the rd stage of dr rowan testified she could be cross examined on how reliable this is opinion later and she could give more input as to the scientific basis of her opinion but it is a cultural point at this point these state cases ridiculous but i don't think they have the psychiatric only will address briefly some of the other issues now as to the claim under people versus rights the which is a coerced confession issue the state good for the way it for the record brand so to state that after his transport he go building he was still terrified there was going to be punished and kicked again that's on a fifteen of the record so i think the idea that there was no good motions suppressed absolutely and i think you hit the nail on here because the standard the standard musings me either i didn't do it or something like that you know there's lots of things in between which wall
wanted yeah he better not of getting you like a bad present like say i don't know pantyhose remember that last year yeah yeah i'm sorry you know i thought they'd fit you know i mean seem to be your taste you know but you know i hate christmas yeah i really wanted this for christmas
legal standard when determining whether there was reason to believe because they didn't evaluate properly evaluate the evidence isn't it i mean that's the problem you have a very narrow are not very narrow but a relatively narrow window evidence showing that he is of all the traffic and that's enough reason to believe so the issue for you would be that wasn't enough for assuming that those facts are correct that wasn't enough for reason to believe are you making that argument others when trafficking has been found there is physically a large amount of drugs a large amount of money and went to court this court has reversed those findings is where there has been the evidence influence over there was an adverse credibility finding were reversed who are further hearing and reverse the credibility finding in that case so the fundamental and if i could  circumstances the government insisted that he was ineligible for relief and that triggers a legal error that triggers this course jurisdiction and i think you're all it's were simply an extraordinary circumstance case i don't necessarily think i think this would be a much because even even the lack of authentic ation argument is that there should have been hearing to be able to address we have a right to confront government evidence we are right but on witnesses and because the government invoked this issue reason to believe  court dismissed the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction your honor if there are two tracks running fine ok actually in this case the  saying well we we respectfully assert that because there is no legal question to be resolved in the case regarding the notice in exceptional circumstances but essentially fold up in the criminal alien bar question presented box something that is wholly committed to the agency's discretion on reviewable and there are no standards especially meeting both answers for which this court can judge that determination and as i said before the government position is that there was a finding here explicit that there was not an exceptional situation in this case and that the it no adjustment of status determination or to the fact that there was a determination ogy ability you know it's not unreasonable and it's not a relevant question are was or was not eligible for adult that is in the exceptional circumstances terminations and so this is just an expression of the agency discretion when it committed to the agency's discretion we have to assume a position or presented this type of as a then about his homelessness and about his drug abuse and about his mental health issues that the agency did consider eviden briefing opening in their response they did not go to the substantive due process as they didn't go to the authentic asian they didn't go to reason to believe and i think it's pretty clear in this court and president when it when the party doesn't respond to ok thank you very much
this case was never presented that way it was never tried that way complaining one twenty four the value of the consideration received by the debtors horrible collectively was not usually equivalent to the cash transfers repeated several times wrote the would be asked that question i just want to know how fine it was by the district court more than equivalent value you don't have to go back at this because they're all operating as one entity and that's the point i'm trying to make sure that's how this case was pleaded that's how this case was tried there was never any attempt to suggest that these entities who are operating separately over if the issue on this my brother had every right under fifty two to say we need more specific findings was very clear we're not  after tax return which we cite to where it's a consolidated tax return by the way the tax returns are all consolidated the financials are all consolidated and  proceedings below i just want to call the court's attention again this is prepared to send in two thousand and eight as of august thirty one two thousand and eight the company is calling with all payments thus far is talking about payments to wells it's crew are saying here and this is again nine months after the transaction this is a three four four nine the company's top suppliers with the company again company collecti
really be a blanket rule that if a trial court makes a sentencing mistake that favors a defendant it can never be corrected while a defendant can always challenge a sentencing mistake that before an appeal is filed the trial judge has to call the parties and say to the state i guess you need to file mandamus because i made a mistake that i cannot correct i don't get that from castle constraints are there in a situation like this where the court originally determines the reason stated on the record that a period of twenty years incarceration need to reset as the defendant let's say instead of fifteen year concurrent sentences which the state or use gene is less than twenty it's not in greece what if the court the if you're the guy in jail when you get these the second set of sentences that's more time isn't it it is your honors for one hundred years in illinois the supreme court has been cleared that consecutive sentences a
taking the position to head the parents tony and complete the services that brought the child in care and that if other issues are identified that it is inappropriate for an agency to incorporate treatment seem to need be a fairly low bar it's not known this require you to attend the services you're not required to pass on the tests it's just am i willing to make the effort to visit my child if i'm not
possible now because of the t period and her condition has increased depended on others for getting through the day the activities i just mentioned dr getting someone to clean getting someone in to help her with anything to do it in  fine and here's the question
yarnall we believe that this court should review the this case to determine whether or not there was an abuse of discretion by the court below what basis was this case dismissed can you tell me why we cite  we plaintiffs had failed to timely respond to instructions given by the court and the several and several opposing that's a very harsh sanction ordinarily wouldn't go immediately to dismissal it looks like since you are mostly based on twelve the one in twelve the six that you dismissed it on those grounds subsequently extended yes rather but neither was done in this case not for me by the deadline but failure for a response to a motion dismiss does not make the right that's correct so we chose to amend the complaint and then there was the problem where we called the judge's chambers and were told that she was on vacation and that she would deal would deal with it later what happened in the interim she granted our application we did not we never received an e mail to that effect and when we can when we contacted the c court then imposed a sanction that you didn't check the docket on the lines are correct that that's correct but our contention is that the court was within her discretion to dismiss the  nd amended complaint we are not complaining about that but what was before the court was a st amended complaint which was timely filed which was timely sue and she dismissed that
at the lab technicians of the state who test things more of the state is part of its criminal prosecution effort you know if they're not tied to a particular case in the way that you describe those facts should not be treated as said it has to be clearly established that his conduct amounted to deliberate indifference in order for him to be deemed supervisory why was a supervisor for the underlying constitutional right assuming that was clearly stat right but i think when you're trying about specificity a couple of things are really important one of or not in the th amendment context where the supreme court has said this is really where we need specificity for the officer even though there is no prior precedent directly on point where i think you have in this case issue breaches facts that would have made it abundantly clear to anyone looking at this court's question at the supreme court precedent there's a inception providing torn to get a remedy for it if you can show supervisory viability right by someone for that constitutional or even years the supervisor has no constitutional obligation to do anything about exactly how it is so assuming that on with the prosecution says testing lots of stuff should we treat the people in that lab as if they're on the investigative team doesn't seem obvious and if it's not obvious that's a problem present you have some authority that suggests research you would have been known at the time that that person was on the team starts the greater part i think the case i don't think anybody would argue that for example a believe the city of boston that when the police keep the prosecutor in the dark they are committing a brady b he has in the immediate aftermath of this when he does his st audit ever of the standards he discovers that they are afraid that well what he anticipated they should have been he has no way of knowing for sure because he hasn't been keeping track longer here were there at the plainly for argument we call the state police and after that happened he immediately took the position that this was a sudden fall from grace from a dedicated professional who couldn't possibly been doing this the entire time he was a supervisor then the in custody it's been torn open one is missing the other one has a material that clearly isn't crack cocaine and he calls it the stick so i guess what i'm trying to isolate is the thing that i don't know how this works if there was a point in us that we had a chemist who was stealing from the well and that's my argument thank you very much that sometime afterwards mr magic discovered it and then on january th he contacted the state police i don't think given the disclosure and that this is eleven months in advance of the trial
hearing had to be adjourned because mr calling or expressed such puja and and dissatisfaction with the council i think it's important to know that the entire record demonstrates from beginning to end that mr calling  knew or didn't know were understood so i think that this record represents the sort of troubling mix of information that as previously ou which i think may be the most difficult fact for your client to overcome and this is where he stayed in response to questions from the court about whether it's satisfied with the representation in advice provided by t he said well i thought i could get something better than that but i was told there's no way so i guess my back's against the wall and as i read that he's saying i'm going to plead guilty today i would have rather just plead guilty with a lower sentencing exposure but since i can't i'm i'm going to go forward today that's very different from cases like harrington or harrison where there were indications that the defendant wanted to withdraw his guilty plea you know wouldn't have pled guilty here we have a defendant who has basically said no no no this is my purpose my purpose is to plead guilty with a lower sentencing exposure and as the st step back happens along he got his wish so doesn't that make this a very different case based on your own client's representation of what he was inclined to do and the information he had would get to the detail mormon would chip in favor of have pleaded guilty because he was informed that such a huge minimum mandatory sentence applied to him had he known it had said it was much more where he may have been in a much better negotiating position with the government the fact that in the end that he was able to have his sentencing  what would have happened when when mr calling the order says i didn't i guess i can't do any better the truth that he might have done a lot better had he known that  remains pending in that appeal with prior to the for the sport and diocese in the play and i believe that judge belvin is on that panel nonetheless i'd like to take a moment to discuss the government's argument and some of the recent twenty eight pretty clear that he knew we could get his plea back and didn't ask for i that a ninety one right now that does not touch the other way then i mean so in other words he pled guilty before the st step back because he thought the consequences would be so dwyer so dire that this is the best he could do after the st step back to get now the break that he thought or hope he could negotiate and the judge misinforms him by telling him it's there's no mandatory minimum and it turns out that there is a relatively slight mandatory  ok well hearing on we will reserve decision thanks very much to both of you
sufficient reason to move on that brings us to the lawyers we've got on the one hand the statute that says specifically i think that's right we say property can be sold without as counsel just said the executor could have done of the julian things to try one of them and our claim is that the reason he didn't try and is evidenced by a letter that he sent to the beneficiaries which is in the record of a month after the sale of the farm proposing to divide up the cash post milo didn't want to get five or eight thousand dollars a year for the rest of his life off this  property and that that's all he would get and then the rest of it would go to his nieces and that is he wanted us in the proposal he wanted one hundred seventy five thousand dollars of cash out of proceeds of five hundred forty thousand dollars for his one
the first three or four words are every person who attempts yes and then after the clause there except for who knowingly resists i don't understand why the first prong isn't attempting to deter or prevent and then or who really we just in other words it's at that point the completed of things it's certainly fair reading based on the statutory language  this was actual violence even though that this was a tactical judgment because they had other things he didn't have a defense to being a felon in possession and that's just that's what he did have a defense to other charges in and in in fact was acquitted of other charges including other mandatory sentencing provisions  maybe you don't fully understand your rights or gee i'm not sure that you're competent to make that decision because you look like you might have been up all night and you look tired you come back after you sleep on it job and do their own time and there's a particular should apply reasonable doubt sit down that's one way to handle it another way would be to say look we have no defense to this but we have defenses to felony assault with a semiotic weapon two counts of terrorist threats and an allegation  it's not like this guy just date you know walked in article outer space and came up with as many lawyers looking at it now i mean there are there would be plausible explanations for why you would try to think the things which you said is no defense and
week it in my view the court is correct there was no restraining order entered there was no injunctive relief granted the district court order appealed from did just alienating it or whatever could be a criminal act and it also could be a money laundering violation and also is subject to unless the person is a bona fide the purchaser for value on the other all of those things which i think your honour's point is well taken there was there were no there was no relief granted in a way that you could determine for example you know we've learned in our property class in law school that property rights in real property are a bundle of sticks and and the restraining order can limit one or two or all of those and the restraining order may be something so narrow that it would only do a little bit more insurance i think it's any tax is doing those matters be taken care of we did not speak possession of the property it's just restraint restraint we cannot speak rents for proceeds or any though i can see jurisdiction under twelve ninety two under that under the statute i don't believe that i think that's a very complex issue and if you look at troll enclosure those cases had to do with the case going forward to trial at the same time that the appeal was pending and in that state i think that the defendants of course  but that is another area where there is uncertainty about the standard that would be applied in a case where a right to counsel issue a sixth amendment right to counsel issue is raising some action with restraint of property pretrial the only case show that you do lack resources which was not done in this case and that you and that you have even beyond that and then an additional burden of showing that there is some defect in the government's probable cause or the grand jur determination of probable cause of the underlying criminal activity and i think those those factors show up in a number of circuit court decisions that are there are a number of cases that are cited in the and i think i may have just one or two points to make if the court doesn't have any questions i would apologize for misrepresenting the issue and i threw out my brief incorrectly stated i think that there was a situation we have here and even if however in this if your restriction argument i know but even if the we were to find it said that that the restraining order was was part and parcel with that order and somehow that says that that made this appropriate for appeal i am still troubled by the now that i've researched this after the court brought it to my attention i i guess i i'm not i'm not certain what the law with respect to property that there are two issues one is already restrained by all the spend cards i don't know that then the government can be compelled to release the list things but that troubles me so there so i'm not sure that there's something a person has lost something because they effectively probably could really make the property after that anyway oh by the universities and the other question i guess i don't see courts i haven't found being addressed is if in fact the attorney c
divide the marital property in just proportions considering all relevant factors correct yes and so is it appropriate for a trial court to consider even though it is marital property is it appropriate for the trial court to consider the nature of the award how it came about the suffering the anticipated surgeries or things like that that the wife in this case would have needs of medical literature views shirkers no she does but he does does the factors here lives in terms of what you can consider any future medical needs or whatever that's not what the statute says this is the needs of the future medical costs of the person who has been injured and is outside of the marriage state shannon her age even son i didn't think it should be any hard at all in the
eighty eight c constitutes sexual abuse of a minor under the categorical or the modified categorical approach a right mr ok so what do you have to the difference in age of over eighteen over ten years but specifically what i'm what i'm hoping that this court will focus is that under the federal eighteen u s c twenty two forty three  and then if i go to judge wright hart's concurrence and alvarez he says per purposes of our purposes often go incoherent senseless federal seventy six guidelines a once you have the time maybe brief how this case applies to our particular situation but i worry is that just throwing this statue the day and having you then respond to our questions maybe we need to have you know my mother in law was fourteen when she got married you know so far as i know my father in law are both gone and maybe that argument that had to be made that we we very much appreciated we wanted you to have a judge preggers and was nice enough to get it all printed up and get it before you today and we thank you for that