MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
whose penance is to protect an innocent purchaser that's not the case here the baker walking in was in fact the entity that asked for the work to be performed here and it was well walking in the day we obviously made some commitment to the to the government that they would pay take care issues that related to walking correct the bank walking in not they had certain obligations to go forward by taking over the bank correct in trying to confirm they can't stop their confirmation because they couldn't intervene and you're now the owner they knew about it too late for the only thing i do believe that they would have been able to to intervene d codifying the mere commencement of a lawsuit was enough to shock to notice to the world that there was a pending litigation there were some harm there were some harsh results because about one thousand nine hundred sixty three the legislator looked at the legislature look the fire had already occurred working in the savings and purchased it the fire had occurred and working in savings was under the gun to the city of waukegan to clean it up or else and so you're saying statue i didn't think the statue let me and it was later confirmed by what you read in a subsequent case so who wants to create the exception by this article oh really not looking for an exception from the sale and still won with the litigation with canceling counsel reason is an interesting point that if we if we would agree with you what happens now if in fact there have
accept all of that the agreement says that even so in other words even if the government were to have determined that she left for personal reasons that were significant interest to the government as judge rater pointed out the agreement says even under those circumstances the government may waive the money but it doesn't it's not required to waive the months right right is not required to but it's not required to waive the the travel expenses and that some trouble with this case and part of that is because you've got two claims a breach of contract claim and a review of agency action but it seems to me your entire analysis or arguments with respect to breach of contract are nothing more than a review of agency action under the rep so and i think that my point the court of claims in the earlier proceeding seemed to have conflated the two as well and if that's the case if really the breach of contract claim is nothing more than a restatement of under these circumstances systems in our party we're not if there's anything in the record to indicate how we got the calculation of up to forty thousand dollars because i know the hotel very red all the i mean somewhere he claimed that he had paid for the travel back and forth to the tune of and the government was willing to pay for certain amount of time very little come less than a mum why is it even the issue of whether or not they provide is there something that's in the regulations that says they have to provide that high saying within thirty days and if they don't she's out i mean they were paying for her to have adequate housing at a hotel so i don't even understand where the breach was if she left and didn't allow them enough time i think there's something interactive david or whatever to suggest that clearly she understood that she might have adequate health they might find her here is someone a permanent change of station goes to within five days the place that the government has secured for her which is fine is not available she can or he can just go back to the u s and say look you violated the regulations i don't have to go there i or at least i believe it's a twelve month period and that he she can understand what you're complaining about are we assume that there was no contractual obligation to provide adequate housing but there was an obligation to providing to provide process in this country why aren't those relevant to whether or not she received proper treatment while she was in the country are you referring to the british you know that house that she originally  dr i'm replying to after she got back the they made some changes according to the her allegations in the housing security upgrades for made compound housing and reasonably in view of what was discovered was the record says what she requested such a transfer issue she wasn't there against her will she wasn't going to serve and according to her statements it became it got to the point where she felt obliged to leave i i think another question is that the calculation of the sum which sounds quite strange for just
sure if it is kicked they will field it and run it straight back down the see that's a subtle difference bellman is going down every time they are in context through these through least through the line i think that's number four again he's had a pretty impressive what a great run
sure if it is kicked they will field it and run it straight back down the responded vonage eighteen is gr see that's a subtle difference belmont is going down every time they're all in context through these through these through talked recently and i think that's number four again he's had a pretty impressive what a great run so there's only three points in it ok set up for another place so seventeen fourteen we have twenty seven minutes left to go but i guess technically it's tax time on the
is that first question the source of the scope of this court's trivia and the tension within the various portions of the statute which i think is probably going to occupy most of our time this morning and i want to get to that in some detail  quill sail failure to address consider mention in any way rely on any of the documentary evidence of record and to a life exclusively testimony presented at trial which without a doubt found sale failure to consider significant portions of the record evidence and to provide in the ultimate decision on the fact that there are who is in the evidence which were filled by those same portions of the record evidence that weren't mentioned in the decision did rise to the level of an error of law in this case the judge very clear that the agency is not required to go through plain painstaking detail how it analyzed every single bit of the record evidence but there has to be some indication and a decision that the agency at least considered it and all discussed where the words final order of keeper tension as it was then called should be interpreted to mean a determination of the portability mortar and ultimate decision and in deciding whether or
held that the trial as a for simply sterilized women into his mother's and claim the same persecution and account of his mother's political opinion exactly a fair reading of it your honor because it certainly can serve you issue you can arguably consider that issue in this case but the but the board of immigration appeals we've not extended the law to cover that situation in response to that question are there were several facts that in the in the many different versions of events that came out starting with the airport interview above mr lennon going forward through the asylum application and the testimony of the motion reopen the amended motion reopen the facts that were presented to the authorities changed slightly at one point he had to leave school because other kids were not in misbehaved later it's changed to the government as was was coming to get me so discussed in that case not always present everything certainly one when someone is asked why did you leave school there's a marked difference between other children were naughty and misbehaved and the the rule and the reason for that is the board's finding that this woman was not persecute not to get to the second reason it can become a slippery slope when you've got a child with a child have an interest what about
this country and that was told to the district court oh yes of course this will suit the defendants which me and to mr of the being in when this contract was presented plaintiff agreed to purchase medical was from defendant which was already in his position so because we said that this many many months before so instead of true justice i mean send us money amendment in the record if this amendment will be in the trial we will have no minutes the judge will be fine the difference between sending the money and if we stole this money or every opportunity to present any document he wanted to present mr erlich preferred not to use interpreters and translators professional translators for his documents and what and typical for the conduct of the defendant so that on the third day after receiving two hundred thousand dollars on the counter the immediately purchased a tourist a package for a vacation and the defendants had six days to explain themselves they did everything they could and they they argued that point to all the documents should be considered and everything was considered so there was  nothing we send to the defendant if you want to rely on documents that are translated you need to have the person who prepared the translations sign
with the attorneys that have been there you can step up and identify yourself for the record not apply here because this is evidence that the state was seeking to admit not what the defense was seeking to admit now the state has tried to do that because the defense attorney said no objection when the judge tried it was asked if there was an certification the defense attorney did not make any comment the trail judge asked if there was an jackson and the defense attorney said no objection and believe she wasn't visited again until the see did i do in its closing that  they had established that there was no safe and up the record would show that there were three separate occasions is that they would show that there was deep three separate occasions where the defense attorney was asked for an objection i don't think that would make a difference because just the fact that he said no objection this is remaining silent should not make a difference in this case well isn't it kind of like the essence i mean if he had to get it then in this case w of said well the good will is for continued just so we can bring in this woman so she can testify about the same pair well i have a couple of responses to that and first of all the fact that we're trying to make a distinction here between saying no objection and remaining silent and just because the judge asked the defense attorney if she had an objection it wasn't that she would that was the only reason she had an opportunity to object she had returned and she objects whether or not the trail judge specifically asked her and she wasn't asked do you object to certain confrontation clause grounds because you don't have an opportunity to cross examine this witness today and say has the state chair let it out she's unavailable it was that specific will give you some time for this is what would've happened as a result of debbie claypool testifying that she would have sat there for five minutes going over her business records and how she came about this but that didn't happen in this case there's just no indication whatsoever that the defense attorney
the government other put some regulations together couldn't find them couldn't find them and cami either tell me where i can find that regulatory authority under section  everyone at minimum wage or more or tips or even collected then i have a hard time understanding why that would be without any nearly all employers employ you keep your tips we're going to pay the bigger problem regulation much more probably the regulation that we have occurred in the regulations so i think that trying to target on it
burglary tools the judge however improperly refused to tender the jury instruction the lesser included offense a fact now the city has conceded that the judge didn't use the wrong and now it's this and reaching that decision  and there were certain items that he was found but nothing else connects him to that he wouldn't want to actually enter and went in there so based on that but also based on the fact that there were no witnesses clients maintain that these were items he came upon whether he had been given them by someone or not i think the issue that's important here is just whether or based on what we have whether or not they were given to him or he came upon them by chance a rational jury could have convicted him fast and acquitted him of the lesser offense and the fact it well i know there are some issue burglary and that has been found to be a lesser included offense it just does not make sense in that context and think goes against the reason that lesser included fact be a lesser included offense of burglary is also true however this is not completely analysis there is one final step that must be taken and that is looking at the evidence  which the jury found he did indeed has asked the defense counsel indicates that under chandra's reasoning that can only be found during a process of burglary well that's precisely what the hamilton case was where the defendant fled into the home and clean that he was there to collect money and develops the end times once he completed separate crime as does the scoring and rivera and it's their rationale is that when the defendant is the rationale that the jury should have some third he's asking for an instruction based on a different apt and this is where it is not an included offense of the burglary and therefore the trial judge did not fare as far as not giving instruction even though he applied caracas approach and as this court is found in cases such as you're about even when the wrong approach is used it can still be determined that it is not reversible error when the evidence would be appropriate in this case that is almost with the defendant is doing in this case he's saying i was there to make the burglary i was riding my bike that was considered a separate offense from the arson to the home so he was not given the instruction it was not improper because that was not there was a separate and distinct offense and that the people support the instruction that is a question of fact for which the trial judge's discretion comes into play as to whether the lesser included offense it did under the chandler in that there were several different events this defendant apparently pour gasoline on an additional structure they call the court also found that there was no damage to structure so
we believe it would have because the sail court also recognized religion and so one would then have a disfavored subgroup which would mean that be an even lower level of individualized risk that would have five as a page twenty eight of the record they dismissed the they denied the motion to reconsider august twenty fifth  in the burden of proof everyone recognizes that but that doesn't mean that we're proposing suggesting to the court that the burden of proof for withholding removal has to change it's still fifty percent plus report the sense and the police because he thought it would be useless and that the police would ask for money again that happened he says when he was sixteen or seventeen years old unlikely but if you're asking him to help there all of the burn based on this engine visualized determination i don't know what the basis for that is here are certainly all the evidence in the record should be considered a different country report somebody who is not a member of such a group right now what i'm like here based on what you're saying doesn't certainly honor you could say that that could increase their increase their burden however all of that information would be considered under the current hurting mr david and nobody bothered the court didn't bother to be i e didn't bother to look at say a word about how they play a role he lives here and feels responsible for figuring out what happened individuals here persecution thank you thank you you're twenty five seconds on this last one to make your point
would physically the only thing he would be required to do is call the police and from the only reason why the objection to it physically is because of physical the possibility may have to physically confront someone and the testimony was he and that couldn't happen here is justice thomas been alluding to for the last ten minutes you have to start classes if an employer says you know we want you to apply for the position but you have to do x y and z first before you can
begin with that would be a forty to forty to forty series of statutes and then as far as whether or not forcible medication was the oyster authorized the prosecution and the court based forcible medication the harper factors
it's important to know that during this time there was a different case worker july of two thousand teen is kind of a turning point in this case because that's when the kids will be there was there through the remainder of the those services early on in the case she completed the parenting classes this is haitian who was always very positive they took a sheet she was always compliant with visitation the c counseling program where she was going she had transportation money issues she did not come from a very financially stable environment and she wasn't working at that point and did not have the resources she didn't have reliable transportation the place that she was trying to get her so since his time was over an hour's drive away it's a real community there was closer services but there was money no to that place  she was unable to attend there until later on you'll see in the case through on the police that daddy was paid and she was able to attend those locally and when she was able to attend them locally she completed and she  point they were willing to be able to adopt the child so there was no harm in allowing this the mother she continued to work her services and try to complete them the reasonable progress and reasonable efforts i think the error here is that they were looking at and some of these when you're reading through them who read and sas factually for the mere fact they were completed yet at some point to complete these services but when we were assessing these nine months playing time frames you're looking at their progress in their efforts not their completion i do want to summer twenty ninth of two thousand seventeenth so yes it was a very very ill and but it was prior to that nine period  including necessarily him in the statement but i asked the children why church home to mom if they are able to return to mom they were to return to their father but their first choice was to return to mom there was testimony that the bonding between the supervised throughout the entire proceeding and never changed so we did not increase to any who waits on it wasn't decreased but it did not increase they there was some criticism as she was still on a relationship with  she got her own personal visit was allowed to visit as well during his time which allowed her some more time with with the child with a child december two thousand and seventeen that's a failure on the state of the system because now they're trying to pull these positive tests against her from the very beginning of the case which one are arguing that she did mess up then but they're not giving her the opportunity to show that she was getting her act together and not in she wouldn't continue this house i'm positive she was accused acts the was later into the evening that the hearing was concluded so she went to the hospital and got that mentation which was provided in testified to in the best interest hearing that she was clean or mandate she ha
based on the decision of the court of appeals and the supreme court of your allegations for negligence or for misrepresentation or i hope because you do have to pay good morning my name is john price and i have two other counsel here we've split up the kind so i'll try to be quick and address an overview of our position and risk here ok look in particular will speak about fair debt collection that and although he wasn't bound to follow it and he didn't feel like he was constrained by collateral stoffel which is clear from the second order and that subject when he died or motions to the supreme back later after the trial he was a bench trial and that it's clear from his order he didn't feel like he had to do that it stands or tied as we all know history to make these decisions based on what he thinks the state law will be
who met a woman in the philippines who was already pregnant so obviously there's another person the picture there as well and then in this child born of other parents then the parent that drives that or he drives the ship from from this year in that case never gave up the testified and during the proceeding she raised him as her own son and some thirty seven years later she's still behind him she's in her eighty's and he's still her son and she always has treated him that way as the court scales pointed out i think your sales have done for relationship simply because the husband was in the marital relationship where the wife was in a marital relationship what made that into the marriage any more than it is into the status of mother of his child she barely have a biological mother like she did and she did take him into her home made a family acted as his mother raised him as his mother and should be the mother  just section three hour nine are clearly required for birth relations which we do not have here if if you but the problem is understanding the meaning of legitimate and out of wedlock terms are defined in the statu in scales the court our court declared that the child was legitimate valid use the definition of legitimate squarely contradicts that factual statement but it says the child is legitimate and that's the case law that we parents were not to people who were married to each other only one of them accepted responsibility for the child not biological responsibility but except with a child of his own formed a family unit and i argue with those facts exist here to the mother although plainly not the biological mother accepted responsibility for the child to child into the family unit so if we draw a distinction there we could be consistent with scales without opening the door to what i understand is your source of concern that in fact if if you define is legitimate any child born of a person who happens to marry at the time whether or not the spouse has any recognition or anything to do with the child then the door is wide open but that that isn't presented by this case because the mother here is one that did take the child in and recognized the ch weren't but we've taken you way over your time and given you a hard time so thank you very much for coming thank you
of the judicial process
a fire that you were good looking to that would have given the court counsel or anyone else associated with mr seneca some indication that there was this mental issue that he was where maybe i don't understand the argument i thought you said that he and that when he first played out he was the court wasn't presented with the information that we may have triggered a different kind of sentence your treatment or he wouldn't have taken  now we've got that but that's what happened now we come to you comes out the fans and he's back before the judge revokes but for beijing right and he imposes thirty years of hard time those could be diagnoses for maybe you need people that are walking around the streets today or that are also increasing are not necessarily such a mental disability that would so confused well unevil to understand the nature of the proceedings he sherman thank you and you are you saying that it would have not been at all relevant to the judge in imposing that sounds to have the attorney present defense counsel to present to the court information that my cause the judge
from two thousand and eight to two thousand and thirteen point thirteen without any trauma in it he admitted he could not state within a reasonable degree of medical uncertainty certainty that the claimants august twenty third and twenty one work accident was