MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
th case this morning jacobson versus the commissioner of internal revenue resulting tax liability and he has received relief from most of the years during which the embezzlement took place either through bankruptcy excuse me or through the tax court opinion here the tax court granted him relief for the two thousand and ten t eleven tax there was a major distinction between those two tax years was that by the time the tech return was filed for two thousand and eleven mr jacobson was aware of the embezzlement because she had been arrested tried to a the tax court in this case relies on the current revenue percentage of the two thousand and thirteen revenue procedure it's following that revenue procedure which is the one that states it is no longer with more than other factors procedure the two thousand and thirteen revenue procedure is clear that no one factor necessarily determines the outcome but that the degree of the importance of the different factors will vary with different cases in this case the tax  didn't treat knowledge as a but for super factor it just saw that on the facts of this case we have a very unusual circumstance where the taxpayer is aware of the and taking responsibility for preparing the return to report that income on the return to the tax court that was where they of a great deal of weight although the other factors did not weigh against the taxpayer a lot of them did not weigh particularly  intermingled with other income but it was all in terms unexplained deposits in his bank account would be income even if they were embezzled and what we had here was income from his his home inspection business which he had all the records for he was the home inspector so he would have been able to tell which at which to process we felt like that that he  was in a better position than anyone else to figure that out he had information from the employers about their wage income so if i had you made a no mistake i don't think the tax court would have found the same issue had had been off by a few one thousand found that the other factors you know for the two thousand and ten year are the tax cuts on the other factors came out in his favor so the balance but i think you could say those those factors are closer to the line and knowledge which pushes it over
respect for submit that the trial court heard in the reading of the plain language of the relevant trust agreement i think it's worth paying attention to a few of the key sentences really that that could rise to this because there's a f want reasonable interpretation of that elin woods meeting that the a cop's expressed they would only be limited to using it scheduler fees which means they can't tell us something something wildly different from what their schedule is  question and precinct you tell me what you want to tell me but i want you to answer the question i asked and why isn't that a reasonable interpretation of that language because if you strictly construe this  doesn't say that i agree it really doesn't say that and so you have to interpret what the language says in a number of ways in their number of ways to do that and one of the ways is i'm talking to the person who this and since she didn't approve of it i put it to your best judgment for was right and she was right in ordering mr sullivan to return the money together with the attorney's fees you really took out of the trust and i guess you got you
include that argument in the statement of exceptions in brief you filed with the commission nor did you beg before the commission i think about the cheese lifting incident so tell us why it's not forfeit if you can't you understand you don't title there is an argument for the first time accident he said it was you that they found it was impossible based upon the construction of a doer they didn't believe it so now when you lose the claim that you filed and don't appeal you want to raise it differently and we can't do that commission doesn't believe him because there's no supporting evidence of that but if they the testimony was a bet you go up you press a buzzer and the person security person verifies that you're appropriately europe it's appropriate for you to come in because there's a dedicated exit  for sawyer are you telling me that you have to be an expert the door to see if anything was room she found at the door closed by itself you quote there was nothing not in place and everything was fine that was her testimony she said the woodwork by the way is she did testified that it was a buzzer and then the door was cool going in the last someone was coming through the door from the others it wouldn't open without being for one
a burden hundred ninth circuit law which is consistent with other circuits to allege its excuse for why it was coming in so late yet alleged that the last services or goods were furnished on june seventh i think it was both issues were decided by the court officials were decided by the court and as i say at the trial all of the evidence about excuse was admitted over objection so there was no pleading to support the excuse there was no allegation a legal error to turn a blind eye to some sixty sixty five sixty eight thousand dollars worth of expenses that are sunni kurd pursuing the vote during the first two year according to the record in the findings june twenty ninth one thousand nine hundred eighty up to that point he had spent sixty eight thousand dollars according to the record in pursuing the boat after that he pursued about another sixty five thousand dollars judge k handled this case and ruled on the various decisions before him if you look at the the pleadings filed he allowed counsel every opportunity just thoroughly brief every single issue that ca toyama there was never any testimony affidavit any conflict in your country statement by mr toyama or any other representative of the owner that the and tell the court that there wasn't any proof that the work was authorized i think it is an incorrect statement it's not true and the and materials even through today so i mean that that's black and white done that's facts their position and you asked me what did we present to rebut that i mean i think the first question goes to whether they even brought forward sufficient evidence in the first place to cross the threshold of requiring what is the evidence of  record one twelve we furnished the responsive concise statement of facts and on pages two and three of that we brought to the court's attention specific fact
constitutes the offensive grooming this is not a case about whether the state can choose whatever it wants to choose obviously the state can choose whatever offense they want you to think the facts of court nothing can get a grand jury indictment for i'm here to using one each of the multiple options get it so it prints a person from knowingly using electronic device to entice or attempt to entice a child or child guardian or someone believed to be either of those people typically it doesn't seem to be trying to convince a child to commit a sex offense with another child however i think the use of the term grooming per ask is what we believe this here i think that would be something that certainly would be an issue for the jury i as a defense attorney would have arguments against that but i can also see a jury you know finding that you know i your friend is really crazy you should tell her to give me a call some time and then it goes from there i mean it's it's like trying to get them to vent and maybe convince their friend that it's so i think that had he been charged perhaps under that section they may have been able to get a conviction under that section by arguing that you know he didn't he didn't say something as holy conduct with a child meeting with another child not with him so regardless of you know his intent what we have here is i don't  intent i believe there's also a legislative intent to protect children from people who try to convince children to do things to other children which is an indirect way of pretty you know it's expanding the protection from people who basically prevent others from soliciting children to commit sex crimes i would say three arguments in favor of my interpretation that is the grammatical of the logical charge the defendant he's an accomplice to the crime that he would be participating in with the child i think maybe speaking think i'll just leave that as it is
just just the fact we were there together in very close proximity to each other this is a commercial area of restaurants nearby not a residential yes but apparently it is the o needed about anybody else period the officer says you have seen anybody else nation description but there's nobody ever asked to see anybody else in the streets so we don't know if there were others somebody a question and they face a look back with a blank stare or look i didn't understand when i read that this individual cable here in the headlights look what that what that walk probably made at the time that sergeant kaiser in our building and told smith yes that's the guy i saw on the streets or so this is this is a case stemmed from a shooting that occurred in danville illinois and the suspects in the case were described as two black men and one of the black men was wearing a red black and gray jacket four minutes after this and about a half a mile away officer kaiser spotted a man in a block in a red jacket now he was walking fifteenth in front of another black man who matched the description of a bad black variable back on the state says that they were walking together but i would point to the court's factual findings that the court explicitly states that they were not walking  apartment building didn't see testify that something about someone being in a rain jacket and so how did that come about there is some ambiguity i think she references and as that was happening the man in the red jacket walk continued walk away on the changed direction he changed directions or and and the state totality of the circumstances so if we were to assume that the gentleman weren't together as a child or if we were to assume that he defended fail to not obey this case the fact that you know they were the only ones in the area that matched the description that's happy that the gun was found the other person was arrested does that not get us there prior to the arrest oh sister there's scissors no testimony as to the exact time she needs to rest it's not it's unclear whether
evidence of the actual because it seems likely that somebody prior back by say well they they didn't really catch him with it it was under the cushion oh that's where all this comes mr bennett of a fair trial
he really considered it to be as her own home i can see your point that with the codes being changed one could conclude that this was an unlawful entry but it does no way you can interpret what was said by the two attorneys that he had the intent to commit a crime at the time of the unlawful entry and again if you look at what it said on page one hundred and one hundred one the da herself i believe it was it was a woman  california was kind enough to provide us but we do have is the transcript we also have as i clued on behalf of the record for the government the abstract of record so it's been issued we'll we've done the best we can gathering up the for the stipulation of facts and what's interesting to the government and what's interesting to judge a can meter vinings in this particular case is that the facts as outlined on pages one hundred and one hundred  the roads that was taken by judge akin is the approach of the government urging should be affirmed because as you read her findings which carried on for several pages the burton pages for this particular argument  begin at one hundred sixty one of the excerpts of record and that is she looks very very hard to sacramento case and she called it a close call and then she noted exactly wh judge bail observed and that was that the codes have been changed and while unlawfully remaining in the building he committed theft he also unlawfully entered the building into or remain in with the intention commit the crime meets the definition of generic burglary to a new stand the only problem we just do i understand correctly the only problem we have with the state of california statute is that for you moment work law presently is against me on the otherwise clause i only preserve it in case somehow in the future that changes because i understand there's a difference of opinion among the circuits so i don't care to go further on that probably don't want n myself was that we had the category approach which we've resistance it's not to be used and we have to modify category approach which we agreed could be used but we are to be restricted as much as we can by not make the factual times much more recent than you i'm sure and every one of the cases cited in there talks about the type of documents that are needed when you're going to resort to the modified categorical approach and every one of those cases you've mentioned in the book no but you go back to the days as charging document and if you i would say definitely there was one in every case and i would i would conclude from that that that the preference of the bar the court has to be ever given a case to circuit in which there was no the charging document thank you both thanks for coming in the afternoon
trial cock start of course it matters and the fact is the defendant in this case did not do it therefore there was no hair on the speech trial issue and of course counsel was not an effective for not arguing the violation of a right that was never  hers and that you need to do bad testified that the victim said that the victim that the defendant put his private parts between her legs and went back and forth ten minutes and that crime rates the victim dallas than other people would want for this court to consider that as well ok i'm going to the closing arguments the council also discussed that the first comment was inferences flowing from from the evidence that was presented at trial and the fact is that misstatements of facts argument facts that aren't in that evidence is not doesn't mandate reversal unless it's so cold so prejudicial as to constitute a material fact in the defense but that was in the context of of a series of statements such as if he the victim was there and testified then the science confirmed that the lab confirmed it and then she said the prosecutor said the nancy our  reasonable inference there too and again and in the closing argument issue the fact whether or not this case closely balances is important as it is in several and the people will rely on their previous argument regarding whether or not this case
there's nothing in the certainly nothing in the final judgment an injunction as and i took part in the settlement discussions and i can guarantee this court that was never raised before below so there's no extensive evidence there's nothing in the document to suggest that the parties cases these factors may not apply to all case and this is that case we have it an area very limited interest very narrow error area fairly simple science but nevertheless very narrow interest seven o two in paragraph two it doesn't apply because that was the only testing that was contemplated by the parties who is the only types of testing presented on the motion and it was urged by c s l both below and here  the evidence that the court considered though the court's determination was based on its consideration of the very very shallow record that was presented by c s l which was the single task he compared it to what was presented by imperial  facts determinations fact terminations that cannot be reversed on appeal unless c s l is presented something to this court that this court can develop a firm conviction that judge pirro was wrong but judge spiro spent as you can tell by his thirty five page opinion spend considerable time going through all of the declarations all of the evidence and making those determinations very carefully from start to fit several of the attacks that learns that the best science available and the same evidence that was used in the underlying case is no good and is judged shima suggested that makes paragraph one of the
and to allow the board to consider whether assuming pressure there are what the court has called plausible grounds for relief here and we believe that the the board should have the benefit of this court's decision in the intervening decision and sing and sing are to make a determination with respect to reopening a negative term nation with respect to whether the petitioner has presented any plausible grounds for relie motion purporting to be the motion on appeal mr jope has has now stated that was not actually the motion on appeal that would have been filed and i have no reason to disbelieve him but at that agree that where the brief was not was not filed that prejudice on this course president will be presumed and the court later after we filed our brief the court came down in the saying and cases which to determine whether the prejudice has really been revived it is whether there is a quote plausible grounds for relief or there are couple plausible grounds for relief our position is that the board should have the opportunity to make the determination based on the record which is we believe complete record then perhaps subject to additional submissions by counsel as to whether the petitioner has made out any plausible grounds for relief on the record before it in order to determine whether the prejudice directions with instructions to the board grant the motion reinstate the appeal and allow for briefing on the merits of the appeal it's really a question of remedy
which were per se on lawful products so if you contrast that with a case like mine sure i'm not involved in a friends where the concession of a firearm is only criminal under certain circumstances on such as  line but i think where you are drawing the analogy between the cases that have found is that it is in elements of the friends that must be proven by the state and cases which have not i think that they are distinguishable on in that status statute to protect this particular status of individuals and protect them from being criminally charged that's most analogous to the situation we see in the human vision statute for instance or factor that would be uniquely within the defendant's personal knowledge it's not something in the hearts of the state to find out it wouldn't present any particular burden on the state or how to verify whether a person has a a matter of case this is not a description of if not so is it it's not like you have to prove the state has to prove this guy is not a doctor that's an exception isn't it isn't that the burden on the law who defined  just one point i suppose that the still speaks of a person being a physician licensed under the laws of this to or of the state where he resides i suppose that  where he would be licensed is uniquely within his knowledge you would put the burden on the stage search all fifty states to determine who it is that licenses in every state and then is the defendant li was under eighteen at the time he tattooed her or her testimony established only that she told mr me both her age at some point between the time she met him in july of twenty fifteen and the date of trial in december twenty fifth team on the prosecutors here was not clear as to when huge one was done but just at some point over that three week period all of the tattoos were applied on but again there is no temporal orientation of when in that process i'll inform mr maples of her age he may have finished giving her the last of the five tattoos and she really said oh by the way i'm seventeen that is insufficient to show that he was aware of her age before he tapped to term so again the prosecutor asked this case and she did not give any further entice to what was going on a test situation or whether she had given permission for her daughter's feelings i'll give you a fringe or what have you on all we do know is that at some point between july twenty fifteen to december twenty fifteen
description and not rely on the to deep position description your honor is only general information about the position generally and escort is clear from the source president with mortgage brokers for instance mortgage brokers may hold a position of trust a whether a specific mortgage broker in a particular case is called a position of process there has to be an inquiry into the specific facts oh in one close issues under the guidelines issued in essence actually articulate their judgment in thirty five fifty three anyway and we have that from the district judge here saying even if i'm wrong about the use of trust to shoot since would that was not disputed your honor our position at buckley is not quite that its president relying exclusively on those general denials was ever regardless of whether or not there was a contemporaneous objection and the fact that there that so that there was significant testimony as particularly on page five hundred thirty six of the trial transcript this ramos testified to her numerous car accidents that have resulted in many head injuries and this report credited that history of post traumatic brain injury and that she was being treated for post traumatic brain injury system syndrome additionally this remote submitted an addendum to the p s r where she discussed the effect of these injuries on her cognitive abilit judge need to repeat those details the judge did not need to repeat those details rather what the judge actually said at trial which is not dispositive but which is relevant to this court's review of the entire record shows that shows at least some significant tension statements show that in this record on review of the record in its entirety this court should know that the district court was in the best place to make those determinations that it was unsure about whether specific denials were made with the required intent and that longer a employee employer scenario but rather one where the employee has the freedom to act as buys for herself once reacting not acting criminally and the other one was there was an arm's length claimants who said they were bothered by the extra money they got and  something like the professional or managerial discretion that the guidelines common requires enough discretion those i mentioned are in your first round that involve half a million dollars that shows a lot of discretion it seems to me
people hold rational in different ways they can be challenging their body one way or the other and their trigger finger can the hand can be obscured and the fact that he had already been called out because of a shot fire not ok so is there anything else you would be possibly wanting to point the gun  and in fact they were required