MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
fact to satisfy all of the requirements of the exemption in the reverse but not only that the indictment itself challenge the conversion in of itself is being collusive which raises questions of fact our first questions about the standard of review so in viewing the testimony of the transferee agents the testimonies are pretty consistent and it was important to know whether these were affiliated me that that to bring that up after the trial sort of the case wasn't defended on that basis so to bring it up after the trial makes it very difficult to say we should be doing to do novo review of it has to be sandbagging but that's the that's what we have to guard against so i'm really still stuck on our standard of review i think in the room is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and the government charges of conspiracy theory turns to violating the securities laws they intend to put years into the marketplace that are underage and that's basically what the entire case was about that issue in the government knew by the way that in terms of a fairness in this case there was testimony that if investors and knew that these were affiliated parties they wouldn't buy the stock again if they don't think that that's the test of materiality could legitimately go about their business and didn't need to commit fraud in the first place has never even seen your brother's final point when he was standing or you are it seems to me once that the victims as opposed to investors cared and would find interior whether they were buying affiliate shares or not and was an investor would care whether the shares were being dumped on the market by an insider or someone his problem was it doesn't matter since this argument has been rejected by the f c c since one thousand forty is that when investors buying shares in this type of situation because of the way one forty four operates when you have a large volume of shares coming from insiders or
argue some of the basic points of law which i obviously you know you you are experts on but basically the first question is  with a motion to compel arbitration construes the scope of the arbitration clause and then what you're saying is there's a motion to vacate later on that's going to go to state court to determine the scope of whether the you know there may be a case where the grounds for i catered may really rely upon the actual application of federal law but that's not my case that's not the case but how does that help you here and what respect is the puerto rican log broader in a way that would benefit you with regard to your issue i don't think it helps me in any way that it helps me on the merits but how does it application of any party to asian there is no reference to the subject matter of the underlying dispute those while section four calls for the court to consider whether it would have to resume over the subject matter of a suit  approach what's what's the basis for the then the the the fact that i mentioned the paragraphs now you know i'm going to understand what are the allegations that create federal jurisdiction there's a number of the arbitration level and so therefore in order to prove their their case for vacates or their claim of error so  shall federal issues that would need to go to be part of the analysis of the court looking at the they could do or petition so in other words the reviewing court would have to determine it would have to agree with them that
get the trial date and then and then back to the fact that we're only thirty three days before the trial date because there was a tortured discovery process hearing and it took us a while to obtain that information point it was based on the depositions that we were able to update and other aspirin policies and procedures well so with the infection requirements of illinois certainly should have been at child with a gravesite headstone and work that child can be visited that that's a voluntary undertaking that's that's where that's what i was represented to  and i won't spend too much time on the requests for dismissal because the discussion on the merits i think is what the court really wants but in the body you want to briefly explain to the court that we felt the plaintiff me too many errors in the preparation of their listen to particularly justice levin question the plaintiff justice revenue raised the idea of a need sixty eight claim and the messinger case and the tour de of interference with possession of human remains services for protection of a person or other things i stop right there and i ask runners to stop right there because i haven't heard an argument from the plaintiff and i don't forsee an argument from the plaintiff which would suggest that what the hospital did here be but that isn't the reason i just ran killing him god granted summary judgment for the defendant there were two other bases on he was persuaded that there was no breach of any duty as a matter of law and i understand and w to you can you can you actually argue that that that's a reasonable way and then his testimony vet hospital said to them two weeks and then a year later she comes back have been reasonable and then and we could've made maybe a better informed decision that had been reasonable because if it is the practice that we wait until we get so many before we call mr cruise and that can take and that child should have been interred and then she finds out so quickly that the child in a jar in from now on the high with the child's face the son of all sight is a little hard for me to balance the difficulty that the hospital surgery and not to necessarily find the hospital yet the thing is that the case for little was was not dismissed on the basis of failure to meet the requirements of voluntary undertaking but jeff if you look
prejudicial because otherwise you had just a question of who you want to believe and emotional managers have said oh this man is stealing the baby formula and maybe the jury would have believed him and prejudicial for they don't have to admit that they're lost when you have to save them there is an issue which you can base something where if you say to them look i know what all i'm asking you to do violate the law i know that he's instance they've got to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt remember i said that at first well they didn't they didn't they didn't they didn't do that we all did it because he got up there any christopher and by gosh we satisfied based on account testimony that he stole this baby formula in order to feed his he's child and then later at sentencing he made that same argument in the context of arguing that the trial court's instructions are convictions because look at this look at this man he was trying to feed a child and so i do think that there was somewhat of a tactical reason for his argument based on allen's testimony because he did jury the case is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that i go out and violate your oath why couldn't you say that with jury there's a reasonable doubt in this case you can find what if you want believe in our hand but anyway you should go out there into just
cold mandatory detention without review the cases where individuals in removal proceedings have conceded their to portability and many other cases such as part of a very specifically found that may not and regular course of business so clearly the entry is it on privilege that the business is open to the public and its member of the public he was free to walk in the eyes of the immigration judge in this case however never considered that he never considered the  helps me anyway understand is to look at this in three sections we have the administrative proceedings before the final order by the way that we have then everything is controlled by the judiciary very any kind of a direct review and then after that we're back in the administrative phase when we're talking about making efforts to remove yellen and that's where that would awesome cover and on the administrative proceedings the more became covered we don't really have the rules th thirty one a one a the first phrase the first opera phrases when alien is or removed that is the trigger that's what triggers the attorney general's authority actually mandates remove  comes and starts stating things and then everything is in suspension and so what that's really the question what happens during the suspension period when the attorney general is ready to remove the alien the authority has been given to the days i just want to make one point i do think that we're not here fourth or argue the other case but should be kept in mind that there were two charges for the portability and that other case and the one that's being focused on is only the take your honor on that point he has not conceded affordability with respect to his aggravated felony burglary question but with respect to whether he has to say i am geez i have not heard any contest and if he has one it's  decide then legal questions on whether there's a court building your immigration court and that's why i think the supreme court's resolution of that could definitely impact his ability to remain in the states for an opportunity to voluntarily part is eating he's going to voluntarily depart and that's not what he would request if you requested a lot of other things including the
right if it's clear we do still have an argument that we had clearly that it's permissibly overly broad and therefore outside of the court's discretion under two eighty three but that still mean in california artificial stone the supreme court says the process of contempt is a severe remedy and should not be resorted to where there is a fear ground of doubt he says it sounds to me infringement i think that this is archaeology and video but if he were to have concluded that color very different from more than colorfully different from the product the jury found two in french contempt of the empath or in that case
this point there's been a significant amount of litigation in nevada regarding the effect and homeowners associations foreclosure sell an existing st position beatrice and over the course of eight years of that this long year many years of litigation is that that's not always the case and there are factual situations where either the cell does not operate to extinguish the of trust or at the very least the whole about a year ago the the law on a failure to send such notices was less than clear there were some courts the found that if if a lender beneficiary failed to show any prejudice from the it is not being sent and no harm no foul the cell still extinguished their deed of trust in other cases courts found that the failure alone no matter whether there was prejudiced a prejudice or not was enough to it says it's you know because it's a factual determination we can't list every possible scenario that could constitute fraud oppression or various but two of the examples it gives there are one feller to send the statutorily required notice during discovery they made no objections to the notice in the st report on notice of an issue of noticed was that the time the summary drugs  cover those issues i will point out you know if you were to say that murders was an adult and notice it does not end the analysis because supreme court of nevada as asia between the alleged fraud oppression were careless and because of the low price and they have not done that there is at least no showing anyone at the sale knew about the letter that anyone and the price that was brought about and i would also submit it is not necessarily an inadequate price if you look at the shadow anion a snowman a supreme court of attorneys that we have across the country to evaluate these things and we relied upon the letter to our detriment there is nothing in there to show any reliance and resigning case law is very simple when you're living broader you got to prove some at the time of the sale of bank submitted a appraisal showing the value of her was two hundred and seventy thousand dollars that's above contingencies including the  the bank has a number remedies available they can just pay the entire lien they can figure on the super party portion is and pay that they can get an injunction to stop the sale until that amount is determined but they didn't take any steps whatsoever to protect their interests and that goes to our equitable argument you can't come to the court and ask for equity unless you act and do something and just before the event happens which never happened i'm running short and  prejudiced was there because there was no prejudice was there any connection between the alleged for professional unfairness and the phrase pay you also have the discovery reserved relatively early for us to not specify specific objections to notice because again this is a data trust that was assigned to chase after the fo
it could have been misleading to the drivers to his left it would have said there is about to move into mine well he wasn't actually going to do that so i don't think he i don't think there's any commonsense defense to tires text message to break but also undermined mr masters fundamental decisions under the constitution whether to go to trial or whether to plead guilty whether to take the stand or not  first time his two titles text message was known to try out trial counsel was actually very far into history mercer's cross examination and then there was a sidebar and the good for the united states i plan to spend the bulk of my time on the suppression issue but i did want to correct one statement that was just made with respect to the two tires taxed that message was turned over to the defendant promise he did not use it in his direct case the defense reply brief directs the court to a section of the record in which the word higher is mentioned but that is out of context that was in the context of a beach in buchanan describing for the chord in the jury are in the context everybody knows where the rules are in the context of twenty to fifty five and so unless there is some compelling reason not to defer to a section twenty two forty five in the government's view the court should end here too it's  time is getting short and i do want to address the search and seizure issue because there are two preliminary points that i think are very significant for putting that in perspective is that the government has consiste maintained that the defendant did not have standing to challenge anything with respect to the release that the defendant has standing to challenge the status of this person and the with the standard that i would emphasize that the court has even very recently said that the interpretation of the facts are too big for the eyes of trained police officers so that connections that they make among evidence that might who the you the defendant conceded that he made one lane change without signaling it's the first one and my recollection of the record and again i can provide it at twenty eight j read it my recollection is that the defendant conceded that you claim change without signalling is a violation of may be wrong so a combination of factors justifies the stop on reasonable suspicion based only on the first train change not the second plane change has other questions i would have to answer them otherwise the government the court to affirm thank you
i'm talking about the threat whether the defendant was so concerned about his mother's wellbeing or concerned about having his mother do something with the stolen items that were in the house and the i know he wanted to got day care but the travel judge
dilemma interpreting the contract because of these texts e mails whatever they are these are key in the original oral contract you got to build the buffalo wild wings or the electrical service one hundred  in this particular case there are two contradictory stories my guys out of work in north dakota on this project he's been paid seventy seven thousand dollars and he's bleeding out been going broke he asked the general contractor  thinking as i understand his argument both in his grief and the early day it's that credit should have been given that others did within our base contract he's not talking about he meant she's talking
number one five two two permitted to be in the country for six months and and he's over say that time  one of the factors that they can set it but it is a fact and i don't know how we can change that i think in this case the agency really is independent source doctor and certainly as an alternative argument they first a and this particular person only worked at the restaurant and just happened to share the same first name as the position so it was only they were just raining we go into restaurants looking fine documented aliens it was that in this case they arrest warrant for a specific
about don't worry about don't worry about tina and down in this case he said i'm looking at some time i might be gone i cut myself to his situation i can't be man you i put think you're absolutely correct i'm looking at some time i might be gone i put myself in the situation i camping out your current myself here know what i'm saying that in and out of south africa we don't know the surrounding circumstances of where he's living maybe but once we grandson to defend this case the fact that during this conversation with his girlfriend the defendant never said he never confessed he never said why he was locked up he didn't go into the specifics he did imply that at least that he was responsible for the offense he said i put myself in here i can't i can't believe you or i can't hold you responsible or i did myself in this situation i put myself in here and looking at some time to this or not direct call a couple of times looking for money for cigarettes mr fischer discouraged him pro coming to his home and then after mr fischer went to bed heard of through the lights are turned on and do some testimon day in this case based on the strength of the other evidence meaning mr fisher's testimony well and supported by the testimony of the two officers the court found that there was sufficient i guess you could say nexus between th
is a variation on a very standard administrative issue or matter where the breadwinner as a family is allowed to adjust status to permanent residence and the wife and other family members first not because of any fault of hers but because of the processing times of film in the strait of level at the california service center she applied january two thousand two hundred case wasn't approved until september thirtieth two thousand sunsetting on october first two thousand and three so they were frantically of the sort of history as they were frantically of a service under trying to get everything done at the last minute and this is all bart attorneys were trying to pressure different nationality and one nationality is current and another nationality is not because they all come together the the the regulations and the administrative rules say  just wait until the numbers come back the normal procedure and even in cases where we need an approved petition and it hasn't been approved yet and in this case there was an approved petition because the husband mr bar state of removed which happened here then that reserves your voluntary departure so there's really no longer any question that there's an occasion or believe it or not court i don't know of any reason why it would apply to this case doesn't apply it shall if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issue was about the easter shall be entitled to the same status and the same order of consideration if  she had no ability to petition for you and we've got to remember but it's very misleading that a visa petition in spite of that common name is a classification application he voluntarily departs what restrictions are there on reentry less than a year the other is more than a year and each dictates that if you leave and try to come back in the first instance it is within three years you have to get a waiver in the second instance if within ten years you have to get a wa it appears to me on this record that if he falls under any of those it would be the first because on this record there's a gap between when he fell out of status and when you apply however he says there's no but it's not in the record it was never really an issue he says he applied before he got a status but the application was lost or something happened to him if he can establish that then because here and where you know he's not an aggravated felony or anything or working as hard as we can the throw him out so that he won't be here with his family and i just time problem on motions to reopen but he might have been in a better position i don't know i can't speak for the district council he might have been in a better position to persuade him to join him at that time i had no idea you know what
o does the ail jay have to put those observations on the record or describe in the report i don't know if he has to put them in the report i think in this particular case there's no doubt  testify so how how do we know how do we distinguish between what the a l j thought might be corroborative evidence or consistent testimony written evidence consistent with how the doctor testified and if he doesn't believe the doctor on the stand and says the rest of this is consistent with that so what do we do with that what do we do with that you're on i think the best thing you can do is you can look at what they actually said  verification of a disability also the joint statement says it's usually medical records detailed information about the disability is not required to establish the disability itself so by putting such secretary could have reviewed on not just reading the transcript that they should not be subject to heightened scrutiny but even if you disagree with that argument in you believe that heightened scrutiny should apply to the secretary's disagreement with the  accommodation polling kalsu put so much stock in the fact that he he didn't make a request before he got the dog into the building and i think the law is fairly clear that you don't have a visual with a disability doesn't have to make a request in a certain manner or in a certain time for their requests to be legitimate all the requests has to do is to put the housing provider on notice that the individual has a disability in request a that's required measurable accommodation requests in which the housing provider basically if they receive a request from the individual with a disability and they're not sure if the individual is truly disabled they can't just addressed in the secretary's order on damages i i think river bays was another motional support on a case in which the board like the board in this case actually refused to give any sort of interactive process
counsel and the state witness is trying to undermine their testimony that they saw defendant was the actual guy and this is because basically the closing argument is that i missed the entire closing argument is that the state is now prove the difference between a firearm argument about the about you wouldn't it if it was a toy gun you wouldn't bother i did so based on everything that went on in this trial there's no question that it's a no unreasonable interpretation of this record to think that this jury would have
authorities is there any objection to that it was people versus montgomery a relatively recent second district case so we're off the hook for losing it but then let a witness say that that's what this statement what the facts will will what she said in the recorded statement and she says it was a different statement on a witness to say this is what was in there between the motion to dismiss was in that the state's position that all four statements were virtually identical are started the not the scene but the other three were virtually identical and it therefore the charges should
either make up your mind i beg your pardon feels like ten million