MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
look at the facts in this case obviously like all of these cases the fact instance if case is not a man whose cases are where we say oh this case is like that case these are all sui generi places his substance abuse so fifty two weeks into may and challenging environments he had completed only nineteen sessions that's one third of the required week main challenge to balance and that of course as i say we had a big gap the previous year where he did just quit on his own and didn't start again for several months he did not obtain a mental health evaluation which is counsel believed he needed and this is very important because say mills history of issues with anger and unstable behavior he was working but he any understanding about what he learned in those classes he continued to display irrational and harassing behavior towards just according to jessica that he threatened to kill him which probably isn't the saddest thing he had done better in her second month period but and she did as counsel for for her mother to this court she did so well opiates and if it means nothing in the days after she gets her son back now there was a my counselor she calls herself a co facilitator she's not the on the track or found it a little bit surprising that she could recall when she last attended and she couldn't move one single a step period she had not completed either group or individual therapy she was on the world participated parenting classes until she was compliant in the substance abuse and mental health counseling it she continually violated the requirement stay away from him was a condition of her probation as well as the c f s that she stay away from him and even at the hearing again th occurred three months after the end of the nine month period she said that she must say all she and even after being told to stay away from him jessica said that her tumultuous violent relationship with you know was so on dysfunctional and the trial court said that that was i need a statement which emphasizes justic
but there is no evidence that she used it she kept to me but there is no evidence that she used it for sleeping for cooking for entertaining for cooking meals for anything that could be considered a significant do found that there was a feeling under the law that she said she was in the process of moving sessions out of the home and that had been living primarily in shilo the nearby town on and off for a year she said she bought that home oh i'm sorry i do have   structures are in conflict within the definition of the wild weather whether the burglars could run into a person for whom that is home and certainly a home from which the owner is planning to move and is in the process of moving belongings is continue to keep it locked and checked on home every day at the port help that this is mobile it's not but it was not abandoned because the owners quote shows who serve the privacy safety of the home and the potential for serious harm and by locking away the washer and dryer it was found out in the yard after the police came and so in this case the burglars came within an hour or two of happening up on the homeowner in the home which was the chief people that the
walking and also in his declaration he also explained how the one of the spaces was actually constructed incorrectly and he actually was injured so what the court did was they just basically stated that well that's that's fine what they case the court was basically saying you are seeking an independent violation or a lack of an interactive process and we're not asking for we're not saying that there was an independent violation what we're saying is that the summary judgment stage because there was no multiple interactions with everyone saying about it and working because telling them she kept telling him that she just putting notices notice my laces that are kept telling him and sending out letters and posting notices on their vehicle can't park there you can't park here and it's not that he was it's not if you wanted to park in those other spaces he needed to because the other ones were that were given were not acceptable to him so that's really the issue  was a living there and be doing illegal things on the property and so on was all from this saying so the fact that other people what give that information defendant and whether or not a stray remark or if it's made with respect to the decision but y
ninety one never convicted of analogous felonies were affected from the you know subject to retain when you know what
involved certainly seem to be landing in the hands have county court system for quite a long time
made in trial unless they are dead on point which of course none of those statements he made were are not the issue in terms of emissions that ignition focuses not on statements made during trial but on statements made after the why and again it's one thing when counsel shows up and says we disagree with the p s r and of course the prosecutor agrees that the pieces are there and that's the question of whether or not it's disputed not whether or not there is some way to take the facts significant waiver issues i think that there are some questions when you go through the record as to exactly what was it jack to do and when i said i obviously am taking the position that over all the issues squarely before this court and i think probably the strongest reason that it is is because of the verdict itself this jury decided on the basis of two to six to this relatively new law that  been described in the opening statement even by the way described in the judge's so called limiting instruction where she outlined what the testimony the jury was going to hear was and mention brandy in devon cohen mentioned boy love dot com before they even heard from the coach the judge  all that was the cat out of the bag and can i will i understand this general perception in the community that we may be there when the thirty six year old hangs out with a file you know and that's exactly why this evidence w she modified her ruling and it's our position that the initial position she took was correct but that when she dealt with it meant trial and before the opening statement prosecutor she changed her mind again we're saying that the potential for prejudice some twelve year old kid hearing a child molestation case the government does not have to prove the reasons for getting in order the issue of whether or not there was agreement to these documents before trial is not before the court there's no transcript of that hearing i was not the trial counsel but neither were you and i object to reference to the pretrial proceedings because they were not recorded i think the fact is those documents came in after the coast testified and again those documents in denials i understand of course concerned about the implicit issues in this case they were there without having to put in boy love dot com it wasn't necessary and it pushed the jury over the top there was plenty of evidence to establish that he was and they were in a very good reason for getting that order if you look at judge farms testimony he doesn't deal with the boy live dot com and she will all he dealt with this the obsessiveness the repeated contacts there was plenty enough to make the argument in a non prejudicial way without it which is why judge said it was more present presidential probably and then she changed her mind ok
insured on that coverage so the jail she either has an additional insurable loss he can claim insurance status for physical damage so they can present a claim to a license or as a carrier to fix or repair that quantum of information therefore there are now some parts and how do we decide which way to go i think the language is here i think the fact that you have separate titles contained within that individual paragraph the st specifically addressed the physical damage the equipment and the support reversal here so you know i think i think the the united states years or is that decision is the most on point on these particular issues that were recognized that there may be insurance even if they were able to get their foot in the door overcome all three of those hurdles there's still a four hour obstacle standing their way to additional assurance that the additional insurance grossman requires that for geology to be titles of coverage for it's for the physical damage to the equipment it would be improper to then utilize that language and superimpose it in the allegations concerning liability those liability out of lively coverage obligations are separately laid  this is one big insurance permit but that's not what the contract said and they can establish that it's another way to do so would allow them to just say well whenever we ask you to get any type of coverage out there are zero coverage whatever gave you workers compensation coverage we can claim additional insurance status because you also have a separate obligation to your liability coverage that's not consistent with illinois law the allegation is on them if they want to live to get liability coverage for their benefit they need to put that in the
of financial agreement to what happens is we have this hearing and hearing the allegations are brought up and my client fence himself in saying this is the reason the exercise of discipline of a child  intimidation of a dependent interference with a personal liberty or willful deprivation but that does not include the reasonable direction of a minor child by a parent or person in local protests and there are cases that testify she could have brought pictures and she didn't bring pictures i'm in fact there is no testimony with caitlin about the bruising because it will happen is she wanted to introduce testimony from the child but in that statement and there was proof i think that's maybe what you're saying is that there was proof that it wasn't twenty seven times or somehow there was proof that she was being vindictive then that would affect her credibility i'm talking about reasonableness under the statute correct looking at the statute now that you're complaining about does not follow correct there's also a reasonable this box and i use people but also as a strategic tool to get invaded and that's why so many are dismissed the first time we come in and you don't see that because it doesn't make it bad for but you see an overwhelming amount people get what they want momentarily move on because child you know you are using reckless use of force and the father really looks to a different destiny something we have this under fourteen one yes and they bring into our new section and certainly they continue to argue section one abuse they don't go to physical abuse correct why do you think that is ministerial function we forget the entry function we forget the other functions a balance of what we're supposed to keep it considers evidence and vest with this with this was checking a box no evidence of a causal connection between the  believe which is again it's not a suggestion it's got a risk it has to happen and the child is available to testify there's no real evidence t need to for these things to be just a checkbox sometimes we forget to any lies it in it i think in this case there were things that the crew considered in order to make that check but it doesn't add up in terms of be considered like the reason the direction of a child by a parent which should be considered because we're not in reading that part of the people may disagree but right now it is still the will and are still permitted to use
good morning thank you for your patience as we worked out some technical difficulties this morning but i'm really glad we're all here thank you for appearing by video we have one case on calendar today which is yo and that the risk that the expert does rise about it that you're speaking about now is high enough to show that he doesn't like what a torture what do we do about government acquiescence because i'm not sure that he does yes reach that yet so do we still need to rem witness credible in the sense that they're telling the truth as they see it but we don't agree with some of the conclusions from an expert so you can't you're you're not contesting the or government is fighting the games we don't just you don't but i think that's not quite quite the right way to look at acquiescence about a general fight against
them once they knew they were there safe but then they would embark on their own effort to enter the u s illegally right by their children well they said how are you going to crop that we didn't know i guess  actually that they were no they were undocumented i had no right to enter the u s legally and number two the record don't divulge the group they told him a plan to travel to california as them as possible to meet their border by taking the kids in fact it never occurred they never tried to go over the border i would disagree with that your honor i think that they made it clear to mr ward's mandate is that the reason they want him to take the children across the borders that for lee was there in the rigors that when illegal border crossing there were no details given i agree with that but again if they were going to enter legally there is not one single reason they would hand her two children over to a complete stranger to transport you know several hours back in the california on their behalf there simply makes no sense whatsoever well like ovechkin betty well except that they were citizens of indiana and so they were born in i'm a little concerned about where an attempt begins in preparation which doesn't rise to an attempt ends i mean these people had some plan it doesn't seem to be any got about that i'm concerned about whether it right into an attempt or it was not to go into the bank and you know that ruled not an attempt it was mere preparation at what point you know what point did this become something other than preparation your honor i think the plan clearly began the plan as hatched by the two haley and parents their plan was we don't want to cross the border with our young children but we're going to have someone protrude by oncle take them across for us first then we are free to execute part two which us crossing the border into the u s the big the plan was to part plan on the condition present their plan was the safe passage of their children into the us by someone other than them because they couldn't do it due to their documents  the attempt began your honor when i would think i would submit liberally it began when the moment he began to drive to mexico to pick up the kid more literally it began when he picked up the kid from the virus and took him to the then that's a closer call your honor i think it could be under the statute that we have here i think but i think the only distinction in that case your honor if a degree of affirm the conduct i made because in one case well additional charges and charges at any time during the proceedings for any i'm a script for any reason but you can do it anytime before the hearing and there was no originally by understanding what happened here is that at the end of the hearing in two thousand th  appeared in mexico and took custody of those children i thank you counsel and i will give you understand t like you're talking around the kitchen table that's preparation here they actually send their children ahead you know that's that's the argument that they started the plan in motion the wind behind us talk a big took permit of steps to get the kids into the united states
act of physical violent force because it can be perpetrated against one who is an unconscious or to rob that's your position therefore that's the definition and therefore it doesn't it johnson definition of force forcible violence or physical violence and i cracked exactly now take this hypothetic with the charging instrument here says it it simply allows us because the statute is divisible we can go to the shepherd document the shepherd document is the indictment indictment tells us this is this was a rape without serious injury and someone over sixteen of in terms of the consent not being the dividing line you didn't penetration isn't a very good dividing line here again because the common wrong because pennsylvania the funded properly so under the prescription and of things when we're now talking consent right and the assertion is that there's plenty case from pennsylvania that says that force is actually not require that you could have you can have consensual sex because our slate just needs that however slight so touching of sexual organs would count under pennsylvania law as and creation that would be quote a violent felony unquote because a your definition to work there has to be a decision that even though in common parlance what people call violence is not what we're talking about here because this is an area of cases are now focusing on as well being really upset being felt violated being deeply offended and for all the natural and sensible reasons one would think a person would feel even though there was literally no physical reaction at all no physical pain at all it's that kind of it's that kind of pain or injury that we're talking about with aca despite the fact that the definition is quote physical pain or injury  just microscopic testing that in the end i guess i have i have no problem at all believing that a prosecutor would charge that in the right case it would say basically i heard you say but once again we have three elements in the pennsylvania statute lack of consent is equivalent to against one's will penetration a separate element and then we have forced each one of the articulations i hear from you sort of r
the related relief of this a role if the opium woman who was active in the oil that had been raped in her own home by government soldiers was later imprisoned and great multiple times and still later let her country forever when she testify in order to show a greater case of persecution for her family and her connection with the group which you mentioned the a room of the racial front that she had consciously exaggerated the time her husband had been held in prison saying that he had been president it did in the supplemental declarations and it's the court the discrepancy generally does not support an obvious credibility finding more over your honour's fact the length of the husband was targeted by the government and that he was imprisoned for his prior position within the regime moreover the heart of her claim is that she was raped in her own home while her husband was imprisoned and later was res she comes clean in her testimony she comes clean and supplements a decoration and she comes clean during her oral testimony additionally your honor that i did substitute the evidence of record and foremost list regards to the rape that i think found it implausible that's petitioner would not tell her husband her first lawyer who was male and any one about the fact that she was raped by government soldiers at her home and while in prison and this is th point out to the court that this is a woman who has suffered tremendous past persecution and at times it was difficult for her to answer questions however she hung in there for to the full special testimony petitioner that is another example of what happened in this court is that the immigration judge dismissed a psychological expert's opinion that the petitioner had quote a beard surgically friend and talking about the incidence of her multiple rapes she was taking into account that the evidence he just took into account the evidence that detracted from the petitioners claim and that supports foregone conclusion that the petitioner was fabricating her story to take an audio evidence and evaluating th reflected in the declarations by luther king of the incredible spear the family had to even discuss it and driving by the buildings in the declarations that they indicated with the buildings were in a very secretive fashion the amount of fear and insecurity within the country led to the fact that this kind of evidence was not previous previously available and it had to take someone from the united states to go over there and to literally dictate a declaration and to make observations first hand observations that's what it took and regardless of the number of years we have to remember for instance the rape she wasn't even correctly i'm not sure i'm pronouncing it correctly
the sidewalk will it cause me to lose my balance and all i did see there is it is there any dispute as to where the mental state was located i mean it was in the grass
can be thirty five years when in actuality the maximum sentence for each count was sixty years the only case law on whether a hospital visitation constitutes a monetary waiver of the right of the president trial do not address a houseful ization as a result of attempted suicide so that's why i say how being misinformed about sentences that certain crimes carrier would affect his rights waiver if you're here mr peoples stipulated in his p rearrange the experts schedules people who are coming from out of town he's witnesses who testified for the state appear friendly for the state and he testified for a short time i don't think it would have been that much of an inconvenience to  continue the trial there but i think he maybe as you well know a family member or someone else could have gone to confirm this i don't know that there was a family member there with the authority to receive that information i don't there there was a grandpa my fiance there i don't know the hospital would have been while to provide that information unless they're listed as next the courts shall advise him that he escapes from custody or is released on bond and fails to appear in court his failure to appear constitutes a witness right to confront witnesses against him in trial  he failed to appear for his trial on st two thousand and seventeen there would still be a binge trial that day the day before trial was set defendant and his attorney appeared in court requesting a continu look at the circumstances surrounding this suicide attempt the court believed the suicide attempt seemed to be contrite in order for the defendant to avoid court the trial court found there was  guilty he merely when it is right to a jury trial the cases cited by the fence the defense in their brief are cases concerning waiver of counsel and cases concerning guilty pleas white pete came out certainly this is knowledge well beyond that that a six year old would be expected to know her statements in her testimony but especially those statements made in syria at the time when she was six years old just after all these events in those statements established the current predatory criminal sexual assault of a child state does not do anything racist here today should overturn his conviction
thank you judge and i'd like to reserve three minutes on the bible and i will watch our self this case involves the validity of general interest state the mystic violence or its resting on idaho battery constitutional law and a lot of us chosen to meyer which role that the residual cause and sixteen he is an invalid legal so the question we have on the facts of the case not on the generic i on the categorical question he didn't he didn't instruct and burglary in general he put in the facts of the case having already determined that burglary in general was a categorical crime  legal background in order to determine if it's possible to even literally determine that the jury relied on the ballot brands and you're looking at the record we see that they were narrowed the statutes and