MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
strong argument i think the could also find based on the record that the dog initial stop however i think that is easily explained given the fact that she has two little lanes and so he had to run both of them individually and then to get it in order to get a complete unknown history because you never know how that stolen it still has some time left on the agreement there's nothing related to the traffic stop with regards to that we're expanding the scope to look into something else i'm sure he's got suspicion that she's got drugs in the car step up her bag in the cars that you know
this out gets out and then he says ok now i'm going to get my retribution i'm going to go for the one nine hundred eighty three actually because i really have a problem here how do we what do we do with any hammer how do i that's what i'm trying to fight us all together i'm having a hard time i she or he doesn't file it therefore you can't bring section one his reaction because to do that you have to assume that somebody made a conscious decision now maybe in a case where if you'd be proved that somebody made a conscious decision tiny hammer this court may make that actual holding in this case and i put it in a footnote and if that's the way it goes and soviet that will be the law i mean i can't really argue against against the way it's presented here i have no way to honest limitations why did she have an opportunity to address that in a district court he didn't he wasn't permitted to address equitable tolling requital stoppel at all because this case went down a leading issue last
hypothetical
procedural points as to whether it was appropriate for the courts rule prior to the submission of sorry by secondly whether with presidents dismissal was appropriate the third goes to the substantive basis so the bases for dismissal under twelve b six standard and some others as
lifting a box of pa
persecution based on their individualized risk or membership and mistreated group if a group suffers persecution that is just a magic and that there if there is a pattern or practice of persecution of a group then the applicant need  any individualized risk on the other end of the spectrum if a group is are in the middle of the spectrum if a group is a just favored group but the prosecution is not necessarily systematic then the applicant can show a lower level of risk is a member of a significantly disfavored group ethnic chinese christian indonesian indonesians and that he has an individualized risk of harm based on the harm that he suffered in the past in indonesia as well as his inclusion in elements of the group grandfather was murdered by a mob of programs that were passed were happening during those years of islamic fundamentalists against ethnic chinese as a child mr susanto was continually continuously harassed by my neighbor correct sail is still good law and the standard was not applied in this case the immigration judge merely looked at whether or not he felt the harm is due to santos suffered rose to the level of past persecution and he looked at whether or not ethnic chinese christian indonesians are fears reprisal from a sex father in law because he sees his daughter i that that's not an individualized persecution that should be factored into well that's only one thing he also talked about a mob attacking opportunity to cross examine you to give your own testimony in support of i'm sorry of its application for release and the immigration judge did not violate petitioners due process rights or otherwise i rendered the proceedings fundamentally unfair  alleged that he suffered well that ethnic chinese indonesian christians are just a well are a group that suffers a pattern or practice of persecution he also alleged the or argued the individualized risk that he himself suffered the events of harm that he suffered and the the cumulative effect of his membership in three vulnerable groups his ethnicity his religion and his homosexuality that that ms long had not shown that the government in egypt was unable or unwilling to control of the forces who were persecuting the ethnic chinese christians here the immigration judge never made such a finding
my client had five major reconstructive surgeries and she's presently on the down for the pain as i was looking at his last night i was noticing the l j said that he expected that she could not tolerate which indicates she doesn't believe that she has a mental disorder and she has all focused on her needs now she has been very good objective findings of significant new problems that nobody disagrees with that everybody agrees she has pain the only question is how much pain does she have so what i think when you have a combination of the objective planning to change and you have this mental condition that kind of an odd way at this and what about the hypothetical question was did that include any kind of mental illness no the occasional expert no it did not i will  say we usually look at restrictions in activities of daily living our social functioning or concentration and she did not make that on other things on this illness so why wouldn't  what is going to come down to philosophically is do you accept that whatever this person's whatever this person's whatever the genesis of it is keeps going back and back for more and more and the question is could she get up and walk to the extent it's necessary to do sedentary work i don't think it when you look at the record there's a reason to feel that she could now let's go ahead and do the amount of walking and sitting and standing this necessary to do sedentary work and i think that the l g developed a record pretty saying it's premature premature to say that she has been drug seeking are has been using it extensively until we see how she does on the long longer term a longer acting opiate was not addressed by the aerial j other than to say it just an off the cuff way with no explanation dr kerley the agency doctor not examining internist to look at his case did not address
again all that was ignored that was likely the reason for the doctor's suggestion that you know you want the ten minutes in time for her to void those kind of problems but if you don't write to the doctor and say why didn't you say ten minutes you'll never get sure it again in this case this may enhance tremors or shakes they're not twenty four hours a day they're not every minute of every waking hour they're something the coming go if you're going to make a finding that the person can listening terry twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently when when this person has a history of these tremors they drop things other claimants mother testified that she vanished from the kitchen because i grew up so many things in the kitchen  that finding a fact doesn't it just finding the fact that you can lifting very twenty pounds acutely in ten pounds frequently is just kind of a right that arbitrarily and the methodology of the social security rulings is sit down and take time ok to should be allowed to take certain statements against partners how interesting factor it into their credibility houses and i don't know that she really fully rejected the medical opinions dr murders that we're talking about given of limitations of the l j attributed to the claim and with those limitations the locational expert said he could still hold found that frank was a world after twenty pounds and was able to walk two miles although i should say that the walking element may not be still relevant to the job here this truck was a big car and it doesn't make much chance that you'd testimony was not credible and why because they claim it may have testified on twenty or thirty subjects and a negative credibility finding on one subject doesn't amount to a negative credibility finding on every subject and the judge should be going through this point by point and saying i don't believe this particular testimony for this particular reason or reasons generalized finding certain government permitted and that's that's the problem in this case and
hey everybody welcome back to the community media day here at the belmont media center i have a special guest here today came all the way from a lol it's amazing thank you for coming thank you brian toronto and not only is he here but his whole family is here and i know i should try
because the jury instructions and his trial were confusing and they did not ensure that the jury appropriately considered his theory of the defense which was that he did not know that there was a firearm in the enough when there is that extra step that the jury has to understand your specific here so just because it you know i understand the court was probably trying to get the right go with julian the background but the circumstances included possessing a firearm they were instructed on the proof required for knowledge or in time and again the meaning of constructive possession clarified that yes knowledge is required for the constructive possession buffer that error there would be a probability of a different outcome well that's not that's the rd element in the argument would be that because there was no evidence in the trial to show its knowledge of this felon status there is a reasonable probability of a different outcome if the instruction is incorrect but the government might argue well given that there's other information in the record as a whole that makes it obvious that he knew and could have been admitted at trial if we'd known it was important that it would not have undermined the reputation of judicial proceedings to leave this conviction in place i'm just wondering whether that's how we should look at it versus the rd problem that you are suggesting but maybe that's a rhetorical question ted williams had a question go  evidence is almost a proper i would suggest as to what the evidence would have been had the government been permitted to put that on high and you want to sell that that covers that evidence was necessary to introduce so more so even than other cases where you're just looking two and then we get to elements three of core that were were sort of blended together again i guess not that sort of my interpretation that we need to consider them in conjunction with each other because one of the other so perhaps i'm interpreting it know i just want to take a look at the direct the court's attention to the actual jury instructions which i think you really have to stretch to say they're very argumentative especially compared to some of the other proposed service structures that you get to the what you wanted to how he wanted to answer the jury question his proposal is knowledge is required to that which constructive possession constructive possession requires
can as a valid basis for refusing to consent to a test say well the test you're going to give me is invalid because it's not going to fight because that's the potential
mind and the board change its mind in the case matter of small and based on matters small that determined that he is a misdemeanor and if he has and since he has this conviction he is an aggravated fel with almost fourteen year old she had a child who initially he didn't want to over knowledge of but then he he did may or may not be pain child support and he was at one point said to be married but he's not married consensual sex at least as far as the record shows ok so yes technically he may wind up with an aggravated sexual problem on his record or in aggregate aggravated sexual assault ok so looking at this case behind the labels that are put on it and looking at the actual facts and assuming that he is a sympathetic character who's acknowledged responsibility for his mistake and that he woman or are not hostile to each other and he's providing some taking some responsibility for the child and that he served in the gulf war is there anything in our system that allows the government to take that into account and gra has to follow the law of the circuit in which it's deciding the case doesn't mean it's giving up reasoning it's just saying we haven't agreed with it but we are bound by the law of the circuit they're not giving up any of their authority and in fact i statute under which he was convicted didn't mean that he wasn't convicted and didn't take it outside of the aggravated felony definition and in fact ordered his removal so there has been  first time i've had the opportunity to regulations and we were all very very
trust what you're saying is that they tell us bank but you're saying is that you're alleging that us bank as trustee for x x x y trust didn't hold the note because that endorsement isn't sufficient to get it over as to days below zero whether those are within or not and we've got a case for discussing not in other contexts so i keep coming back to how to write a more massachusetts statute that says no reaction for a deficiency unless a and
storms the makeshift synagogue that she and a few other jewish faithful jewish members had gathered and redone with their own hands the police did nothing and told them it was simply their problem to  as case nationalists came to their homes vandalizing them leaving stars of david making very clear that this was not a random incidence in both cases family members continued to have problems after their  persecution therefore the only issue here is not simply their past persecution but also whether if she fails to show that the advents roast as persecution where whether she has a continuing or future persecution well founded fear in the future unhappy discrimination all the incidences that she testified to that happened to her when she lived in russia where the two incidences one was being surrounded the other one was insults and show that those incidences are closely tied to her and she hasn't shown that these were both confusing is because we had several russians do she was not harmed during that incident although it shows that there was anti semitic and discrimination and harassment so it doesn't rise to the level of persecution kept her child ran away or ate some of the petition for review in this case should be denied because the record evidence  petitioners take your daughter home from school and excuse my language a group of people surrounded her and basically said i get out of here i can't believe you're still here i tried to her holding her flows it escalated they started pushing her around and kicked her very hard she had a huge bruise and suffered from nightmares after this and again the police took no action after her report and in the night winter smell and it wasn't a splash she pushed her and she was struck in the face and her lip split open and again the police took no action with regards to the synagogue there were multiple it wasn't just the one incident by the skinheads that there had been previous desecration vandalism that makeshift synagogue again because there weren't any other small guys i would also like to address the government's completely unsupported assertion since we're
this is the world famous skyline of new york city well a part of it a part that nobody ever sees coney island is actually in the city of new york but nobody who's been to coney island has ever seen nobody at coney island because this clean so clean empty beach with the trash baskets lined up at attention in perfect rows looks like there's only once a day when the big cities still invade the beach and this painted the big show is almost ready come back the curtain and i know they're coming a few by car but mostly by subway from brooklyn and the bronx from an item from kansas city from paris coming your pays your money and you thank your choice you can be spun bang turned upside down or have killed your pays your money and you takes your choice it's getting to be about time for the sun worshippers to go home baby's tired mommy's worn out daddy's exhaust some of the ladies and gentlemen are stepping into their evening part time to go home evenings now this becomes a magic island tell me one of the night will i be happy when i meet a tall dark handsome who these other secrets of the night one of the leading attractions of coney island as many people know is that it's one place where girl meets boy
must be the day they picked for alaska today because i think we have three alaska cases on my calendar this morning although both sides cite a number of cases on this issue when you come right down to making the decision as if it's a factual issue which depends on the specific facts of the prior cases in the facts of this case none of the presidents from th gun on the floor of this car significant fact factor about that incident is that at the time it wasn't illegal and he wasn't charged with anything he was not a felon of the time there was nothing illegal about having the  charged with in this case and that is that guns were found in the car in which he was a passenger in a place where they were not visible to him and because he was never charged with that either his knowing one was not a crime he simply doesn't need to be a crime to be admissible in full force is no it doesn't need to be a crime but if it doesn't show for example if you look at some of the other cases that were  by as a by the government some prior bad acts with respect to gary's are admitted because the defendant knew that it was illegal to possess guns and did it anyway and handed knowledge that said that was against the law and so on and so forth there was nothing illegal about him having a gun in the car so it doesn't go to establish his intention to have illegal guns or his intention to write around in cars with illegal guns because there was nothing illegal government went to admit this information never met are you quite strenuously and went to quite a bit of trouble to present the evidence of prior bad acts which tends to indicate that they didn't think the evidence was overwhelming the first time around and certainly the fear on the part of the victim of risk of injury which in my experience includes all kinds of domestic violence offenses where you do things like shoot guns into the air and you know things that are intended to scare people but don't he actually c we don't have the evidence if we send it back it's up to the district judge to figure out the scope he has a record correct yes and the statute where it falls and you know frankly you can't get any worse from my client with respect to that so we could only in terms of the crime of violence and handsome and so on i don't see i don't see that is did remain for resentencing for the courts that it's close whether the defendant has shown any chance that there would be a change here but because the defendant had made a well i would suggest that it's the defendant's burden to demonstrate to this court that it should exercise it's just question to recognise plain error and before the defendant has met that burden and have to show some violence them perhaps there would have to be a real man gun stick it into his waistband and return to his car his his possession of that weapon was i would submit proved beyond any conceivable that much much much less reasonable doubt  where everybody has guns in their cars and there's there's nothing about it that tends to prove that every one of those people tends to commit crimes so i think it's extremely important whether it is illegal and whether he had no one possession of
jews your argument is you want to test that twenty five acres to the whatever it was three point nine four acres where his residence was twenty five contiguous acres for herself because young two thirds of the company instead she makes a decision to put fifty percent of that back into the estate so parcels and i think one of the arguments in this case is you shouldn't use the word properties as a property and that's just not the usual customary practice in our worst may have
happens in the course of we are arguing yes the word they see the issue may be the issue of what happened again following this injury there seems to be some scheme incidence is refer
apartment for easy access it's our hope that our app will help create a more positive experience for new members in their first three to six months as well as helping all the members get around to building better it's relatively short and afterwards it takes maybe like an hour to maintain yeah i did it and the cost is relatively cheap especially for a multibillion dollar company like
i was not able to find anything that was pressing in regards to or that warranted appeal mare on that regards on that particular issue now there are some things in regards to the brief of the united states as well as the  respond a question is what i'll be glad to respond in are there any errors that you know of in this no your honor however in regards to an eleven c once the plea that i think what this hearing may be focusing on because i see around if this court were to reverse this particular matter i would imagine my client would be potentially in a in a lot worse situation than he than he is there that the sentence could be worse than it is abs c one c being deferred in so that i would i i think that the courts don't or will in this case refer to the guidelines to make sure that there's not some huge disparity and i think that concern i would have concerns that there may be times where the plea has not been fully in intelligently entered into because of all the facts the p s r those kind of those things are presented or just are and there are a lot of interesting questions including a plea agreement that makes reference their guidelines and everything is george when down i just
little decision based on the allegations of the complaint and we believe the erroneous lake on this representation in court you're right there is not a separate findings of fact conclusions of law but there are statements of fact by the court if the employee was permitted to do what he did to their equitable argument because they are making an argument in equity yes and a response to an argument in equity if you can't make it because you have unclean hands that's true your honor but our primary position is that  equity permits us to assert this this arbitration it is a completely are under california law as i recall from forty years ago if they have unclean hands you're our is there some other standard that would apply arguing that you can't get a full day in court in this record on these issues is that right is entirely whether hoover as for the reasons are telling us is entitled
case should be able burst and then proceed to discuss each one of them first even assuming that the exclusion of the material evidence by universe was not erroneous universal still not entitle to summary judgment because the evidence shows that in december of two thousand and seven it was because i think it's important to point out that this interpretation of the opinion of the law schools the evidence is on disputed there was a pilot only two one repaired shop in puerto rico eat against mr martin but that's what leads to reach your honor dismay and i've never seen an indication that there's been noncompliance with not one single sentence defending the contract of the insurance company insurance companies
policy again but is there some testimony that that area already had some indication of yellow paint on it a policy you don't do anything you're not going to be liable