MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
of possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute in light of the argument time i would like to confine my remarks on with regard to the search issue on the september ninth two the government has acknowledged that mr leboeuf was present at the time the warrant was going to be executed but he was not provided a copy of that warrant or the attachment to it at the time of the search the government's say as of this happened because of the confusion surrounding the situation at that time but the district court judge in denying a motion to suppress never said there was any confusion by smoking are attempting to smoke some marijuana along with the female who was present inside the residence but it's still our position that because of the not where they enter i assume they did  and in this case it's our position that it was deliberate because he takes the current time as mr lovebox as being let out of the residence to tell him that orally that we're here searching for guns and drugs i believe he did because he didn't say that when he was attempting to to serve mr la bob later that he had to go back out to his car to get it and there's nothing to indicate that that was the case i mean that was the requirement as to why you give someone a copy of the warrant if an attachment if they're present before you commence the search and i don't know of any case law that says that it's it's not require they wanted to secure the premises to make sure there were other individuals inside the residence that would pose a danger to the officers when they're doing the search ok thank you if you could you get a few things with that we'll give you a again i don't know it's not it's not clear from the record whether or not if you're michael's had the search warrant with them when he went into the house or not in whether he was the first one in and who had the i believe it was age of michael's but we don't know whether words they did and when they exchanged words he did it it was an evil just handing the search warrant apparently not your honor and it isn't clear from the record of why not but we do know that on the way and they exchanged know i don't know the answer that question i don't know we do know though that agent michaels procedure normally and we can see this from the july ninth search his normal procedure is to door and then he proceeds to tell him holler you doing we're here to search for guns and drugs but it's still our position that certainly at that point he could have given him a copy of the search warrant and the attachment
it's interesting regular again so forget it forget about control preston what why does what what what's wrong with far to interpretation of put out what i just read from boise what it's interesting because i think we have  peacefully co exist there's not an inherent tension what we need to do in planning for supplies is look at the crime i case by case basis has there been fine with physical force and again i think the crime of violence so i think the government's entire case hangs on what you see and for some reasons i've already discussed we've seen just doesn't answer the question because it's an entirely different statute if the if the particular statute involved reckless driving resulting in injury you know this the action this statute is recklessly causes serious physical injury to another person and there are only two elements to another person and with those being the two elements the government believes that if we aren't to apply reason the amount is that the means of how you recklessly cause that injury is is the relevant it's not important so these prior cases that talk about his or it can you be convicted for reckless driving distance without a doubt your so reckless driving does does is it comes in that short on your theory reckless driving i mean intuitively when i was practicing law which a middle way was many many years ago our goal was always to get a drunk driving pled down to a reckless driving so you were saying you know that's not intuitively the just doesn't make sense  if this statute criminalize his reckless driving resulting in injury that that means only that that must mean drunk driving resulting in injury and it may be used by prosecutors in that vein however that's not what's required by the statute so two elements recklessly causing and then the serious physical injury which another person the means of how that is being done whether it's by a car whether it's by a gun or whether it's by throwing the plate that's part of the analysis of the government that that if you
in the record from which we can know or even heard how likely is this sort of record that the attorney general would have intervened to prevent adjustment of status we know that the attorney general had that authority and could have done it we also know that the attorney general didn't do it so the other seven years he does get to adjust status do we have any information here in the record that tells us how often  the attorney general based upon his convictions could have prevented him from getting the seven years and he did not and he did not what i'm asking is do we have zero anything on the record they can tell us how likely it opponent and i want to address a couple of things that came up while he was speaking one of those things and that there was there seems to be a question as to when mr skilling as fast as became a permanent resident likely boils down to that statutory provision that allows for terminations of temporary status and a denial of adjustment to lawful permanent status based on three three misdemeanor conviction and i mean you know that the government's position is that because at the time wasn't wasn't an l p r and therefore wasn't even eligible for to talk you couldn't have even thought that he would apply for to twelve phrase it doesn't say vested right it's settled expectations and i may expect something that's not certain i mean that's why it's called an expectation so how much uncertainty can we tolerate consistent with the phrase being applied some expectation indeed so you know the government argues in this case that decision or just has not demonstrated that he had the kind of subtle expectation that we're talking about
because it's already been considered explicitly now we have set out an argument to get past that first argument so i'll try to grounds for addressing the concerns of metal pipe bomb blast to metal pipe bomb was sort of a damning description of the object in question in the first level we don't go to the individual facts of the case because the elements of the offense do not include the
undermines the public policy inherent in the immigration and nationality act that prescribe such a broad reading of those crime involving moral turpitude into the arizona statu and it's mostly a dui could be potentially harmful but it's a flawed approach and start looking at the effect of the crime the board needed to have looked at the elements of the commission of the crime  question is one is that the community is willing to aggravating element here and just the knowing aspect of driving on a suspended license contemporary standards have to be looked at in connection with the elements of the statute which talks about intent
they were in direct view each other now the question was well that's sort of like you know if you're the only one with cookie crumbs on your your lips and they ask you ate the cookies you know that i mean i conduct alleged criminal conduct you know we're pretty much probably looking down rather than looking up but i mean i think well if you look up to the side or whatever i could be interpreted as subject to the subjective interpretation the testimony of the videotape it and put it in the eye to thirteen and then what happened when the judge never gave us the opportunity to object to states without inspection by concealing him in the dashboard in violation of law she assisted by wearing his shoes in order to protect her in order to throw the immigration officers off in detecting that there was a third person in the well it page two twenty six of the record your honor officer mitchell stated that in his experience that there are people who don't wear shoes in order to fit in these compartments and that the only into his shoes off of that he could actually fit in the front of that dashboard and so as the immigration judge found he didn't believe that the petitioner story that she put the boots on because she needed this arch and then when he went in retrieve them and brought him back she said those are my shoes and so the immigration judge drew an inference from nat that she was aiding by wearing those shoes in order to disguise the fact that there was a third person hiding in the compartment of the car which in officer mitchell's experience is that people don't wear shoes that they can fit in the cart compartment and in addition he said he was surprised actually that she would be wearing his shoes that that the wearing of those shoes help judge who had never seen the petitioner at the time that the alien was the smuggler he was removed from the compartment he never seen the petitioner he walked into the room with the material witness the smuggl all because well she said i've never seen this person before i didn't know anything about this and when i asked the driver can i put the shoes on he's been there my shoes yeah you can put them on and when they walked into the that according to the officer he was really looking at eye level there were approximately he said about half of the room was women about seven in the room and i don't think he would notice another woman warning and said and pointed her out immediately and the immigration judge drew an inference from now and even though the petitioner argues that that's not sufficient evidence in courtrooms across america criminal defendants are found guilty based again she was putting the moves on the ailing in an attempt to conceal the fact that there was a third person in that car which again officer mitchell said and the only in hiding in one of those compartments it's not uncommon for them to take off their boot in a secret compartment in a death ward and you mr markers are prominent lawyer in the san diego area if you're sitting as a passenger in my car people will say oh that's mr mark of these are well known lawyer and soon to go well
it began simply as an area of low pressure in this part of the words between june and november these innocent low pressure area is known as weather brief as earth moves into the low pressure spot at the lower right it begins to spin or in the caribbean or the gulf of mexico throughout man's history these giant strom's arrived with little warning and more frequently as deadly surprise predict its course and found a life saving energy is being spread as long as it remains or
well it doesn't matter whether it's a judicially it mission or a statement against this because this is a statement that looks as though it's part of the because the first thing i did is called a lock in and said that statutes and that's not our job we should have to do that research you should present it to judge peterson so he can make the best decision possible
they're proposing to do now and what has been done in the past but the key point is that they never studied in the past what the impacts were of the historical winter operations   under different operations to understand the saying that well the proposal would commit three fluctuations they really don't think that will ever do more than one they do say that they sort of analyze look underneath at potential environmental impacts including i was raised by petitioner associated with this operation second preparation of n e a for this operation operation rather than the i r s was entirely reasonable given the circumstances production better equalizing nearly up to five feet of this twelve hundred foot deep late when opportunity presents itself within only a twelve to fourteen we went out in the winter time  anyway today you're a lawyer correct so just if i want to say gee i'd like some know why this new species isn't really a problem you you and i agree that know yes you were relying on that so that's that's where we were in the argument here say you don't need to worry about it because we did this thing twenty years ago nothing's changed so it's still good today that what you are going that's what we says if i said well what about this invasive species as a best i can tell didn't exist twenty years ago and so you went back and forth as to whether or not we find it in the last twenty in the last twenty years ago let's say we don't cases we point to information that's in the us going to last talking but you're really not answer my question ok where do i find something that will put my mind at ease i'm getting there what do i find when i get to forty you find the studies that review that you were asking about your own or the whole study effort parkinson the  there's also a spring freeze thaw cycles as well as one off events that are primarily primarily the rows of factors that open fault explained yesterday that this type of operation practically speaking is not going to be happening there are several factors that must perfectly aligned in order for pon of to even consider using this one time flexibility there must be an actual info in eight that can be stored there must be protected need for power which would justify the story in the first place there must be actually an expectation that we'll be able to store when power failures are well and released when they're high so that it makes financial sense second the higher level if the course starts at the higher up based on the recommendation all these regional energies that's the level that we're stuck with and that will be what we get this is completely an opportunistic type of operation  equating incremental with insignificant it's a good question i think so i think they're saying any change is going to be incremental growth right i'm not sure how that tell like to follow it up with quoting from i thought fish and gave the public comments
right and so i mean to me that seems that you created this whole situation wherein you filed a whole separate petition and ignored this other order over there inconsistency and the lack of credibility respect to the various application a question i had is sometimes when people fabricate you say you know you're just lying but to me that doesn't necessarily equate to being frivolous i mean that's the same thing i
course of the employment in till the trip is completed and this is the key thing that applies here bad is the journey toward the employment destination is not enough to get your verbal here because it was clear the evidence  not establish he actually got back into the building and i suggest that the case law that's the critical consideration yes i don't think anybody is disputing she was certainly heading back to the job site it was about to get there but if you don't return to the  make any sense yet small that's crass by it was about three years after the accident happened that we were at child so we may not have been something the description may not have been fresh in memory at that time additionally she'd only worked on the shots of her for dates this wasn't a very solid long term relationship that she had with trash such that she would remember significant details about her appearance or other details like that  i'd like to just go over a few points that town council brought up on this case there is that the issue of the petitioner being the jobsite and there is some confusion as far as whether she was granted permission or not want to do in this case there were no subpoenas issued for any witnesses from the responded we investigate this matter we did not have any of that anybody by the name of trish or tasha on the job site we brought in that the foreman who was also a supervisor that was a person
because of an agreement or an understanding we worked out that the deportation couldn't be implemented it was considered a final order even though a petition was pending and the person could be deported it took some either is look at the record that we have on review and what that record shows us is that yes the board did in fact remand the case in twelve days after after receiving the motion to reopen it properly construed is a motion to remain and remained it to the immigration court they sent out a notice nevertheless seven days later setting the date for september of ninety six that's after twenty one may where he turns twenty one is there and then a note in the immigration court responsible for scheduling this hearing was unaware of the time sensitive nature of the application i believe the record supports that conclusion because if you look at the remains and order from the board it doesn't contain any information that would include the immigration court into the exigent circumstances and then they weren't provided with anything from petitioners counsel and in fact when petitioner with counsel showed up on five september ninety hearing over to february ninety seven there was no discussion regarding how the court failed to set that hearing in time and now my client's not you know his he's been prejudiced because he hasn't been question was posed by the court if there was anything further and neither counsel for the ins nor for petitioner had anything further to say the immigration court fiscal year ninety six received over two hundred thirty two thousand cases current having difficulty making my questions clear the word final determination that's opposed to final order of the court haitian immigration law anyway whatever priests before this court either however it's entirely possible that that term has been construed with respect to other acts or other sections of immigration law my argument is that  the courts with regard to final orders of deportation and the methods that have been used in the congress thought about this problem and said well we know what the term final order of deportation means we're talking about an entirely different type of problem so if we give people a benefit and they were trying to children can stay with their parents children relatives can stay with their children they can stay we're not going to deport them and if they're proceeding starts before they're finished their whole run through their total first direct appeals so why would they want to cut it off before they people had a chance to get to court i believe in the concept of the immigration  can the immigration service to move forward with their cases from that point rather than have the provisions of the act applies to individuals who may have had other claims before the court pending
that make reference to activity that turns out to event criminal and his problem is that if he sends a message they searches phone they may not be able to find a gun but he might find a reference to giving a gun to somebody else or we're not hearing anything pressure problem by handing the discretion to the probation officer yes right i think the crucial decision to be made there is that in this case with respect to this condition the resolver has no discretion condition before the actions taken so i liken it to a condition in which a probation officer may require the defendant to undergo drug drug counseling but doesn't specify the particular for program or form condition does not i think that's really the only way i've been able to make sense of it as the word specific in two places and has the unfortunate effect of making the condition less s particular condition this guy is a risk that needs to be harnessed you know this this guy's criminal history and this particular offense seems to put him out there once he as a danger to the community generally so so why is that a good thing to wait so more specific condition so i have to reserve vended in a way that requires intervention because the court
well next year are you and how would you is there is no meeting of the minds between mr boyle and the county social workers the plaintiff in this case allege that mr boyle was detained by mr mor there can't be any meeting of the minds there the county social workers only began to use mr boyle after the plaintiff was deprived of custody of these children there is a i understand that's her allegation or honored but the fact that you hearing the court order family read that the county social workers provide county family reunification services so their argument is family review of occasions services here so that that is the reason mr boyle became involved with the county social workers not because of some conspiracy there's no meeting of the minds be deprived of any constitutional rights there were hearings on the merits regarding whether or not she could regain custody of her children in particular there was a hearing in january of two thousand at that hearing in january of two thousand ms elwood was into was allowed to present evidence she was sworn she testified someone else in every office or they testified some court records from the juvenile court for that show exactly what happened and that this is what i'm referring to right now there was a seminar are excerpts of the record i think it's thirty one through thirty three view that it may even if you focus just on the pleadings here the elwood was not deprived of her constitutional rights she had hearings on the merits regarding her claims that she was entitled to regain evidence but the point is she wasn't deprived of every constitutional right to due process she had a hearing on the merits she would entitle to present whatever evidence she wanted to present she was entitled to present whatever argument she wanted to present about these reports of mr boyle being falsified or incorrect and she tried to do that and then she abandoned the proceedings so where is that where is the deprivation of anytime a witness came into court and testified and presented evidence and the other side claims well you falsify that testimony without evidence and they get to turn around and sue them in another proceeding like this now not allowed i'm not sure th that's more than a year so not continuing new information according to her but the injury the initial injury of not being allowed to regain custody took place in january of you know you don't think i once you're injured you're injured ok and there's no evidence that there's some new injury they're saying there's a continual act i don't think there's new injuries the injury happened if it happened at all in january root of the reunification plan your honor in my