MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
view that as close to a concession that the story is not internally consistent and that the service is wrong on the country report now could you respond not to the inconsistency rather to lead contention that the country report is inconsistent with the story that was told i think it's completely disregarding the country reports that are issued from china obviously religious persecution is rampant in china it's that church underground churches were allowed to exist that communist members were allowed to practice religion i think all of those are are speculative and on the point of the country where i think there are more specific  specific evidence of the fact that in fact underground churches are persecuted it is something that goes on regularly in china and it is something that this court has and numerous occasions found to be true four lines up from the bottom they are to do for your honor i cannot say for certain that i know where they are but i think that's a rather were yeah i had where they were yes your honor i don't know for certain that they came from one of those provinces but i think what that  unofficial religious groups and that is underground churches official groups are the ones that are sponsored by the communist party the communist churches that are sponsored by the communist party he was not a member of one of those churches that he did attend for a couple of know because i was one former soviet union so i always i was born in former soviet union so i don't know how as it was like an examination to me well i respectfully disagree i think my leg now you may have a notion of an of an examination that must have to be done in the doctor's office but i think we're now just quibbling over whether she looked at him or whether she exam after just a minute is the time is running i'd like to make a signal that we don't want to read you a passage from error one sixty nine and then i'd like to make a sort of lawyer ing suggestion we've now had you here i think this is the third case this week your country answers lawyer in you're trying to do your best today as you said yesterday as a kind of a formula there's nothing to suggest that arthur when in fact repeatedly in the record there is a lot to suggest that storm style is true  quite familiar with the case you're quite familiar with the record but slow down be careful with your statements and everything you say be consistent with the record because you're going too fast you're saying in nothing to suggest  y or z and repealed lee over the last several days there's plenty suggest exactly what you're denying i'd like to add to that as an old teacher of professional responsibility what was one main things and i would like to see the form of your argument seems to me perfectly appropriate and i'm only after you on the suggestion just as a matter of technique he'll be more persuasive if you're if you're if you're more precise  located as far as the passports are concerned the the the witnesses were specific about how they got money how they gave the money to people how those
found that my client was credible he also found that mr wilson was not lying in his testimony and if you look at the evidence that if you look at the testimony of mr goldberg that it's mostly habit evidence he doesn't have any independent recollection whatsoever of what kind of parole eligibility advice he gave mr wilson and habit evidence just circumstantial evidence and the court does find that my client was laboring under the time to speech in the holding tank and after he was really very reluctant to go forward they argued and then five minutes later according to mr wilson he's up in front of the court feeling guilty changing then for her roommate when she after she went home the roommates are suspecting that something was wrong and took her to the california hospital medical hospital and he brought a urine sample along and nobody really seems to know what happened to that had almost double your time already hearing was held on that the district court found and dispositive credibility determination that i'm quoting the titian has failed to persuade this court that he received this advice from council officials council testified he never told petitioner the district court was faced with making that determination here he looked at the evidence before he weighed the testimony he said i find counsel's credible that he never gave this advice to wilson and furthermore i find that so but it's certainly possible for a lawyer to provide a little note was an aide to memory and say oh you know when i looked at the military it was back to a case but it was also reasonable here for the district court to believe him w says i may not remember giving that specific advice but i am positive i never said something like that that outlandish statement that i would never make and for this record to find out credible and when that factual allegations fail then it's hard to understand where you could also find the person who says he did tell it to me credible if i'm not saying he did say he was credible but i'm saying it's difficult it's not impossible for  that's correct but i think there's a difference between credibility and coming went to court and deliberately affirmatively deceiving the court i discoursed remind us why patricia may be under that mr conception didn't come from
just offering the fact that if the court wants additional citation to the record because i didn't make a specific citations in my four pages of facts that i can provide the court i've given counsel a copy of the excerpt of the record the court had ordered and cited for the record which i'm prepared to do and you will have to look at
happened simultaneously with the a the closing argument he made one line mention his coke and that's that indicated the coke that shows he was transporting coke is one line out of a thirty two page argument so obviously it certainly was not a signific you contend that it did it was obvious to the trial court that an alibi instruction had to be given despite the fact that none was requested and in the light of evidence that he was in texas at the time government had rested we didn't have to put on any evidence we could have stood up argued a case and suggested there would be reasonable doubt but we wanted to do was to put on a case so that there would no longer be any doubt in your mind that it was not and then he goes on and spends two pages talking about the alibi case yes and harder so obviously the best party down below was relying on her testimony to establish an alibi and i agree very strong evidence of never actually arrested with the cocaine defendant really was never actually seen by any law enforcement officer so the government had a circumstantial case against him and in this case and why the it was a lot of evidence against the defendant there was no actual point in evidence defendant could have argued that he thought he was just innocently transporting scrap metal or anything of gold or whatever it was he was doing legitimately as a cover story as the other showed as a cover story for his transportation his cocaine she told me her story i didn't believe her and i wasn't about what someone i was going to perjure herself so i didn't want to do it why he changed his mind whether it was pressure from the defendant or whatever reason he ended up putting on his heart or but it's clear from that second day of trial  court that he had previously investigated this harsh testimony and made a tactical decision not to call her even though he did in fact call her later so therefore when you take the district court's knowledge of impression of the evidence and when you combine it with the government's overwhelming evidence that defendant was not only in texas but he in florida a few days before in december where his handwriting had matched then gone and picked up the medal of scrap metal
he said that and you can comment on it he says misplaying however does not argue for a distribution of proceeds after he recognizes an incomplete i thought was no agreement as to how the proceeds would be distributed he says there was the bodies of both individuals the couple that has to wait had to be flown to the philippines there were funeral related expenses and the weight various other expenses that related to recognizes the power of attorney and he specifically says i do not see an agreement on how this should be distributed ram and take a whack at it anyway and it looks like what he did is exactly what you just said he looked at the receipts paid by  use and said well because she was told she could collect and distribute it is used to distribute something and she has a like adam up and he says now there's a balance and i don't know what to do with that so if there's an agreement to agree or that there was an agreement unspecified and the judge found a certain thing for fayed refresh my memory how much money was left over that was distributed you know that the that was being contested there is possibly now we have the balance of the receipt happy we have the balance of the money issue and that action as i understand the balance of the action which would have been one hundred seventy five or whatever it was then removed into the bankruptcy because of that the vice file right out of it yes getting the insurance proceeds paid his contract was for one third and that has been invoiced and that has been approved and there is nothing hostile that that is a contract that is a very standard procedure but you have to go airline tickets that was just spent here after talking about expenses so i'm saying if you look at a legitimate expenses to vary the folks that were killed and you're talking about rocks me thirty thousand dollars think mr watkins sixty thousand dollars just kind of makes everything impossible because you can't get around the sixty thousand dollars and that kind of messes up your settlement or you can see the expenses and you can see the fact that you could get groceries but then
this is a due process immigration  of fraud if you haven't rather of theft if you haven't stolen something from somebody else that's a good question your when you answer when you take a look at the statute it would appear that under what law it is possible to plead no contest to theft in the third degree when you intentionally obtain something from another by other means part of the statute says by reception or by false token dispute i mean i just don't understand how fest cannot be  a strict interpretation of the why are five statute is there a case that says this i have not been able to find a case on the let me ask it this way i understand that we're talking about categorical but i want to use what apparently happen here as an example as to whether or not and cooed within the statute if somebody bounces a chair is that theft within the meaning of the statu and any case law that says then why no there is no case law and why on this point because it can't be well we don't have the if you don't have any criminal mens rea and you write a check thinking you have enough money in your account or not knowing that's not a crime anywhere refuse payment of service and perhaps that justification for refusing to even for service may or may not stay before a jury or a judge and so a defendant nature used to plead to a lower charge whether sefton the third decree requires this evaluation that test the stuff that there's this necessarily you know the usually jury instructions to go along with charges like this if you looked at the jury instructions that would accompany a charge like this there were no jury instructions in this i know but if you look at them i mean you usually exist and they almost always require a criminal mens rea and we have not looked at the jury instructions in this case gain here and exercise discretion that point after what the hijab has done is cloaked her decision with this protection that since it's a discretionary determination she could apply any type of standard and say my decision should st and nationality we have jurisdiction to examine that given that we have no jurisdiction to examine discretion when where and other i don't think that's anything yes i think the court should what one year mathematically one year is one year longer although just barely severe fictional the criminal jurisdiction of our ally and he discretionary review bar would apply as well c four cases involving lawful permanent residents who are applying for cancellation removal in the exercise of discretion how is that statement consistent use to tell us to try to remember exactly how to tell us tell modif
everybody knows that you know that there's some underlying that identify a different credit card from the original creditor if there is a different creditor in this case there is no different creditor this debt was not sold to somebody else but it leads me to need to  any other questions
concede that there may be circumstances in which the result would be different but there are circumstances that are not present here such as for example if that if had it been held to answer on the original charge and more continuous would have made a difference if this had been kept in custody if he had been apprehended the first time and and had been kept in custody until  to get his testimony i can't speak to that particular question thank you some prejudice stands it depend on the fact that they could have ground put charges whereabouts were on and the government could have continued its investigation at that point very well could have reasonably concluded that it would have been a corner use of government resources to have done so instead the government
conjecture speculation rather on substantial evidence in the record i think if you look at the record as well as your honor pointed out even her own lawyer said that she didn't have any recollection as to specific dates yet when she came  honor and i do believe that her attorney mentioned that as well but in fact her as the immigration judge noted in in questioning about that specific area that the attorney was not really an expert witness to testify as to that but even to show that they had any kind of relationship or that they lived together in the same home interestingly enough also in her declaration it just never indicated that she was baptized in one nine hundred eighty so we have not  was more than fair to the kitchener in regards to the bible stories is it true that if the immigration judge wanted to know whether she knew other bible stories other than the basic adam and eve story and where jesus was that's exactly what she has to fight in even in understanding that in the church immigration judge pointed that out in his immigration decision that i'm not holding it against her that she didn't have a bible i understand that but even questioning  does the immigration doesn't need to make a finding that because i found the because he found the petitioner incredible on account of on the religious claim that that lack of credibility also tran the court in two thousand scored in a two thousand and three decision and forgive me for mistaking the name i do not always going to produce nations of these names but in miami which is a two thousand and three decision by th was inconsistent with that we didn't do when i say we didn't the government ever challenge the medical record in that it was never for answer because it's so we cannot and i will not at this point indicate whether there was anything  what what is the credibility attack until you can say at this juncture she didn't have a right why is a religious test important in this case if you have if the key question is the motive of the persecutors in other words let's say that she doesn't know anything that religion she has been going to these meetings for all these years and really doesn't have any genuine faith and wasn't paying attention but the fact that her testimony was the police arrested her on the belief that she was a christian so isn't that the key question when there's credible about the arrest and the jailing in the beating and but i think you have to take it you cannot isolate that without looking at me tire testimony and here you have to you have to believe that there was a beating and you've got a woman you know who and i and i understand there's a assume that that we have a case where there is a we know that there was a beating that occurred police arrest on account of their belief that she was a christian then the fact of her inconsistencies or lack of knowledge about faith in that instance would not matter what
forcing regulations that are not properly understood now there are some very serious problems with doing that first of all the court will find on this record that the trial court never found and there is no evidence to question is whether that posting is more in the way of an administrative requirement and that there's not really a private claim for failure there may be a rally against the secretary requirements for any agency to to exercise criminal powers this court has taken a very narrow view particularly in cases involving political to argue because that would then be the functional equivalent of posting and i might argue the technicalities at that point but the if it in terms of representing my client but what we're dealing with in this situation were nothing even close to that in terms of what regulation the court could i believe quite reasonably find that that was sufficient but we are two steps removed from that we now have noncompliance with the plain language of the statute and we have the fact record found actual notice now did she use the actual words actual notice it could be that those words are absent that the district court reasonably interpreted that to be a finding of actual notice i think if anyone were to read those pages of  the fourth circuit from the sixty's this was the case where what must have been a very the fittest employee had parked over the parking space line and there was no posted notice was in the courthouse notice you know you see parking space lines obviously supposed to park within and here the officers officer riley's instruction to father but still was the same he said kane dressed with a full uniform of the federal protective were senior management officials of the fire service so the fact that a fire service ranger came and said this there is close keep out didn't matter that those protesters that actual notice it was no valid regulation in place that was the problem in the jones or here there's a valid regulation in place of course it prohibits chaining oneself to the door which is what politics all did and in this case working with a valid regulation the officer gave father but still actual notice talking about the conduct of what he was convicted for that took place after the notice if we had the case that you suggest where the spray painting first notice later i think that law should support a conviction that case but we i think under the facts of that case the government would probably have to show that the person received notice that the property was in fact that of property or i think that's clear in the fact that it's dead and courthouse for example like in and judge thomas your question shows why this really turns on the facts in this building here which is just a standard office building and it would probably take more from the office or this is a federal building this is a building where federal activities take  argument think both sides with their argument the case to target will be submitted and will proceed to the next case on the calendar which is
it's important to note the outset that the statute with which mr hamilton was charged criminalize threats against public officials and their immediate family members in the statute defines immediate family members as for houses or children and authorize he testified at trial that he has no spouse and has no children so the only valid question is did he have a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself and i would that the answer that question is no and i'd like to go through some of the facts of the case that outline to begin at the time that mr mr hamilton began making these statements about r c he was already know there was no evidence  weapons never made any claims to have a weapon he also never made any claims to have personal information about surprise you allow him to actually follow through he didn't say he knew where he lived he knew what kind of car and drove he knew of places he frequented in his only video recording of that incident it's clear that people were not taking him seriously they were laughing joking about it and they're making fun of him on top of that mr hamilton preface to his the statements  so based on this image that the state has not proven beyond reasonable apprehension element beyond a reasonable doubt but boy that brings in my second point which is that evidence came in a trial which t from the jury that he was in fact a murderer because that wasn't true that he feared for himself he feared he feared for his family and that he believed that the defense could get this information through the freedom of information point they were told what the statute said and they were told that family meant wife and children so they knew that when they were arguing this and contrary to  and he also the fact that he said he was a respectful person is not the same as same he's peaceful or nonviolent and as i said before if he had testified i'm not my own person i've never done anything violent in my life reasonable and his testimony is insufficient to ever establish that he was genuinely afraid when he says it was well i took that to mean he was misnamed me from a distance it doesn't mean he took it seriously and that's the fundamental  t question here did he take it seriously it was a very reasonable apprehension that some harm was going to befall him and based on all the circumstances i would suggest no he was handcuffed he was going to be in custody
to submit to a independent examination your honor came free only submitted a bill of twenty five thousand dollars there's no evidence that that was exorbitant in any way this was a catastrophic loss to the downstairs the forty some odd thousand dollars that allstate is referring to is the temporary restoration and mitigation bill plus the estimated cost of repair that was submitted by a company called bay craft construction page by page with campaign representative with respect to the downstairs carpet there was actually a piece of carpet that they had it was about five inches by two inches it wasn't the ten by ten that i tell apparently required to provide investment what the carpet was worth but it was a piece of carpet and would have given some good idea the reverse actually only asked for eight hundred dollars for the replacement of carpet which was a dollar seventy cents per square  rivera made a telephone call to sharon sullivan on the same day that she sent that letter she never returned that telephone call even though she was required to do so promptly by the insurance regulations mr romero also sent a letter were unable to comply with two of those requests which all state has said has said testified under oath were separate in equally important reasons for denying the claim that was the failure to provide the carpets documentation and the failure to proper vide the prior fire claim documentation there's no dispute in the record that the rivera's told all state after looking for that documentation that they did not have it allstate knew that they did not have it yet they were demanding that as a condition to pay the claim what seems nine months and then different letters had gone out and indeed throughout the entire litigation there were there is remains completely silent about whether this group or lots of its kind are not and about the recorded statement and they didn't