MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
feeling so the judge created essentially by way of her own independent medical opinion a contradiction in the record simply did not exist furthermore the  webster's primary diagnosis was pain disorder that is flat out contradicted by the record and with all due respect the commissioner here  lie on primarily i am relying on his assessment of limitations what is wrong with a person is well i have a report here in front of me can you point to me in the report what it is so specific language in  primarily what i'm looking at is what he has a serious mental status examination and he notices that it's that led to these various diagnoses i really don't know ok i have read every word of it and i'm trying to figure out where in this is a straightforward diagnosis that says that she is so depressed that she cannot work or she is in such pain that she cannot work i don't find that but it may be underneath the heading of diagnostic possibilities correct it doesn't say this is the diagnosis he also has under diagnostic possibilities cocaine dependence and the pastoralists already got a lot of diagnostic diagnostic possibilities sure  health for psychologists or psychiatrists to say this is it unlike orthopedic surgery for example where you can look at an x ray and say well here's a fracture the area mental health isn't is clear cut is that i think the i think the psychologist is simply being fear when he says these are the various diagnostic possibilities ok then it's your question ok but i do think that it is was that there was no mental health treatment let me point out that in this one area the agency did it right that's the reason for a consultative examination and the regulations on that are for a four point one five one two one five one security and all of this evidence was considered by the a l j and in the record before him specifically the claim that testified that she had been depressed long before her back injury and during the time when she worked at a semi  position as a financial aid she said that her depression caused only a limitation or a stress level in working around people and that particular limitation was incorporated into the  process clause overrides any regulation that's what i'm interested in yes yes it does actually answer your question about the l j considering that opinion i think that the opinion of the non here hearing case may rely on written reports of people who've never seen the plaintiff or claim and never treated them in the other side wants them on the stand for cross examination can you imagine a civil rely upon that and i'm going to deny the request of the point of scale so that they appear and be cross examined can you imagine a civil judgment being sustained and on that basis i think you're right in that  are entitled to significant weight particularly when they're supported by other evidence in the record it's also something that in the social security rulings than in cases paralysis i believe decided in our brief united states supreme court
not entirely credible but not me not entirely credible is not the same as not to be believed let me ask you another question if i may there was evidence that these people who were smuggled that is not enough to meet that clear and convincing evidence and that the witnesses were self interested then you have to first i think that the truth of what they said later which is that somehow they only made the statements because they were threatened  coworkers with prosecution or with having the child removed something that does the immigration judge didn't believe those things and she made some very one way that these things didn't happen they weren't threatened they weren't told the paper would be prosecuted if they didn't give testimony against your client well two points one  evidence but he said i don't believe them and then we would look at the rest of the evidence in the case in light of the first set of statements which are in evidence from their people in the record we have the testimony of the agents we have the  thing that's they interpreted the officer statements as the rest incursion and obviously they said that they got the impression that their kids would be taken away if they were put into proceedings and our invasion officials said that in a situation like this there would be jeff usually no question and the two ladies and perhaps the man would be just to the second question which i think is probably in my view perhaps not of course the more important question as to whether or not the immigration judge properly determined based upon the entire context of what
seem to get resolved maybe not quite where she wanted them but they seem to get resolved after the mediation where their principal doesn't insist on a recommendation or sounds like one of my malicious prosecution cases where you you charge somebody and they win but that doesn't mean that you know that they have to sell her walk in the year leading up to it where they don't know whether they're going to get more constructive discharge kind there has to be evidence or to raise an issue of fact the summary judgment state chair there has to be evidence that her work conditions were so intolerable or would have been unbearable to a reasonable person so she's looking at having serious threats she's fortunate not to get to not be fired because she's got a who's right on her is going to try to get her fired and she always is going to try to get her fired but in terms of actual proof a trial that's complementary the twenty six wants because there are a lot of people who i mean we i don't know how many people we had twenty people or something who were involved in the school and involved in that education supposed to have her students in that you know th percentile to have you know she's got all these people are going to say she's doing an excellent job or did an excellent job of verses relatively trivial of mediation and there's no discipline pending at the time she was fired on she's a union protected employee there's no indication that she's about to meet it and i think i was there any evidence somebody contacted her to tell her to come back from the union or otherwise believe the situation was intolerable i mean that the only retirement dreams they offered her floral of this would have included you know a giant black mark on her record you know do not hire don't hire a substitute don't hire in get rid of her i mean she might be fair s professionally two different ones who came up with the diagnosis so to ational anxiety she could go back to the same situation they didn't even go back to work they
see that in this case with before lots of petitioners raise only the question of whether or not the immigration judge applied the correct legal standard well that this court is held in romero torres is within the  to the only issue regarding hardship that's presented by this case which was even before lance up this court has jurisdiction therefore this court has jurisdiction over both questions the questions of you say well you are going to have your this court does not have jurisdiction to review the actual discretionary finding this court does have jurisdiction to entertain the only question raised by petitioners which is whether or not the judge applied the correct withholding question that would dispose of it for asylum therefore we're out of the lines of problem you know it's a similar circumstance here where well the only issue that's really is the legal issue this court certainly has therefore that provides a similar circumstance  there and it's not expressed the way it was brought in your honor were questions put by the immigration judge to government counsel in the case asking what the whether the immigration off the asylum officers notice indicated that m to fully understand what's going on there is what the immigration did immediately before getting to that issue in the record the immigration judge produced an affidavit written in spanish and signed by mr corrino it was prepared with his attorney he signed it is true and when he was before the immigration judge he recognized it and signed it is true it was in that statement that he claimed to have been beaten and it was off that claim which was again not mentioned in his was not agree that that that issue is exhausted oh no your honor if you go the petitioners brief before the board there's no mention of that whatsoever and for that reason
wife or what one spouse this is when a healthy and young person is unable to have intercourse to have relations with his wife he does become desires but at the time of the actual act spite of having a relationship with her he has really has no feeling i know these are a little bit of a sensitive thing which i'm saying and i'm just a little deviant they're not going to eleven much on this but there's also one type of to have that do take place an
something like that between when he becomes a deliberate supervisor and when she was and though i don't think we know the exact amount it's undisputed that people were being paid more as great allowed and but then it becomes a factor later that apparently missed her or whatever complains about your client correct all right is there anything on the record that indicates that you know harris is trying to get her to complain about her or well now is there anything you don't have to worry about it they have maybe things would have been handled differently but they didn't know why didn't they know because miss naylor was not forthcoming this veil or was conducting an affair in violation of policy and then there's this employee coming forward and complaining about her mistake a lawyer is not  repeatedly calling this woman at home she's going over to visit her i mean she's basically digging her own grave she's causing this woman to complain more and i mean apparently she maybe this woman ms program was telling her oh i'm not complaining or whatever but as she admitted it deposition she later came to realize that this person was not an honest person and this program where she came to feel was lying and was somehow setting her up and now they're coming in or trying to rely on ms brigham's testimony to say that oh as a witness they didn't depose her and deposition they haven't offered a declaration from her all we have is miss taylor saying well you know i think based on witness program told me they were trying to get her to comply you know about me to retaliate against me just to just kind of sum it up the issue on the pay is this they are first goes to work there she realizes she's getting paid less than the men who are doing the same job she's doing she complains this is back in paid less then the men doing the same position she complains again they thinks that it's happening there's a disparity in pay between men and women their own conduct by fixing it demonstrate she's right but for some reason the third time she complains they don't fix it they deny it and they leave it the way it is there is a disparity in pay between females and males doing the same job at
a claim that could have been alleged with respect the conduct in the original complaints against the debtors that wrong you are i would strongly disagree with that because the complaint itself actually had allegations relating so certainly a place that had all the knowledge at that time so certainly that's something that you know there were already allegations in the complaint pertaining to that stock purchase transaction and certainly that claim to have knowledge certainly if you take the pepper decision neatly and neck so if there is a somewhat heightened standard for insiders who are inside absolutely but that has to be done in the framework of equitable subordinat prove that you have a high standard because it's an insider what's wrong with what is fundamentally wrong with that with the district with the well certainly and once again that this is my comparison with the equitable subordination was incurred through a transaction that was not done in good faith i think under equitable subordination there's got to be a showing of more of a primitive misconduct something that would arise to the level of fraud or to rust something intentional in that nature and we don't have an evidentiary record that shows that type of misconduct by march state of washington goodwill is like blue sky i mean it's a term that's an intangible and here you have coast in terrible trouble to claim that the good well is necessarily worth over three million dollars seems a bit much and that's what the this record once again at the time of the transaction there were two investigations pending one once again it was not really against cars that it involved another institution on it was an investigation by the state of oregon and that was r continuation of that business relationship there was no certainly known times by march is like tonight to hinder or or delay or or impede the bankruptcy of state or other the corporation with the duties and obligations of the board of directors with respect to the scrutiny of those transactions and i need it for this case well probably not your honor  it's actually is the four million dollar raft but we just objected to the last part of because we didn't want to chase the router around the neighborhood and try to get the money that we had other things that we have to deal with
take responsibility for this it's not in my briefs i thought deeply about it but i would submit now that hindsight the decision of this court really i'm asking is where is there and are the radar exception to the rule of data their original on the radar exception being more precise the court your honor is absolutely correct but i will say subjective mental defense there's no metal role in any fourth amendment case good faith make it use but the question is object objectively what was the seven circuits understanding of doctrine also require issued requires the officers to have started using those lawfully before the search because otherwise the inevitable discovery argument just an area you know all cases where there probable cause never leads to excluding abets and that's what your argument is because if you have probable cause you can get a warrant but that's not what the supreme court's health well i'm also arguing that had just arranged with some undercover agents to conduct a kilogram cocaine transaction at another location and said that he was going to go home and go someplace and get it and bring it back in a suitcase just it's up to them to decide about the timing and i don't think anybody here is going to criticize i mean of the rest do it on private property without risking a piece of card face on the street seized the truck and and seized the cocaine i given that and given that really the government couldn't anticipate that defense before coll
under which he could only be fired for cause and street glassware aware of this ongoing employment relationship as the trial manager nelson directly reported to the president randall and only informally informally to the board glass documents without a list i think it's a fairly stinger inference that you're not quantity that there you know that's one reading of the record your honor and we give you that however there was another reading of the record and now it is that there was attorneys and he refused to make any employees available for interview and light and in light of the obvious disconnect between mr ham street's expectations and where he encountered it it's not reasonable to find in the that mr him straight told him that plaintive quote was kind of the end there's a limit and it wasn't one hundred percent cooperation like ok i know you're here i know what you're here for but it was kind of an acronym chain of cooperating with glass he didn't say anything about  walling investments that went to the board was incredibly accurate might have plenty of stone testimony about how he felt when he came down and there's been some suggestion in the briefing that plaintiffs was somehow tarred with the bad actions of the threw them out and at that point i him street and west all had not even seen or encountered mr nelson so there's no reason to believe that that he would have somehow included plaintiffs in that action place where plaintiffs recounting of the events deviates substantially from from the information that mr han street can say i want to just talk a bit about the cases that there's nothing that's absolutely detailed in the fact that it indicates that the interfere and next case conveyed some incorrect information and that's different from here more over here glass had a contractual obligation i think that's gallery gossipy comments they want to pursue it any contractual obligation they weren't authorized by anybody and they certainly weren't part of it of any legal obligations and it seems to me in all these cases  the most logical way even if you could draw inferences but the first is take argument and actually you can draw inferences that got you potentially to some kind of evidence of wrongful means or wrongful motive the privilege analysis allows you to go beyond and impose common sense on on the situation and review all the facts and circumstances and it seems extremely important that glass was acting under this contract they didn't specify that they were to report only to the board and it did give them unfettered access to the books and they were acting on and so they had a duty to act and to the extent that they incidentally of the situations class was motivated by financial self interest he thinks that they wanted to come in and have a high hourly rate run the business and it's just this recognition that it's legitimate to have economic isn't here he just couldn't provide the documents there's no evidence that there was anything uncooperative and what glass got up here it was nelson being bootstrapped on to determination of randall there terminated on the same day for the same reason there
there is some discussion some creative differences some differences of opinion regarding whether or not she suffered and at first employment action we say that being passed over for promotion she worked there she was never given any warning look you need to get your act together otherwise you're going to be out of here she was never given any type of directed conflict with the exception of lit there are no methods if you would make the argument free of stuff that we deliberately did that might help your case ok you're out now did it are looking at this the seventh circuit there are no there are no facts in the record about similarly situated individuals being treated differently than plaintive there are no facts in the record about that in any way shape or form that point race played a decision played a part she was not allowed a vehicle even though her responsibility covered multiple b audience and she was told if she used her own car she would not be reimbursed them out she was not given a portable
realize it and you say yes and and so just relax right now because i can feel your anxiety just relax and go in present
the first matter on the argument yonder is united states when both contracting parties it would appear not had anything that same interpretation however i think it's important to realize the unique position of the government is in this regards this case usually i believe the government would be  any other employees in the business in fact every gauge of criminal activity and his supervisor role in that as a businessman is improper to live a life of justice action is supervision of mr allen curtis we believe that the record agreement have in effect on the fifth amendment claim and assuming that the plea agreement had no effect on the fifth amendment claim then should the court have done something to remove the continuance you know first first and foremost that the testimony would necessarily have the relevance or helpful because there was no showing as to what this witness would a
have you here today at our hands around the pond to vent it sponsored by the stand up campaign which is a new initiative that came about this past spring way and we saw that there was the need of the table that's next to the proclamation ok so that's wonderful the name of our organization is the stands up campaign because we're we're trying to encourage people not to be bystanders to actually take a stand before we start next mail of further i'm going to need from someone in the audience i'm going to need a example of a person or group that you might see believe by somebody every raise your hands if you have one  so good to see you today i am so happy that you came and sat down and introduced yourself of course i'm glad you were in that seat at this very specific time that you are here absolutely there is no way we ever could have planned bumping into each other you so yes those people don't know each other but rocky pretended to know who miranda was in order to stop the bullying situation by being an upstanding which is what the message is today is to sometimes you might need to be an improviser in your life think like a fake name a fake story you can have and if you see someone being harassed or boy pretend if you don't know that if you do good works if you don't know them pretend to make a name have something can i have a another saying russia for another type of person you might see going somewhere yes every eight am but when on the train when the same commute i cannot believe even coming to my salon that is actually something that happens every day we bump into each other but every day i will say that i gave them a little bit of a little bit my idea of having to do this and that they just took the ball with it so they're pretty they're pretty good ok we are really getting pretty close now to the circling of the pond and i wanted to let folks is a member of a new group who don't want the belmont muslim friends and he when he learns about this event he's a musician and he offered to sing the national anthem for our group as we prepare to head out and we could not have been were touched were so thrilled so thrilled that all of you were here today this is the first event of many events to really build bridges to bring our community together and let it be said some day have been reading the new summer recently you know that a few weeks ago unfortunately we did receive some hate mail and the result of that hate mail was the most generous outpouring of love that i have ever seen s o just last week we had i think close to one thousand people come to the mosque on a sunday in a rally in support of racial justice and so i guess i would say  that belmont already gets so
please the court in the morning