MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
orbiter than there was a warrant in this woman's driver's license was revoked even though her might have been mistaken but then she said she's under the burden of a bond during passed toward the speedy trial demand on the date that the defendant found a motion to dismiss the issue here is the three hundred twenty eight gap period between the nominee of the original case on august seventeenth two thousand and seven and the da defendant appearing pro same court which is july tenth two thousand and eight i would argue that not only on on august seventeenth two thousand and seven did not hold a speedy trial demand first because of the supreme court the supreme court is holding has more force in effect then that will do things from other courts in this state and there's no reason to look outside the plain language of what the supreme court said environment shocks you fifty seven days where there is an outstanding warrants on this case there was no name and a different it was not free to go as you please and could have been arrested any time due to this arrest warrant further even after of the morn's in the first case was but again still grossly still not knowing what exactly to ask for it and the reason why the summarized part of her motion was she was asking for some here on not knowing what was going on not coming with a lawyer the second time found out would she do to him right or if there isn't a certain ones rights it may not clear as to what was going on by the way she wrote her motion but she was clearly saying something's going on here i didn't have a trial i just found out
also have been reduced into the record the notes that were refreshing her memory as she was testifying i'm just now reading from the notes round learned from her task to my although half my roughly consistent with these notes on one page or two seventy one of the administrative record visible force one arresting question mark yes if you need to use excessive force question mark yes because dot dot dot hardly ever alone but if i didn't use force they would force me that i clearly understood what was mine and anybody reading this brief and reading the underlying transcript understands exactly what the complaint is or what what what what the what the appeals of now ok with me it would mean you would have written a as to the other testimony are we required to take it as true have to be actively personally involved in persecution to be subject to the persecuted bar even if the agency which you for which you were those persecute focus on the particular eyes conduct of the individual and show that they were personally involved in the persecution and finally let me just say with respect to the credibility issue that you've heard the government say that there was no adverse credibility finding with
present with all due respect the commission doesn't decide it's to stand or review is whether or not someone sorry is being punished this is a waste of parental issue if you will know is whether or not the commission's decision is against the man in this way if you have
yes i think there's a couple points that need to be said on that and it's interesting to know that didn't make oh about thirty seconds out there saying can i have a lawyer present can i can i say i can't  effect because here it is to me go asking i can't ask for a lawyer and the sergeant is using that against him and is saying basically implicate insinuating that he is guilty because he's requesting at that point that the officer says well you just said when you had your lawyer present it's understandable why an individual would think that you'd be suggesting that by invoking counsel he is guilty it's and united states supreme court decision makes clear that the do not let a post in vocation is normal in this case even if one were to ignore or controlling supreme court president th was guilty somehow this decision was not sound strategy that and before you get into that i want to back up and say the state focus is largely on revealed he tells her to he tells her to turn it over they both have money they both have a certain amount of money and it shows that he had no need to get there but it does to my mind problems she testifies that she has a cognitive disability for which she's getting social security benefits for she then testifies that cry out that the offender had a quote silver caliber handgun only to clarify that she doesn't even know what that phrase men and was told that by her husband also she indicates that she met jimmy go three telegraph how prejudicial the impact of the state and some are being requested not only to see the videotape statements but to receive or be ripped police reports detailing the oral statements which came in readily understand why he didn't reinvolved as far as just a touch on hunter i think winter actually supports our position because again it is a very similar question the only two words that are really purpose was really just to get a statement from him he would expect that when he said i didn't do this that he wouldn't be arrested but he was dressed and regardless of what he said in that videotape interrogation again the state as far as strategy focus is on were because they requested it multiple times they requested not only the videotaped statement but again the reporters this is not an overwhelming evidence
indicated on page twenty nine and one twenty nine talking about the excerpts of record i indicated to the court that i think arguments correctly addressed these points about what is involved in a protected tweet later the government made his closing that's what they're saying in the papers on page one thirty four and on page one thirty seven i just i don't want to make my argument as to protect the purpose is to protect officers against price attacked and and so on so i can understand the argument whatsoever double negative and i'm sorry i'm not saying that even if he had a right to be where they were but it's a protective suite was correct that they had no business picking up that you're not saying for example it was not actually in plain view or anything like that i'm not bag but he doesn't have a privacy interest telling the police that they can't look inside the car where they're standing and so you can have any case like this or any case in which somebody has been found twelfth my opening brief i have the government picture it's actually the government's exhibit of the apartment and what i had wanted to emphasize on that is the location of their own things including the bag the fact that there's no back door detective to the scene and now all the cops are there in their uniforms and their guns are drawn and seven people walk out of this tiny game room this apartment which i'm sure when you hear who knows wh anyone in that game room at that time according to the government's own confessions so they've much pretty much standard interesting situation they didn't know for sure whether might not that's true it takes care of the search large you know you obviously can't find a person hiding in a handbag and it's i wanted to point out that apartment is tiny the cops went in and they saw the bathroom was that did it's not that little tiny game room with folding tables was empty they walk only one furniture which is what path did and then he came back again and then and then he comes back to see if there's something behind itself you look at the diagram there's no way a person can be behind that salsa that was a rule to go back
we get the time but i'm going to give you right away bothers me that here we are dealing with an ongoing
use investment in this case we feel that the law is clear where taxpayer from the outstanding had no right to cash or property of not of like kind he did not cash out but ok when he started we had the taxpayer with a piece of property we had time with a piece of property and he had a buyer over here that wanted to get the property owned by the taxpayer at the end of the transaction using the intermediary the taxpayer had no property the related party had actually been the taxpayer had a piece of property that used to belong to the related party and the related party wine and that standard and there's no guidelines as to apply if you're saying that the qualified intermediaries should not have been used and that alone is the factor which could you would look pretty goofy look pretty awkward so by putting in the qualified intermediary here it seems to me that all you're talking about is whether or not the related party exception comes in i mean i don't know but that's the confusing part to me if your argument ok the way we look at the transaction you don't really focus on the use of the related party because generally speaking in all of these trends i mean you don't look at the use of the qualify in the media because generally speaking all of these transactions are he's going to be that type of qualified intermediary use for other purposes other th transit but then again if you're staying the task or should look at the entire transaction then i position the entire transaction is one way or from the outset true you did not have any right to cash it was a continuing investment and therefore you should look at it from truly perspective the transaction as a whole  mean i'm assuming you related party economics you know what if it was not a related party yeah it would be a classic ten thirty one swap which is done every day and again if used is where the money ends up you've mentioned the i and the tax court did look at well ok what happened to times the situation yeah they had it and i well so the fact that they had to gain that was postponed but they also had a loss on one of the properties that was not permitted under a different
it's not a dying thing these days it's not something where it's guaranteed specific trauma as in g q or to the diabetics in that case that would be my difference of opinion between those cases ok so what vessels also become more prominent and they're likely to produce yes and that this can happen any time any time now if you are working in there or in the you are doing something which is that is that components of all if it happens at work well what do we have here a time frame where we show up to work do a day's work and then wall
counsel didn't understand that he couldn't challenge evidence council just remarked that the state kind of took a blanket edition arguing that the that this is an appeal is not the proper forum for this particular discussion these particular ineffective assistance senate have an option to go that route states ms this is one of those cases this is a prototype case for the the proposition that cases with inadequate and incomplete records on regarding  ineffective assistance issues should not be handled on direct appeal to the states and that's the this record on appeal right now is inadequate and incomplete for the discussion of whether counsel is in effect for we don't know why we don't know why we don't know if there was how much cocaine we don't know if the state knew we don't know again the fact that we don't know the answer to these questions highlights the inadequacy of this record but i  have we would applicants we would have to speculate we could just ask the defense counsel because he would he or she would have gotten on the stand during an evidentiary hearing isn't that the way instead of guessing the speculating might be in asking hypotheticals or what the strategy would be finest time and and put up a facade when he knew that there was nothing there that doesn't make any sense and the fact that he's filed some post trial motions argument chain of custody and all this other stuff he literally had no choice at that point he may have had nothing to stand he may have known like this the end on those motions but he just filed them because although i realize i screwed up let me just filed this motion but again i'm just spit balling because that's the record we have all we can do is stick ball we don't really know we don't know what he was thinking we don't this question is whether or not to s on the record before you we don't need to hear you know if this isn't his where or in the fall of a conversation between the defendant in defense counsel you know this isn't a question of whether or than was charged with panel after the lab results came back out i do know that was in the the post trial motions but i'm not sure what the record
incurred an injury and then saying based on his having been removed from the workforce which is the operative time at which he should've known that he had an injury therefore is playing his part so i don't know what to do with that because i can't cite this to this court decide what that case was but let me go to ask her i asked her has nothing to do with anything like what happened in this case i asked her as i recall had some people claim me about the  personal injury  for personal injury that's absolutely correct we're not claiming personal it's purely a person from our true characterize these things anyway that person chooses to do so and people who are on one side how do you justify that result well i think he can he can obviously do the people that because the fire but not under rico why why because i think rico is very limited by the supreme court hired him to run the show when the door is open he runs to shelf to make sure the tables are set to make sure the chips are working and he runs the show he doesn't hire those people he runs the show no restructuring i don't think that changes the that works for him on the table i don't clinic there it's there just gerstein the people from coming to the clinic they're discouraging the doctors from doing their work there was an allegation that they tried to induce the clinic administrator to quit her job assume i mean there's some language or some of the cases that indicate that the people associated with a business for rico purposes like the restaurant that gets government postulated might have their own plans if they're employe there it seems to me that there's one step removed when the injury doesn't relate to that business so let's change his example a little bit and say that one of the one of has nothing to do with his interaction with the police on that occasion so he can't bootstrap himself from his employer's business as he could perhaps and torching the restaurant example an encounter on the street i haven't thought that through but you'd also have the problem i mentioned if mr big just so for example one step back and the owner of the restaurant is on the way to
research the commission the arbitrator found that dr van delivering did not handle an adequate understanding of the claimants actual job activities because he merely indicated in this letter in support of his seem to be creating the basis for all their expert opinion which is not being challenged i mean by posing there and if that's the case why
i just don't i just think that the existing record is co i'm still not sure why that matters in fact if you were to simply file it protective petition or just a one page to titian for instance what does that matter because it dixon contains a safety valve there is says court yes i don't see why if they file a one page petition that says i challenge is that enough and if so why if there's nothing really they are what sticks and says there has to be some evidence to support a good  it in the city courts and particularly the ones or he will have exhausted his claim if he then fails to get relief fine he's able to come to the federal court and he's able to present his claim in the federal court but the whatsoever from him doing so that's what makes the difference and so dixon doesn't really out of rhymes that requirement if simply places implicitly a bird in the palm so file something in the state court and in the state courts and that will give the office claims that would have been enough to his office claims and then he will be able to
but then what happen don't even pay to get  master the scorpion white infidels plan to enter the sacred valley the day after tomorrow it will give the signal to attack but i'm in a few will be reluctant to right behind you ok blocked the road in the canyon they will go up the mountainside and bury them under a landslide watch them only the volcano would speak to corruption has always been a signal from end to assemble but the volcano
has to be you know a lot of money you may not get into how much money anything is even a case where the mayor was good don't mean his small mayor salary back to church and so it's not actually making money but they say well what you do with money is your choice any think that the the judge erred because i mean that's seems to be what she is relying on trial for saying that it was a business related language believe that the term business people's business pursuits country mutual drafted policy if they wanted business to mean same thing as business pursued it with policy if there's an ambiguity in the policy it's construed against country neutral and not against
how about that so i approach that is purely as a legal argument i didn't understand his argument about the st prong of strickland to challenge the factual findings that he said about whether the trial judge only a recommendation rather than a guarantee that he would do is i'm at a why is so that was my understanding and how mr framed it that way i can go from there i didn't hear professor offer any may have then i don't think it is i don't know that it would be a material aspect if you were looking sort of better breech due process analysis which wouldn't be the question here the question is whether  affirmative miss advice is an exception to that that may be true in the th circuit but the supreme court has twice had the opportunity to decide that issue once the law guard which untried as it said the supreme court only and then he would be eligible after serving a rd of his sentence but that was wrong because he had a felony conviction so in fact he had a sort of half of his sense of affirmative miss advice about a pretty important aspect is a collateral consequence to a criminal conviction and and so this court has already sent that and the law is or at least it's settled in the u s supreme court as to whether any collateral consequences can ever be the stuff of an ineffective assistance  at it was only a judicial recommendation that he be placed there at least then he would have the chance to do it so it's a different choice altogether also in his deposition when he did make some statements that he would important thing and would have received that he would have raised exposure to thirty more months which would have been a mandatory sentence had he been convicted of st degree kidnapping as ridgeley charge you would have not gotten away  e federal courts would have the authority just to send it back with instructions without having without introducing release because releases moot at this point would be to say that the state can and can retry him or or give another misrepresentation and clear supreme court case law almost there jerking cords may in fact interpret supreme court case law
i need three more lenses to complete the solar atom smasher and that is accomplished i'll be able to create unlimited wealth and have a weapon which will make me in honor of getting there many lenses should be easy now the black bastards out of the way but isn't dead but it was in that plane i can even escaped i don't know but i overheard that he talked to him this morning he said he was rescued by a captain and you must attend to him that way and this what are we going to do destroy the remaining lenses and deprive the world of the most revolutionary device in history i can never agree to that i'm sorry to be so late but i believe i made an important discovery the sign of the scorpion where did you get it at carlisle i was going to study in the hope of finding a clue and found this on the floor case of one of us going to a shop to investigate only put him on his guard but i could go no one would suspect him and that's fine with me i'll go right now i want to go down town mr malcolm if you don't
room at that time they indicated to him well the way we work is you want to buy wrong you buy the pair in advance in full and you don't get a refund this is a sale however in addition to selling your room we can arrange your transportation from denver of to our resort resorts at nine thousand feet above sea level he's agreed to do that and they arrange his transportation as a shuttle service what we are serving is that the difference between this and holding a reservation for you does not create a transaction that does not create jurisdiction in the location where the caller's calling from to do so otherwise would mean that you could call from anywhere you want and create your station within your residential was the payment being made in fall to the conduct in providing the travel agent services which we argue this tortious and because that's where we are argued to the court they should have provided the warning this is different from the average reservations case because those are all premises liability cases every single one of the cases relied upon by a fairly and a district court involves something wrong at the location where the person when they came from hawaii and they go st michigan and they go to the poor that's not part of the clean or they trip and fall down the stairs at the hotel there of the duty to warn the duty to make the place safe you know rises in that home jurisdiction where the  as we're going to give you some information you may want to just check with your doctor before you make that special why do you need to why anybody coming from sea level would have the same elevation change with the correct that's correct but i think if it was because you traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice and either way you slice it if you look at this for me specific jurisdiction analysis there is no specific jurisdiction i provided the case law and the  and in colorado now perhaps an argument could be made that jurisdiction would be proper in washington d c if there was a breach of the conference agreement but that's not an issue here are the issue here is  room accommodations than transportation and offer payment for both or did he just ask for a room accommodation and then he was contacted and offered transportation actually the resort you do it gradually is that right i do not know the merits of this particular sickness and i could not ignore the mechanics or as well as the little transportation years is it fair to say that the transportation in the context of what happened to this man is more significant than the fact that he was there if once he's there you know it's no preventive measures that he can take or other at least this record have a substantial interest in this rather they have the right to bring a claim against any third party who causes harm for which they came benefits they paid over fifty five thousand dollars in benefits in this case and moved intervening with the courts to fortunate