MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
on on the lawsuit they brought under the common law of new hampshire and two state statutes but not a federal case and that's why the frost case and the status of the case from the federal new hampshire law itself require that if you're going to appoint an investigator it not be someone who has a conflict of interests at all i don't know
also how much would be feared to give back to the victims of this balancing that when he actually reduced the amount of it too so i was wondering if you're are you suggesting we should just ignore his findings that he needs down time and that we really need to look at the original and position as well i think that in terms of what we're trying to do now is figure out first time is one of the same set i think we have to factor in and decide which act apply and the fact that when it came fact the second time the findings were quite simply in adequate on and on your birthday protection  impose and any any specifically set as directed by the probation office for a period of five years i'm going to the ones terms and under the schedule but why would a particularly sensible schedule because it doesn't make sense to me how she could have possibly under that schedule have paid one hundred thousand dollars in five years  say i'm imposing this is a special condition of probation and then all the other language you know the probation officer to find out what credit she has she's not to get credit he she spoke to tell me all of her finances with the probation officer has  feeling that order has passed as far as a criminal period of time as this court has not yet reached the question of when
cross someplace where there isn't an immigration officer get a booth maybe i can get through well one of the english equities comparable are granting the relief in your requests well one of the major issues here other they are they are supposed to ask questions and also allow and committed an opportunity to withdraw application for admission as well as they have authority to her old people into the right she came into her illegally the first time in ninety one and we don't know how many times she crossed between ninety one and when she got caught with a false identification at the port of entry but we'll give her the benefit of the doubt was told that the second illegal she admits that she did it with a false identification and then she's deported and she tries to sneak back again the next day so how many times and we're going to be conducting hearings to determine that she really can't stay here she has to go back to mexico well first and foremost when the second time she did not enter the united states she did not actually enter the united states she was at the border and she was denied admission no the law there's a way she could have prevented her predicament from being as bad as it turned out to be i don't understand why this isn't just like all the other cases where there's immigration or criminal or civil where if somebody had only had really good legal advice they could have prevented their predicament from being from as bad as it turned out to be you know that's it's a different it's a different situation when you have procedures that the border patrol officers are supposed to be following what if she told the truth the second time around what if she said you know my name is antonio chavez mera and so really all comes down to jurisdiction stripping exactly well it does to some extent but also here we have no other avenue for her to file is that also whether the person has permission to return now the real i d act did take some of these issue of having legal and constitutional claims and the matter court has decided on that the liberty of the order and since there is no place to file for motion to reopen or or challenge that expedited removal order where you do you do that and the concern here is that if the border patrol officers summarily and perhaps do not follow that procedures correctly that there is absolutely no review complications that it didn't mean exclusion and more you were here or you were excluded right but here we also have now have an expanded across the southern border fifty miles into the united states due process start at my especially one that's when you have safeguards that that are supposed to be following well it's not like we have a law that says you can come within the first fifty miles of the united states and it's no problem all but there's no right to illegally cross the border at all that's true but that people who do apply for admission do have rights and there are procedures that need to be followed when they attempt to enter
we have her two arguments before the court one is one of the big calculations are that it was only about three months and also that three must period of time was what he was trying to procure five thousand dollars to her sister arranged to get this passport which was not an official
physically abused abigail before that october twenty ten incident or since there has never been such an allegation so the chain of circumstances which look court has found was that there was one five to one child who has since been removed that thing i did i did read the records if i recall correctly it was a get that there was an argument that there was not no change of circumstances the counterargument to that was be made by jeremy and his counsel was that there were other events which occurred testify she's doing much better since on medication there is no change in circumstances no one spot to my child who has returned and that is it and with regard to the best interest of her it was one of the best interest for house to stay in jeremy's care the writer had evidence people time to find that trait stated on numerous occasions that he want to spend more time with his father he was living father his father wrote all the time stepmother testified she's the one who gets my box she's the one that's dinner she's the one who helps him with his homework he doesn't only get to see his father being raised by a step parent is not in this child's best interest he needs to be raised by his father his mother and has attended parenting classes things have changed there was no change in circumstance that is one of the things the lower court had to find and i actually believe it was against none of us would have if there was no clear and convincing evidence that there were mother doesn't have any contact with the child for six weeks after october thirty one she was locked up jail she had supervised visitation after that supervised visitation didn't go exactly smoothly she had a grudge with her sister and until the end of august and the last testimony would have been in october where they actually saw observations of this child being taken care of and supervised situation up to much before the actual medication i believe that that report should have mr bora should have examined her again should have interviewed again under different circumstances he should have reviewed for and interviewed her under the same circumstances that the judge saw in september and october relying on the g a o report which was five four five months old at that time i don't know whether he did or not they're just a little bit or not but there were many changes which occurred since the g a o report and then with regard to the fact that the council indicated that
i've given you a lot of different cases on different theories on on that issue and i think that the i think that the answer boils down t distribution a claim for insurance a claim for all sorts of things all the claims were not resolved at the time that this motion i'm melissa resolved correct there was still property that strictly personal i read the record in some of the transcript is she did not want to divorce it would not have made a difference what she was gaining or which she wasn't getting she didn't want to divorce is not accurate i don't think that's accurate  about go to trial you know this is really going to get what you get you get what you want either correct but that was the testimony from the other that was the testimony from the lawyer that he had advice or you're not going to do any better trial in fact you could do worse  trial now i find that i find that statement particularly curious because if you've read the medians provisions of this agreement there are so many conditions on this on this on this means that you know if he has to be all in one document because we know lawyers can't put it all down on paper feel there's a gun to their head but it is certainly the substance of these various clauses and parts of this agreement have been discussed with your client many many many weeks prior to the day the green was actually signed coincidentally the day of trial so this was one of those agreements where it was signed in the hallway or we're going to trial testimony was so whether or not it was ultimately something that was whether or not it was something that was a go shooter the pater thought about over time it doesn't change the that sort of house you see is it big not in this particular at least on paper it is one point something million and it probably has a decent sized mortgage but was there any prohibition attorneys represented cheat by commenting on his list but yet the judge would see him take a look at what the attorney can point to to get it to him and in just decided that he was going to give your client possibility to get to the end of the case this case never should only personal property now i am assuming it wasn't just pots and pans based upon the other information we have here but it's a list it is list of what you want why couldn't that have been complied with and why do we need additional two weeks to do this well my side of the case complied with it in the sink in the sense that the trying to cut through and it wasn't disputed what was really an issue of choosing between attorneys she had medical conditions i don't i don't know what the harm done for an additional time that's what their complaint was that their complaint was that they needed a
it's eleven factors that are set out there of the trial court should consider course this is a case by case basis there is no cookie cutter situation but the petitioner in this review says the test of color there she is was exploring his remarriage with her former husband and even made a statement to her former husband that the child she was carrying with her new husband she would be hears and then in august of two thousand and seventeen she was a forest file a petition for dissolution marriage only to the above way to reconcile with her new husband after she had a child that she was pregnant with and and sometimes a physical relationship and that he didn't exercise at all times he'd been allocated but the record was replete with the testimony of both parties that they had a cordial relationship with one of the regarding the his mother is a stepfather yours grandmother his sister and her two children who were close in age to the poorest three children others tessa's two parents her and returning to her parents home claiming there was because of the financial need but when you look at the facts here it doesn't it just doesn't add up because she herself was employed as a teacher a believe was  and the mother in the stream the fish and the starting place in all of health for considerations is the standard of review father's assertion regarding this likable standard of review in this matter is incorrect the standard you for relocation remain evidence father fails to point to any evidence in the record which results in the manifest injustice occurring and which overcomes the presumption of the trial court's decision the racks the trial court's opinion is very detailed in its and it goes through each and every statutory factor and cites to the evidence upon which is also a finding of the trial court that there were cleary abnormal extended family sit circumstances in this case father presented no testimony and there's no evidence in the record to contradict see extended family leave one of your mothers asked regarding father's mother or mother or father it is at the time of trial that his mother had an ongoing drinking problem and the children probably should be left alone with the think he reiterated that it was impulsive behavior on her part in her search try to find something that would make her happy and that she was implicit in the room in the relationships that she now there had been soured especially as it relates to her siblings it but it doesn't mean that's the sour relationship for the children because the children specifically did have interaction with
made was that the owner wanted this moslem treatment his family based type therapy in their head after she went to treatment in colorado she that's there well this the facilities in california didn't provide reply so yes you have to take it into account because that goes to the weight that you give it you don't have to see it is this positive necessarily if you the help file but it was taken into account but the bottom line never contemplated by either the plan itself which is based in california or the regulations of the department of health services in california so those those departments regulations co have here we have a situation where the treatment that she was seeking was available it just wasn't available in the printer format that she wanted she she wanted to have our residential facility with  to go to the hospital for astra treating men who then will pay for it and then we'll put you back in the rhythm for facility it may now be the most efficient thing from the plane standpoint it is more expensive for between was medically necessary and what is medically appropriate under the plan so in this case you have a situation where when she was sick in foreseeing was totally appropriate under the terms of the plan in her condition appropriate that was a factual finding them at the district court made under the clear rule you have to defer that so to the extent you require you findings to that extent then you need for oregon and th are so medical necessity is not really denial of coverage for a reason different than medical necessity it was but within their administrative appeal i don't have the claim was the whole question of what is appropriate treatment and that was considered medically necessary i was his assumption i don't know if he made an implied finding that they were appropriate or not appropriate and that's all i'm suggesting is that there is a factual issue when all of this is related to medical was the study but not exactly claim is burden was to show medical necessity now whether the health plan denied it because it wasn't medically necessary the fact is that when she went to district court that's something that she had to of planes so it's easy to say well when we write a network and you have a network facility in colorado let's go out there there's other considerations and middle those are part of the record but it is probably more do certain things in other states and with the appellate court and that affects the premiums that you charge for for the health plan so it's a regulatory issue perhaps suggesting this would be different in california and that's why you have territorial and attentions on the other hand if there is an emergency the territorial incident doesn't apply so if you had a psychotic episode in colorado when she was on vacation that would be covered so that is the nature of a national plan in have to accept that to begin with and
document was authorized to receive service correct yes correct ok and the judge noted well gee i didn't even know what the person's name was but the judge i think was i read the transcript and if you didn't read it this way you got tell me why what the judge was saying is i've got to really have some evidence that whoever was given this summons and complaint was authorized to receive somebody in played late at night ok so the judge wasn't cutting you off and that you know and i think you were pretty clear on your wife but she was worried about how and give you one more chance to get it right  why why did the judge make a mistake and saying gosh i still don't know why this person even though we know i mean we know this person was in the mail room we i still don't know that this person is authorized to receive service or process i cannot answer that question you  arizona originated knows all now but since i was serving the bank of new york in new york oh i would think that law and procedures all apply to t but but they also fought strongly argued in that hearing that they have nothing to do with the bank of new york so how are they they are involved but they was you know your honour's there's layers to these lenders the lender will have a servicing agent she attempted to serve bayview loan servicing which is the servicing agent for bank of new york mellon they were not authorized to accept service the two attempts that i think are the most important here are the two attempts to serve the bank of new york mellon in new york city at its corporate office trial court approached this that she had to serve an officer a director or person authorized by the entity to accept service the st attempt at service was on a john doe who refused to give his name that is insufficient the last attempt was on albert proves the mailroom clark proceeding is dismissed the debtor the the appellant could move to refile or she could just drop it altogether so she would be able to refile in of an amended complaint or attempt she's not allowed to service again in this adversary so it's a hard question for me to answer because on the one hand i want to say yes it's a fine order that adversary but it does allow her  e it seems that the debtor has made several attempts i'm sorry the appellant has made several attempts to serve but has not been able to accomplish this and  in the transcript they believe in june the court explained you know what she needed to do to affect weight service and we still couldn't get it done so your honour's where i am asking is  u ok you want to i know it comes to the way i approached serving the entity however i tried multiple times the state of new york following that service so what they did they assured me that it was done properly correctly according to the law according to the procedures so i could only believe that this is correct but unfortunately it tends to i mean it turned out to be the same as the other ones getting closer because i got the name but
mr show so that's the problem here is that no matter what we have a lot of evidence about indiana to this show in that that the family lived in illinois for a small amount of time otherwise the prior legit acts that came out in the c c interview testimony on happened in indiana so we have connotative a lot of indian evidence coming in and we have this summer incident but call that something is badly wrong and that is why we created the statute for corroborating evidence to say that her statements to the d c m s investigator and to the child advocacy groups that investigator is not the operation lies in the face of the reason for the statute and that is  hard like the ball when it had water coming out of it and again going back to the actual matches resettles going back to the actual penetration she was very
the number of judges to hear such requests and looking at the various even general orders that seem to be consistent with that i think it all has to be read together and i think it's clear that the court if we look at porn on terms of on what's now i think there again if we look at the statutes in the rules that apply to certificates of people due to the court has great discretion in how to do it the question here is whether it's improper for this court to initially have i'm sorry you  you know i'm not you know familiar with the case i'll just tell you that's what the case holds and then it seems to me the next question is whether the adeptness statute changes that result when we're talking lots of to because the people ability instead of getting as a probable cause and then i guess the way i reason this out and tell me i'm missing the boat here when it got the payment to law it specifically said you're going with applications for second or successive petitions those have to be heard by three judges certificates of appeal ability  some of the rules indicate that motions for reconsideration seem to be displayed word it seems to be that it's specifically authorized now under these circumstances and beyond that i also have to assert that it appears i don't know that the court will even get to this question look there is nothing in the ninth circuit rules or practice to prevent the petition for rehearing a rehearing on bark from the nara and it would seem consistent with home to allow such a procedure but i was just getting back to the initial question in this case i think the statutes that we rely on the rules we were going to give this court with discretion to continue with the procedure that they have been using by apparently having two judges consider requests restrict
but by the time we get to the seventy sixth street dollar store the pattern does not sit for at least four reasons number one with the presence of a third party messias mr various girlfriend other times present where neither she nor any other third party w appreciate that and i understand why because all five robberies were tried together do you dispute though that the totality of the evidence before the jury could have been considered on any account that they deliberated on yes i agree that the jury can evidence they simply can't say well we find mr very guilty of one charge and therefore conclude that he was guilty of another charge there they're free to consider all the evidence and draw the reasonable inferences so long as those inferences are based on the other events my point of the pattern as to judge how to serve the defendant didn't go into the store but she drove thomas to the rapparee drove them in the same fan with the fact that he didn't go government a viable inference that they had this pattern of acting together in these robberies and here we are on the fifth one and he at that point certainly couldn't been afraid of him because he's been doing this for so rule thirty three motions at trial and providing the same arguments that we have heard not only a closing argument but through the motions post trial and now here today the court should follow the trial court transcript in caps only all five robberies so questions to mr thomas say what did you do with the going in from all five robberies mr thomas would say i  there was quite an argument breaks out in the van after the hampton or seventy six three robbery about what are you doing there's no robbery going on here and how does that stick with it is grant's knowledge that jurors take parts of testimony and way that you find a credible in other parts are not credible and the fact that you can wait for the law that you can wait different witnesses against each other find one witness so the fact that she has a statement that's a little self serving to her she is charged you know some of her evidence is not her testimony is not relied upon is it for that to support the nine twenty four c charge on the seventy sixth street robbery her testimony was states that he drove a black toyota and that amalie came out alone none of those things are true because mr thomas in messiah spoke the by that all three were together in the car all three were in one hand odyssey all three heard the sirens pursued him and when we get to rosemary regarding advanced knowledge what's important to remember here is that rosen and justice kagan to opinion made it very clear that what aiding and abetting washer did not do is both of those is emily so these things start to tie together where we can't just say mr rivera was dropped in from outer space and has no clue what's going on each and every time that defi that doesn't make it incredible now that he is saying i had the gun i did these violent acts that has me on all five of these videos committing these violent crime what's the evidence of the same gun was used and all of the evidence is mr