MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
present the claim that she has never faced female genital mutilation well that was and is let's just say there was many problems with their motion as with the government's papers and that's why we believe that because what she wants to do however she has i mean and again i didn't come here to argue the merits of emotions but i will say this the second motion to reopen does not allege error by the board i do not think it can be  reopen i would note and to clear up any confusion as to whether was intended to be a motion we consider it's called a motion to reopen and never raised any error whatsoever with respect to the board's prior the i would say for decision would be before the board in order to do what it thought that to express the agency's decision because it is clear that the first month of the first war decision does not accurately or adequately represent the the board's intended it and therefore the borscht of the opportunity to say this is what we meant to say and to go back to the first decision so yes she would have an opportunity to appeal whatever it was that the board did with respect to the first and second motion i think without being able to commit because i don't know what the board would do exactly i can't guarantee with the board here but i would i would venture that the board well combine the you know its review of the record and and make a decision based on everything that the petitioner submitted in the two motions like to point out that on july eleventh two thousand and three this attorney specifically sent a letter to the board of immigration appeals and requested that they issue a complete solution and that was july of two thousand and three we're now here in further there is no further evidence needed to establish a well founded fear and there is as a matter of law therefore well as a matter of law the withholding intact that she would be entitled to a grant and after the grant and that's what this evidence that they had made a mistake and that they had made an error and you didn't actually i meant that's why when i say it's reading that motion you actually didn't say anything in that motion about the fact that the original opinion was somewhat incoherent well on the to the other thing though in terms of the prejudice to the respondent i would add is that there is a lack that if we are to grant this most what i would really call a motion for extension of time rather than a motion to remain and we would again be back in this ping pong
we need to reverse one of the decisions of the district court in order to bring the state claim back or you say independently after all the federal claims are dismissed the first district court mandatorily must consider continuing violation argument you know now the statute of limitations was two years that's right all of these events were more than that more than two years i think before the t statute became effective or for twenty two and that was from june twenty five two thousand and three which i think is just before we get our round of rethink i think those are the points i wanted to he was the subject of the administrat disciplinary hearing against the officer your honor i'm i'm not sure what what the subject of the ministry of complaint was i mean was it about the allegedly stolen  that has the same subject as the federal nine hundred eighty three action i would think as a matter orderly procedure that it will it would be better to have the city resolved the claim before we have a  until the underlying criminal complaint is resolve like that can't bind the federal court so you can have you in a federal court right away and sue the officers but it makes sense to call a limitation why you wait for the criminal complaint to be resolved i guess i i wondered whether that kind of reasoning kind of pie here when apparently there's some sort of an administrative  directly related to the undermining and so all of this in the record with respect to the disciplinary hearing yeah here i mean before the district court release claims made in the district court they were made in booth they were made in the complaint are there meaning the complaint with respect to the evidence was submitted to the district court some record was made in a district court i'm not sure i get out and get the whole you have further question
required under under minnesota law so minnesota law requires that to initiate a claim you only need to be part of have a certain stand that standing the part i agree on is the place here never provided evidence to the b s a that she had been appointed a trustee under minnesota bar operated to bring a claim the state law that we've cited in our brief make it very clear that minnesota is very strict about its appointment requirements and in fact they said that proceeding without an appointment as trustee amounts to a legal this case is different than major do you do you find any any room we can major to have a discussion about th to you know differences without a distinction that answers your question broke jurisdiction and granted mader for that analysis look to the state law but there is no procedural question here  making an administrative claim at the state level we're only talking about federal administrative claims and and meter is all about a federal administrative claim and it looked a bit about a bob just similar to the minnesota law and says you have to be appointed for the purpose of pursuing a wrong that action in order to present this to the agency administratively under the happy spirit so i just i'm not seeing that distinction settlement must be meaningful and real but the major decision and good that is impossible it does negotiations turn out to be oprah period and that's a page eight of two she went represented by counsel throughout their work clear and repeated warnings about this requirement contained in the s f ninety five form that was done about that and be very
that he was supposed to balance especially in light of the jury and that indicated that the jury had trouble rendering for it and i also know that there was only one  actually doesn't sell where she actually lives but does show that she has her home for her protection against the defendant she testified that she came to her house excuse me he came in her house i'm several different occasions but we don't less than here after the fellow so was there any issue about whether or not  misnomer in both bertie's and jail did your client when he said i don't want to go back to prison actually meant more accurately i didn't want to go back care that she's not supposed to be a place you do what he wants
agree to tell the truth and nothing but the truth
discovery and although there were certainly you say there was plenty of time that something absolutely so although certainly appointed counsel had some familiarity with the facts of the issues and the facts and issues in the robbery included i believe four aspers we've got it with different police agencies that are working on this case and we have a number again in the initial response there were ten audio video interviews of co de are others out of sorts of issues really underlie that point and if you have an actual conflict of interest you don't have to prove prejudice what you have to prove is that there is some error it is tied to that issue and this is a similar case where we  that he would have it in some way and in some way change the outcome of this case now certainly it may how but on this record considering the things counsel did or did not do i am considering the devote to it but it is now nearly time that the client at the crime point in time there was no indication that some extensions would solve the problem he said i mean so little general practitioner with
and i understand it's an odd case because you've got the government agreeing with you but it's also when you are to state i didn't give i mean i feel bad for the poor i say here i say actually apparently did think quite a bit about whether or not what the  responded testified that something similar happened to his sister but couldn't explain why the police waited until two thousand they seen this is on the last page of the i g f station on a r thirty seven i mean are we are you think that's about some other stuff for no your honor but nearly testimony of the person to have the last you know where they talked about the letter and saw the isolated slip we mention that's one thing but to say that like the that i'm claiming that the idea looks at the letter i'm just saying with the records and we agree with that sure your honor from when he was you know take into brought back to his house was about six or seven hours in total and during the time he was arrested he was in a car they specifically told him that we're not going to harm you it looks like the only reason he was harmed here and wasn't him and from his testimony it actually goes against that there is any mental suffering here yet the record at ninety seven he said everything was fine you know after it was resolved at the police station and there's
is trying to reach the mine where that the defenders have laid a train of explosives to blow up the india
courts questions from eight point one this court has jurisdiction to consider me strike of a challenge to the adverse credibility determination point to review that adverse credibility determination shows that it was you will and all we know is that she had an understanding that he was a bodyguard it's clear that the record shows that this individual was murdered he was a victim of a robbery the investigation took two years she testified that there was articles about it there was a two year investigation surrounding the murder of her son in law and that the conclusion of it was that he was wrong you know i'm having trouble seeing how that perhaps all these things she said might amount to persecution might have risen the level of persecution but because the court does not find the responding credible it need not reach that decision so everything in seems to me depends on the credibility to furnish and not not an argument that well if she is credible i didn't amount to persecution then the board simply affirms the the adverse credibility fine never gets to the question of whether what she never made a finding that she was credible it simply comment on it just simply because the board commented it doesn't mean that it reached the issue of credibility i don't believe the board look i don't even this matter focused on the fact that the tunnel was there was no indication that the spinal maasdam was related or had any relationship to her or her involvement in the being us that there was just so i don't think that the findings about the credibility are sustainable the point about the fact that if they really wanted to find out
there was no evidence why do you think the jury is required to conclude this guy's going into what could be a dangerous situation for the heck of it he said he was going  general one but i am concerned about the effect on the subsequent issue that is the fight over the buyer's seller instructions seems to me to take more important there remains a possibility the jury may have convicted based hadn't joined in agreement of the nature that was alleged in and convicted that is a conspiracy with intent to distribute what evidence was he was there before he knew that how does that make him part of a conspiracy with intent to distribute as distinguished from a conspiracy to help out his cousin doing whatever  fluting robbery but the big question mark as to what it was that was going to be carried away and what was the thomas was going to get out of it well gee he knew before  earlier in the day he knew that they were planning to steal drugs he knew that mr massey made his money by stealing fries and that he had purchased drugs from these individuals before he also knew that it was a large quantity of drugs for the jury infer that he knew this before he went up to the apartment because he saw people bringing the trash bags up to the apartment before he left but also it's not necessary that he knows every aspect of the conspiracy sheridan about actually getting the drugs but that thomas shared about actually getting the drugs to you and then of course we have that further testimony from mr thomas that mr massey was angry that she had left the drugs behind which further
good morning boy can anyone tell me why washington something to eat and
also my name is thomas today i represent the plaintiff in this case this is lieutenant moran's appeal from a decision of the workers compensation commission that i believe is it will use is a matter of proof for public safety officers to that above and beyond to persons of reasonable sensibilities the standard you in my opinion applicable to this case is identical to the standard of review that was articulate employer to be seen by a psychologist who personally testified that this was a sudden unforeseen traumatic event here of the canyon not only of the both public and general sensibilities but of firefighters generally dr mcmanus was confronted in his testimony by cross examination that said all doctors firefighters are they supposed to do and situations all the time they come across people who are dead and he said this is very different this is your supported this is your coworker and want to calm down eyes that is far more traumatic than any other but the second and more important objective change the entire way that they retreated from the fires document yes was contacted at the time of the event dr made me and said this is such a traumatic event you have to remove the firefighters in this scene and immediately no dispute over inference that if a fire department for the first time in history of the department closes for two weeks in order to let the employees who suffered this traumatic event recover i think it's  undisputed that this is a i foresee traumatic event and then in this instance space that we have disputed medical testimony lead to a psychological condition of post traumatic stress disorder  presented directly to the police officer he's the one that the toy gun was was the point of it but the interesting thing if you look at pathfinder the the victim in pathfinder was snapped personally at risk and all the victim charge of the scene he was responsible for delhi t v authority to the firefighters to enter the building he is the one who shot the victim being removed from from the building and he made a critique of villages closed down its operations for a period of two weeks i think it's important that the clinical psychologist who render good opinion in this case is not a clinical psychologist that the  the plaintiff himself charles is it's a doctor who oversaw the transaction from day while he treated all the firefighters who had psychological issues from suppose my real question is you know  reaction to this well he gave a peek gave an incident command when they when they took the firefighter away and he testified about the debriefing that he underwent that day i mean he talked about that he was and he sent an e mail to the chief you know happen that everyone acknowledges such a case fitting i don't think favors required and secondly i don't think the event has to be on the day of the shock if it can be delayed such as to some time after the shock of her first treatment with may twenty eight twenty two which is about about three and a half months and she's been terminat
that you know the record maybe is not entirely clear it's not one hundred percent clear what exactly was said to mr marquez there are three things i think on court number one is the prosecutor the trial prosecutor had the opportunity to conduct we had direct examination of these agents and completely stayed emphasis should be construed against the government and the third thing is that despite the fact that state law enforcement officers routinely either audiotape or videotape interrogations the federal law enforcement officers continue to maintain this policy of refusing to available for example in this instance attack next morning that that would be reasonable or least until ten o'clock next morning i understand they didn't actually write him at ten o'clock the next morning what difference does that make me a copy the concern for his wife's welfare the response the district says there were some statements made about his wife his wife was ill the time it's told his wife was sick but they didn't promised him that she would be released if you gave the statement so there's no coercion in that regard nor did i tell him that i must be wife's illness but what's important about the fact that the second agency brock monsey does not recall bringing bring that up herself because she is talking about her conversations with the defendant about making about thinking think the key is that in this case we have just a court findings that explicitly say that there were no promises made to the final make that confession voluntary and those findings are not clearly erroneous and more importantly in this case which is different than say we've already talked to this person we have a student from this person now we well well they said we've talked to this person i mean that you know it sort of implies there was a discussion and that this is that you should consider that when you talk to us because if you give a contradictory
subject to a prosecution here violation of the spanish one of the most enduring in this photographs that we pointed out to the trial court where is the picture of britney spears when she
for washington robbery extends beyond the type of crime for which congress intended to make someone removable st exposed address why this is so in the context of washington robbery and then turned to some respondents arguments  washington robbery is overbroad when compared to the generic around that in the immigration and nationality act the i name for washington robbery to be an aggravated felony elements must guarantee that someone is convicted only where their specific intent with the with the with conviction of the principal i did not see one word rosemond about any differences between general liability and specific liability is there anything in rosemont that you know of that addresses the question as to whether  aiding and abetting under federal law requires specific intent or general intent not that i know of your i woke up when i look at rosen and what i see is that the supreme court made clear that what an definitely not the case in washington again only knowledge is required and that's something special that the supreme court said was needed but that would make that would make roseman relevant to your argument and it would make valdivia nearly irrelevant to your aiding and abetting required specific intent now if that's true then then any conviction under any criminal statute yet in washington is now not aggravated an aggravated felony because the washington statue clearly inquires general intent and therefore is a mismatch with the federal requirement a specific intent but that doesn't i don't i'm not sure that we can square what what how we characterize garcia we made clear in our brief under state law forty two different states require specific intent or the intent of the principal to hold someone liable and ask an accomplice and for that reason edge an eric accomplice liability to it is going to require something more than what washington requires because again washington only requires knowledge i get that that that that as i read as i read roseman all the court said was we have now merged to accomplish liability with the liable and you can be liable as a as an accomplice ah on the same degree as the principal but whatever you have to prove in order to show the pr whatever motivation you have to prove whatever intent you've shown from the principal is what you're going to have to show for the accomplice as well and if so then it seems to me that to be a flawed ace is correct in part and wrong in par public utility district number two
it but you didn't be asking us to consider the reasonable doubt argument and then concluded here when we don't even know if that is going to be necessary it isn't that
and here's something else that troubled him i think this is a major issue that you need to address according to the testimony of the claimants just the way he continued to work full time it began accident he did not seek any medical care until almost four months after this serious
i would like to raise the question of whether deferred inforced departure is the functional equivalent of parole thereby allowing parole when you say functional they don't seem to me to be to acquittal and in order to roll you have to be asked by the united states he was allowed to come in or stay here some fifteen years ago because of the chinese  because the tiananmen square problem that's correct still he is in the country under the other act that you can't get paroled into the united states if you're already in the united states tell me  what is the equivalent and being how can we use dysfunctional equivalency to interpret statues that were bound by the wording well there's generally a process of the definition of consider revising my client that is mr chance unsuccessful nine hundred ninety three c f p a adjustment application in the light of two forty five i because two forty five i would allow an applicant who entered without inspection to just status in the sense of what i'm asking the court to consider is piggybacking i'll be quite frank a just an application to be the equivalent of a and i want thirty relative petition or a labor certification application i'm basically asking the court to have any basis in law for staying here but because i like you i'm going to well i mean the right to stay here for the rest of your life the president has not necessarily on it but he does after this time period that the president to step forward through this executive order expires then what's going to happen is if these regions chinese nationals will be left here without any kind of course of legal authority to remain so we do nothing and protection act which interestingly covered not only students it covered all chinese nationals who were in this country than a certain period of time in that legislative history congress specifically said that  aliens or not granted some other forty which we need to do by way of this p s p and then they will be here illegally which means the congress to recognize that the president was not trying to grab some additional legal forty just to remain vietnamese to the sense who were removed from that country and brought to me one but for coming to one and being removed by the army which is not be executive branch or honor but before bringing ok thank you thank you
cameras here we're relatively new with video participation but it's very distracting you're flipping papers and motion on the camera during the argument up it's not your fault it's our system but i'm wondering if you could sit down out of the visual range during a reporter's argument and sitting at the table thank you well that is the problem with taking a strict percentage reduction your honor you've had at the now exactly on the head is that when you district percent reduction you assume that every issue is equal that the attorneys spend in equal amount of time on every issue and you that there were not items that would have had to have been done regardless of whether you want on an issue for instance other opposing counsel things that was excessive time for us to have this as a class action the time spent on a class i would just like to say that our prayer is that this court will find the district court abused its discretion by using a straightforward ratio of claims once the claims made that when it was easily ascertainable from the