MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
to avoid what exists on a torrent site where the injured party can collect medical expenses more money that was actually paid to the medical providers which is actually in essence a windfall to the employee unfortunately i think the legislature one do put a stake in the heart of the collateral source releases or applies to workers comp you saying that the employers only were required to it ministry of cool also here's a provision that does not do the fee schedule the employer pays the lesser of the rates set forth in the schedule or the providers actual income by reason of an industrial accident if no medical bills are paid for them and they're not required to pay any money for that incurs who needed the purpose of the act has been fulfilled they're not required to pay anything  of that policy you're telling me but they're not being compensated for cracked so if we could just cut a check for the premium then you'd be happy but well i think to be fair and workers compensation is really weird to me when any one of these cases if the employers are actually responsible for the injury most of the time you ploys responsible for his own injury but we allow re conferee for a reason a reason is not served by forcing you to order to pay money under the guise of medical bills that were never actually paid even on the legislature steps in and says no
but there were two thirty two thirty amended informations which went back and forth but both of them kind of a red herring both of them the sections both of them stated that he pled to the very elements of the statute so the judgment included a modified cruel intentions that do not abuse a child would not be child abuse they make a criminal of the many vile they mean be worthy of societal sanctions but they would fit into another under another category  made a very long and thorough analysis and of a soloist in a criminal context on the criminal definition of sexual abuse of a minor and then they went to the abuse concept and the definition of harm  that case was about sexual abuse of a minor we don't know we don't even in this case we don't we don't contest we don't have any reason to contest the rodriguez rodriguez definition which is the only one we've seen is just any form of cruelty to a child's physical moral under oath by the person and yet we have to say pled out specifically to certain elements in doing that what the court is doing is undermining the criminal process because the government could have charged him with a trial and convicted of him and convicted him of other i don't think that that's that's a fair reading of the statute at all but under the modified categorical approach yes we would start that the facts of this case is not going beyond the documents in taylor even into the facts of the record divorced from reality and again your honour's i don't think you need to go beyond the documents that taylor identifies to reach the conclusion in this case that titian has been convicted of a crime of child abuse  washington la just don't now i understand that and i think you know that this is certainly not i don't think the answers are necessarily easy when you start to spin out all the hypotheticals but i think on the child fits within that generic definition of child abuse than that then the charge of them of ability has to sustainable and i quickly wanted to address the issue of jeff
but you're not risking anything while i'm going to take a risk i'm going out after the indians i've got left out all i ask is to give me a few days trying to prove i'm right so ok god has the right idea
released was reasonable doubt on the basis that the state will prove to the first question is whether or not the state prove that the defendant entered the house without the authority of this the defendant's argument is that you have the authority to do so because he lived there so he didn't require it or even from another source because he had it just by the very nature of the fact that he lived in that house off and on over the years with this fa evidence but no matter what happened after the day the defendant arranged for this dinner to be on that is it give us any information about what is intent was at that exact time we need to look at what he did surrounding the day of the incident you're not giving anyone permission to enter his trailer and this included his stuff here moreover he never gave one permission to interest trailer for the purpose of taking the police here which but regardless of the limited authority doctrine comes into play and so even if he had an open ended invitation to enter his father's trailer he did not
that she could remember that she had had at least three beers she testified that five or four she was still broke by the way in the morning that she was still drugged and was testimony in the case in the record that they had deemed reliable so i don't know how we get from all the cases about reliability to this rule are we going to start cutting i guess we go home but the excited utterance is clearly his statement related to the circumstances but there is a section that requires an absence of time for
occasion when she showed up the morning of janeway thirtieth two thousand and two five months pregnant having suffered a previous miscarriage she was arrested handcuffed by the immigration naturalization service they had already not initiate removal proceedings against me on who is eligible for adjustment to forty five by such actions based solely on the fine of an immigrant petition and i can go on so effectively if somebody is this that was created and it wasn't mandated by the statute it was needed it became a part of the implementing regulation are we did not attack the first removal order maybe in hindsight we should have but that's not what we did and what we did what we're trying to say
about who's who and whether it's ineffective is another step but it seems like if it was in effect if you knew the gist of it that yes you are but the critical matter is when he knew about the factual predicate for his claim and thought was the truth was in fact the truth yes but once he thought it was the truth it seems like that's enough no your honor it's not he did not have a good faith basis morris turning out until he conflict of interest and the claim that was litigated in a margin hearing and what different arguments were made or could have been made or should have been made unless two things yes or no during the mar tremendous amount of knowledge about that person and preparation for the probation report they have to play out everything there is you know about that with their social history criminal history sexual history counsel i have a lot of trouble with this under kyler the lead in conflict case you need some sort of prejudice and it looks here as though you have a highly abstract hypertechnical complex that would have justified getting a lawyer off the case but if it doesn't america anymore after the latest factual revelations than it did before i mean what you've got is this crazy business of trading sex for eleven dollars and some chicken and then he cheats and beat the woman and she breaks her pelvis and these terrible injuries and whether the public defender's office represented the woman in some prior case seems highly unlikely to have mattered in fact it didn't matter in fact instead of taking advantage of the prior representation or failing to take advantage of the prior representation for w just was confused about who was who what would have mattered if the lawyer had stayed away from something that would have helped your client at his trial because he didn't want to make himself vulnerable to a grievance on behalf of the woman but he didn't do that i can't see where under carly if there's anything to go on after the latest factual revelations that weren't there right from the get  think however crazy they are is that you know we think that justice kennedy had a better argument there the justice fryer also applied back hard rule in giving jack bowling for only one round but a review in california that that's a term that i think we should avoid if whenever possible california only permits to around one of the direct appeal to trial they're going to appeal the position for review the second round is one
first i'd like to point out that all of the mitigating factors that council has argued for were on the record there was testimony at the sentencing hearing on the defendant's behalf documents weigh those factors that was a to the trial as far as any improper sentencing factors i think to judge me for it yes you know what i could comment on the fact that there's a death in this case and i really didn't mean to say that the death is an aggravating factor but it's also not outside his realm of discretion to note that someone has  was arrested again for possession of cannabis now to say that i want to deter people from smoking cannabis and getting you to aren't driving that's legitimate that's a legitimate  you've been convicted of aggravated battery to earth only use it in sense to probation intensive probation and ultimately probation is have been revoked seven conviction for traffic offenses and one argument that under the facts of this case to meet with a ball or that this case does not need to be remanded for six or forty eight first of all we've just argued the sentencing issue because the defendant entered a
negotiated his forty five year sentence for first degree murder because the defendant negotiated an agreed to the sentence he actively waived the right to present mitigating factors or to challenge that sentence in collateral
was your mother's name what's your mother's name yeah what is your mother's name
argument the air was harmless but nonetheless the regulation needs to be applied and what we're getting with something such as a serious illness to an immediate family member one's father there are a lot of to address where the di di j's alternative findings with respect to asylum were supported by the record are not and but the problem this causes is that when the defy the government order to not enter the church by breaking the seal and he was arrested and physically mature he did during his detention so we believe that both cases are cases parallel with groups also thank you you are made peace accord catherine hon on behalf of the united states i'd like to start out by just commenting on what i just heard from opposing counsel he said the agency did not ever address whether or not the petitioners he did not establish that he qualified for an exception that would be excused historic choice foreign based on his father's health problems or otherwise so the government's admits that the agency very much reached backgrounds there's no reason to claim i mean there's really no difference here between attack claim in terms of what the board did the cat claim and the withholding planning in both instances we have kind of summary sentence saying that increase with the i j is analysis and  illegally crossing the border twice which had nothing to do with his religion at least not on its face and there's no nexus to the government within that and that's why the i didn't properly foun official there's no there's nothing in the record to suggest that that had anything to do with a protected ground here and i think the i j was crushed to find so certainly no other result is compelled on this record and i think that the b ira did reach reciting the facts but by the fact that on ph they are one twenty four the immigration judge talks about why there's not a sufficient next year and those are some of the reasons i just mentioned the fact that military desertion is not on account of a protected grounds if you  at the top of page one hundred five she talks about and i quote this is the immigration judge here the record reflects that the respondent was arrested because of unlawful activity including breaking the seal oh legally crossing the border and or traffic violations these particular the agency found that there are over three hundred thousand baptist that the baptist church is officially recognized by the government of romania and other ways that conditions have improved so i think that even assuming evidence of change the country conditions the burden then shifts back to the petitioner to show that there's a good reason not to accept the state department's report and hear a petition offered nothing on that score so i would i would say that although it's not the the freestanding well founded fear claim but in any event the analysis would be the same which is that the government has offered the state department report and the petitioner has offered absolutely nothing to rebut that and i think the state department report does talk about
was basically the only evidence that the forensic people came up with was writing about a month or group of shows that the show did far from one of the shotguns  case or claim that the great brain injury should have been made available to us prior to trial before mr hopper testified and so you think that wouldn't help you on an fifteen hopper was in a motorcycle accident and suffered a out of some sort of brain injury the trial was in twenty sixteen and at that trial and i testified that he had had short term memory loss  since the accident since the twenty fifteen accident but that he had injury did not affect his memories prior to the accident he charged events occurred in two thousand and ten five years before the accident and if you know one of the questions i had is if this was not so important why did the state ask about it at the bench trial i mean it seems like you know wh injuries and maybe maybe the state wanted to make a record as as to that were really good yeah i just i found it you know very odd the state would bring that forward and if it wasn't a big deal if they didn't think it was defendants can get another reason is that the defendant's conviction didn't turn on hopper's testimony the court found hopper credible based on the fact that his testimony was consistent with that of the two place officers who were stage down the road and also his girlfriend the able his employee laws on the nine one one tapes and the and the physical evidence on black let me pull that so i think our talk about right but if its claim is that movies credibility could have been impeached with evidence that she or the defendant some ill will due to an incident in which the defendant allegedly drove past her home and have his on his vehicle information that reflects so negatively on him that the state used it after he was found guilty to argue that he should be in jail pending sentencing of an incident but an attempt to intimidate a witness is evidence of consciousness of guilt it doesn't show that that needle had a bias against the defendant it shows that the defendant had continuing aggression toward evil hopper the people that he was on trial for shooting so i got you but it would have been reasonable for the the way witnesses didn't the two officers and the nine one one tapes and i would note that those nine one one tapes are unlike other nine one one tapes usually think of them occurring after a crime has occurred the these people were on the phone with the nine one one dispatcher as the gunshots were
translator and if you look at the transcript as a whole there's a lot of indications that there were some issues in terms of trying to communicate effectively and so since he was aware that there are effects that it's a small one just one of the sitting on the circuit it's clear that this doesn't go to a core issue in the case religion be held against him how so what's really bother me about this case is that even today your client relies on activities that occurred between nine place in this politics and so he goes he comes to nine hundred ninety seven and at the ministry of record ninety eight when he's asked why did you go back he says well i have this new country you know we were trying to get things to change and one of the things that he was told it was beating torture was we're not talking about a situation where he's you know hadn't had one little run in you know with with forces outside of his control moved away and everything was fine you're indorsing your co counsels argument but you're also making the
preponderance of the evidence that the losses type the count conviction were less than ten thousand dollars and in her complaint she laid out a theory about how the fact shows that the total amount was only five thousand and ten dollars and ninety  worker's compensation case and there's numerous other factors besides the loss of the victim in count three that will come and see to that number  investigation so we think that the costs really should be excluded and it all comes back to the check value that's really the crux of our argument and so we don't we don't have to break down the exact civil  payments so how is it that that language and by that that the combination of those two sections of counts resist charging document don't the quote the quote was it said the prosecutor was attempting to confine the what would be actually proves beyond a reasonable doubt through her plea of guilty was her conduct during that time frame and b it's kind of speculation that she is different that relied on a federal restitution order which was allowed to take into account that were not necessarily tied to the john conviction but here california law requires that the situation that an amendment would not be possible and so i think it's a question of what the standard is here because the district court obviously was frustrated by this and didn't think these other kind of explanations could agree i would just like to point out that the california law while limiting restitution to the actual law to then phone does not require that the loss be tied to the count of conviction th
looking for traffic violations when criminal harassment is being committed against a family for its political use there is no such back and there is no fact pattern in this become a school tradition tradition carried out three years second  incident other than the one statement by howard's as far as internal from the we have that we think that the one statement is now i mean it seems to me sort of one statement is not a policy ma year and becoming a tradition with no permanent sites and when you get to together you find that for some reason there has not been any criminal law enforcement against these teenagers and the question becomes why and you have that essentially that smoking gun at least the one officer saying i am not going to arrest will charge these kids for if they're exercising their free no ability to deal with these forests in front of its own by any means other than ultimately what mr stuever did one day which was to go out in the front yard with a shotgun and try and stop the rallies and going by the cheney exception here because this family even though it wasn't inside a prison the exceptional dishy that allows for this kind of action is where the state will not let that person in effect but it
she's twelve years old now she's attending you're going to high school in middle school she's in and i was program there honors program correct so where the cia has found that special education has a basis for for  used to be immigration back in the ninety's and i worked for the u s attorney's office in criminal matters and you know i'm before the office of nutrition when immigration works so much immigration background is quite extensive but i'm happy to hear that because many times we get is really totally irrelevant to my job here to decide whether or not under our laws as they now stand these people are eligible to return i asked about exceptional circumstances here i didn't
makes a statement that might be a request to remain silent this clarity and ease of an occasion would be lost police officers would be forced to be a difficult judgment calls rather the suspect in that's why it's very important to realize that to answer your question here was no over this on police officers to stop unfair by especially since they've been saying
court as a press the question whether it chief stipulation without more satisfied sprit had courts have addressed it and this court has to look at the issue but and i think that's even true if we were just looking that the knowledge of possession element that would be a defense i think that's doubly true we're talking about knowledge of st singers testified that their search was pursuant to their own policy this court has found that that just that type of testimony alone is enough just to find that the church was pursuing a policy but the evidence came from two kansas city police department officers who were right it seemed later and their testimony was they would if the driver wasn't around this case they knew the driver just been arrested they would or they would always contact the older then that circumstance we needed to move the car
good afternoon council justices once again assistant state's attorney just an arab and representing the people of illinois may please the court it is the pick people's position in this matter but this crowd does not have jurisdiction to consider whether or not there is sufficient evidence to convict michigan where six to ten years and he came back and filed a motion for and you trial in his motion or during the hearing the kind of testified that the reason he didn't come back was because he was scared that he was going to be convicted that he was scared of  argue that it was wrongly decided as several so in this case the fact if defendant argued for example that that the crowd made an incorrect determination that his being afraid of being convicted yes he did that by the way there when she if it is read in such a way that it would allow him to reach through and go back to the direct appeal or the current of a direct appeal direct to the statute unconstitutional as this bit criminal sexual assault and he took a substantial step in doing that in this case the people proved that defendant after drinking about a dozen and a half years saw a young woman he perceived to be thirteen to fourteen years old stopped his car is doing is he's he found an error in the jury instructions that definition was incorrect it's not an object of another person and that's not a valid theory of sexual penetration that that
all so the so the argument is that the nineteen year old living at home is a dependent original conviction and he talks again do you counsel jerry jr working not forwarding my request for filing with my rights to be a you know call me silly but