MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
recommendations with respect to the city code for the stakes this is one that's been moving along at a moderately small based because we were hoping well requests back in two thousand and four when she did that or prior to her doing that it was that function was completed by two people in the city's purchase office and at that point there were three even five days there is feeling knowledge spent of the request and then it has to be sent out to the various departments and then you have to send out a bill for the copying that's got to get done it's just a tremendous amount of paperwork and ariane has done a fair amount of checking and the government like you way appears to have the best and basically the only fully dedicated foil software and what would happen is it would become like a page on our website and somebody went to the website and fill out everything it does on probably eighty percent of the work in on the web page will automatically send out the requests to the various departments that have missed question and the only thing that mary ann would have to do with now to be in the vicinity of a quarter to a third of the day and so in essence i would be able to pick up from two thirds of the person the program if you were to go by what their stated cost is for city of our size they would want twenty five dollars to set it up and then four hundred ninety five dollars a month for maintenance we have negotiated that down where they're willing to do the one time setup fee europe and the patient fifteen hundred dollars and then two hundred fifty dollars a month for the continued me and of the program on it so the total a trip over to often need to see how they were handling it and right now they have one person who is handling their stuff full time and they were early more automated than we are but they were still doing everything in house using an excel spreadsheet and they are most likely going with this program because their research has indicated that this is the best one on the market and  it's one of the things is interesting we're about sixty thousand people there about ninety thousand people were both money proportionally the same number of oil requests to i thought it was interesting so open container waiver for bombers far and i'm not sure who is here to speak i'm not i assume this is what we do every year to their celebration on may fifth oh they're getting themselves in early
and a normal plan trustee when he is faced with the situation of trying to raft of very difficult receivership with competing claims where it is quite clear that he's where the new york court found that this is different from the normal to do shiri obligation can you give me a federal case that says it shouldn't be different or is this that well would you even if there were no risk here at all that is to assume all the third party recovery coming out of the collateral source rule coming from insurance companies that is coming from other investment advisors you need you even based on their own conduct and to the degree that these third party claims would not be against bombing companies or insurance companies but rather against trustees or other advisors trustees or other advisors were also paid  it is a mischaracterization that by including an offset provision in the plan of distribution the receiver is somehow taking away the plan insurance or the bonds if the insurance exists and they paid a premium for it then yes i would agree and first i don't think there's anything in the record that actually i'm i don't know a lot of insurance companies that provide the interest for free these third party recoveries had been achieved before the receiver proposed his plan and the court had approved it those plans were able to go out and sue their lawyers and to their plan monitors and  asserted against a fixed sum of money in the receivership state this is not a situation where if one plan went out sued their way or got a five million dollar recovery that the receiver would have to pay out five million dollars less to the victims of the receiver will distribute the same amount of money regardless of the third party of recoveries it's just a question of how is that fund allocated amongst the victims which is what lost a million dollars in it's still investments it lawyer for malpractise in three only to properly oversee the investment activities and there is evidence in the record that certain plants did that you're in effect taking away some of our subsequent recovery because it's going to reduce the amount of are claiming we recovered before our claim would have already been reduced is my point and the a mouth of the regime would pay out any of them to the amount to cover her private parties and that results you know over compensation for the last i gather the government is willing to say the risk you are is a perfect liberty to cut that off so that there is plants were running we might see a way the receiver is running the receivership which contains planned investments he has to figure out a way to equitably distributed the plan to give you my heart or hypothetical what happens when the recovery under want to restore plans third party source let's say it's in the you know policy goes to the plumbers union plumbers pension plan but one o the other risks of plans through the omission of the trustees didn't buy that kind of insurance and therefore there will be less assets available to distribute so the one plan is going to benefit at the expense of the
seventy's where they said that he couldn't do it until the board had the constitution says he can only do that with the approval of the executive board it says act in section article five section sets exact same language a and it's now we will appeal when we are notified of which of course we were never notified after actually occurred and we sent a letter i sent an e mail the following week saying that they that  hostility on the part of some or all of them that question is a question that should in the first instance under the principles of deference internally in your posses go to the body within the union that a letter from the general counsel then after that you filed back in for the nine to twelve they approved it we filed something for an e mail following up with general counsel rather on the same sent to us that in the following two days they had the international executive meeting and that's when the approval of skilling and we never received notification of that until the resets the time so the server twenty seconds now we have thirty days from december twenty second then there would be ten or twenty first as the time for an appeal now  motion to withdraw and a motion to extend the time for sixty days when they move for the open ended extension to google or the district court and say hey you can't do this more than thirty days that's the that's the protected activities
expectation that those sales would get them so much in two thousand as that's what they're trying to court michael simon for the police question dex and i will honor the ten minute requests i think we can do that your honor you know what this case really comes down to is an interpretation of a two page letter dated january twelve hundred ninety nine and the relevant question is whether or not that letter creates binding contractual terms obligate in question jack's to pay a particular commission rate in the year two thousand begins by saying and then asked that we're going to review the my d h financial data i just finished and to provide information relevant to my nine hundred ninety nine compensation now looking at the last line of the opening paragraph it's with regards to sales performance but i don't see any qualifying language with regard to the schedule for two thousand saying this might be or schedule or maybe it won't be our schedule we haven't decided yet and the but i think that's a critical difference because what what i hear you suggesting is  writer confirms one nine hundred ninety nine doesn't count for anything else and i see on page two a schedule for two thousand and three tell me that doesn't count for anything it counts for a statement a future intention and if it were relied upon by someone's detriment parties had before them the one thousand nine hundred four compensation plan were in every page its sales tax reserves the right to modify these terms or change these terms and so it was well understood by the parties that although we may express a future intention of we might do next year we certainly always reserve the right to change those up until the time that we got to that point in time and so that's how we stood next to this critical letter should  with whom and they identified twelve names of businesses that is the only evidence that was to admitted to the district court for the proposition that there were in fact actual contact or actual solicitations that everyone below i submit that the absence of evidence on that point in the absence of a clear statement by mr kalugin shows that there was no evidence to support that point so no further questions are thank you very much know about that claim if you said it was rather than that if you could you could rely for that claim and merely the difference in price that makes perfect sense indexes out there offering a product
rights and then you say i was denied a jury trial but you gave that right i mean and so he admitted that the amount of what forty nine thousand dollars or whatever and then he said i didn't get a jury trial on  but there has to be a reason to remain in it if there is no if there's any possible under i'm going to if there's any possibility that the sentence could have been that the judge could have exercised additional discretion to give a lower sentence which is  would we assume that there would be a different exercise of discretion what with respect i am going to use well of course this would be the truly exceptional case where they would not have to re man because we don't know whether the judge what the judge would do now that cost of the treatment so it's the probation officer who's making both the determination as to whether he should pay and if he should pay whether he then has the ability to pay so this year was a complete that so presumably even if you are correct about the probation condition that district court will have an opportunity if you raise the issue there to correct anything by ordering that you make restitution however it's the government's position that there are no other issues raised in this case that would warrant remaining i'd like to start with the defendant's argument with respect to it's the min local because the court did not choose to do that i think it's reasonable to infer that the court in no way felt constrained by the fact of the guidelines were mandatory and i think it's reasonable to conclude on that basis that in fact th the fact the schedule the court did order that those payments would be made it didn't say but the amount would be it could be all he could park but the court ordered that those payments be made then and it was left to the probation office psychological treatment the court doesn't know what that cost is going to be so as a practical matter it makes much more sense to delegate some authority in that area to the probation office to determine how that game is going to be made and
this case the legalization of the children in or l a you have used its discretion in denying his sock line by not following the controlling statute in case law first it's fails to apply the statutory requirements on burden shifting for these kinds of applications looking carried his burden of proof by just and reasonable inference just a story phrase and the ins then failed to rebut that just in a reasonable inference with specific evidence on no on record problem with that and normally you would say yeah maybe that's the way to go in this case remember that this relates to evidence of employment in one thousand nine hundred eighty seven and eighty eight right right so are we man do the work and employ the employees and so we know that and that's i'm just feuded but the question is was lucchino employed by ramires one of the subcontractors there's nothing in the intelligence people signing up from there and now it's time for him to answer instead of answering on the merits of that he says oh i was working for the orchestra well he doesn't like going to well it's just like  i thought they were saying he wasn't credible because he didn't respond to their other point where he did respond to the reason why there is a letter from him saying i can't understand why ramirez would say that i did work for him what what is he supposed to do he doesn't kno two hours a week it's the work january through many through may of eighty seven or so which is four months to hundred twenty days fifty two hours a week it seems to me that's probably eight hours a day  and also throwing out the non record evidence that the that they're saying is is the problem now would be the remarriage declaration and the interview the synopsis of the interview it if they didn't say how can i mean maybe you could argue to them if you were before them these other problems should lead you to have declined to this person credible but how can you say that  something they can rely on absolutely this is the agency stating we have received this many applications the agency issuing the decision so does there have to be a separate piece of paper they're saying well we've received twenty seven hundred
imagine this magnificent million dollar opera house with its blue and gold tiled roof brought from split jungle and this beautiful cathedral in one thousand nine hundred one my mouse was the center of the world's rubber muck and when money flowed into the city smaller rivers tributaries of the amazon we got our first animate glimpse of real jungle tail to sweep over the ground and crush the ants into a pile many of the orchids are so delicately pattern that they look not unlike a lovely butterfly  the southern cross replaces the north star and i haven't added a single day of the clipper ship spend half the coast of vast brazil on the high road to rio de janeiro an oriental touch in architecture is found on one of the narrow side streets which are crowded during the busy hours of the day arriving at the top we realize how high we are for the whole section of the country is visible as far as the eye can see and the large buildings of the city look like toys and rocks below a panorama of great interest because it shows the fin at night the milling singing crowd scarcely make room for the many colorful floats which add their touch in making this event so spectacular  the impressive new monument commemorating the independence of brazil a dangerous business side say flying along the coast of south america on route to minus iris we pass over many picturesque old spanish cities the red tile roofs contrasting with the blue waters  very modern thirty two story apartment house rises next to one of the many parks the boulevards are extremely right and flanked by beautiful buildings some modern in design and others of old french european architects and who to drop three hundred feet to a roaring river below
are this is the section which prescribe an exclusive procedures for judicial review of all final orders of deportation and removal it says that petitions to review orders for a little under this chapter are heard in the court of appeals on the record of pleading the determination well we are supposed to look at snow at least that's the way you appear to me right and that's the way that the statute is written but then the statute also says that that court of appeal can based their review only on the record on which the order is based if you look at that the or the administrative record that's before the court today is is not that on which the judge determine that the person's deportable over let's get real here now it seems to me now one way or another we have jurisdiction to review  to make a determination on the application but the rules tell you he's not supposed to do that but the rules also say that the court of appeals can only base their decision on the record of the immigration judge or the immigration service or the ins decided that he's not credible based on the fact that he only submitted affidavits and based on some evidence that they had found that the just at the employer's affidavit is not credible the problem with that is when you go back when the petition and goes back and tries to rebut that the only the only possible rebuttal for that is just another affidavit from the employer what else can he provide to to show that they do and they did or didn't but i know that in this case they didn't because and with the second affidavit that was provided after they get the government provided their you know their proof of fraud or when i'm with the second affidavit there was  you know contact information contact the employer a simple phone call or a visit and ask him does this person ever work for you that would have ended all of the allegations of fraud or was this m maritz under some sort of investigation i think i'm not aware that for some sort of price on activity i'm not familiar with that who's credible well i think in this case based on the record that we have i think they have use their discretion in deciding that that that he's not credible because there's nothing particular to him that provides any any any proof of fraud on his part if they had something against the employer in the file why didn't they verif client was in no position to to verify for them provided whatever we could from the employer the standard of review for this court to review that determination by the legalization if there is unity if we go back to the statute again
mean that's just in those cases there were other reasons than this that there's a there's a free there's obviously a question here whether the government's relied conclusion that based on the questionnaire was not theirs was both lawyers and the court thought the jury question was highly confusing and went back and forth about what to do about it was there a specific objection to the court's decision as to what it can do contemporaneous
anything other than cooperate with the government at the  identify that smuggle drugs to phoenix that he had given his truck to this man in mexico three days earlier it was returned to him with contraband inside he refused to identify the person who gives truck to and you know people don't go around giving out names and addresses it's conceivable he would have a name and address but he might have something to help you track him down that's seem to be the thrust of for now you saying you were pushing for something more and what i'm trying to understand here is that the safety valve depends on how the government frames the question if the government wants more than what he actually has and isn't satisfied a paragraph or what you want physical description for any circumstantial evidence from which you could try to track it that's one thing but what you're saying is that this by the hearing morphed into the specific request for a name and address know the identity he could give you a physical description that's right and if you had given that that would have been sufficient time i believe that that would have been sufficient for the court i think is the court's factual finding right whether or not he clearly sorry government you're not you know we'd be having the conversation we're having this morning would have been in the district court in the district court could have evaluated it and decided whether or not he cooperated because he didn't proffer anything then  government was a cooperation of life my concern here is that now and the reason for my questions is what was the nature of the conversation between the government and the phantom of the family is led to believe that us that what the government wanted his name and address didn't you ever tell him that he didn't know name and address but he cooperated with the government in giving them descriptions of the person that he saw
the reasonable level of assistance argument it seems like defendant has forgotten that this was a stipulated bench trial so for example the blood
government my name is jean turk i represent the appellee in this case so i am barnhart for the social security administration like to address initially plaintiffs argument about the reasoning level one into the vocational experts identified unskilled work the unskilled work was s p p to this corresponds to the s s a regulations for unskilled work which is work that can be done with a short demonstration and within thirty days plaintiff would like to say that reasoning level one is unskilled and reading level two is something else but i say that this is an old conjurers trick where they try and hold conjurer conjurers trick  she's trying to get you to focus on on something while while something else is going on to make you believe what you what she wants you to see and see what she wants you to see i don't think you're talking about him her we're talking and we're talking about she's trying is based soley on dr mitchell since the examining physicians that opinion dr mitchell sent said he had adequate concentration and that he could perform tasks in complete work days again i would have you believe that reasoning level one is unskilled and reasoning level two is something else but it is not it is simple really it is unskilled work and again we don't have to look at theories we can look at the actual evidence that's presented a started to say someone who packed his furniture parts you have parts a b c even after you have nuts and bolts a t c c it's detail but it's an involved you have your sandwich makers who have three different kinds of bread six or seven ingredients plus the secret sauce again that's not an example used by the patient an expert but also has a reasoning level to detail but an involved the best example of course is plaintiff's former work as a dishwasher again dishwashing is details but on involved how you wash a cup or a saucer is different and how you wash a pot or a pan but yet it's still unskilled work and this is the reasoning level again has nothing to do with that in and actually  areas and the district court also pointed out that that was ambiguous and it at the l j could determine conflicts in the evidence and ambiguities i think the chose to include in the r f c eight prohibition against  dealing with the public simply because a plain helen's criminal background and his disdain for authority and his lack of patience again in a work standing there is some control with the employees and the supervisors so i thought the the fact that he might have some might have some limitations in that area was not assessed would not create a system with a significant impact on his ability to work medium are of c and a need for simple work with no public contact and little coworker contact would it be possible for a similar circumstance individual to perform the work of a kitchen helper under those circumstances  is dishwasher a level two reason the job kitchen helper is a reason to so which is which is where he was going and that was his last job yes working for whitney as i we have said he stopped doing that wasn't
was grounded in terms of actually it doesn't even make a distinction as to how or p s i was granted the opinion simply says that because the p s or stated that patchouli basis of the charge which is what we have here