MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
willingly or voluntarily so once the court just granted that withdraw mr harris was presumed innocent and because just because of the nature of how our criminal trials proceed our position motion the state usually that is the case of trial or off as you please so arguing that this is a very limited circumstance where once the trial court grants the motion to withdraw then mr harris should have been able to says williams which is the united states supreme court case where the issue is whether the defendant was denied his presumption of innocence when he was forced to appear before the jury in prison attire which is very different from the facts of this case the different also in bryant relied on  in bryant was people versus king where the illinois supreme court reason that after pleading guilty a prisoner stands before the court as a convicted criminal and the presumptions of innocence which the londell just on a not guilty plea no longer exist which is exactly what the law is and what th cannot participate in the proceedings so the court jumped the gun a little bit angry and in the motion without the state being able to present any evidence calling any witnesses having the attorneys testifying or nothing and the word was like oh you're right let me some other rule in effect to correct its own ruling
more than five years there was in a permanent as you know without opinion and i believe based on the regulations this case shouldn't should have been reviewed the record should go larger records should have been reviewed by the board for and his decision it just doesn't seem that he really clarified what concerns him about her testimony when she consistently said that she never paid anyone to marry her she met him she fell in love with  i've read the entire more than five hundred pages of testimony it just seemed from the beginning that he had a preconceived notion of the case by reading the manner of his questioning by reading the manner of the comments by him just  from experts in the field regarding the domestic violence even though they were made it into the record the judge completely disregarded that and never never really discussed it clearly as to why he would he would accept the the just statements the seminal issue here is whether or not because of the matter burden for the hardship waiver she had to show that her marriage was one in good faith and two during that time period she was subject to abuse there was a lot of evidence that went before the immigration judge and in making her decision or his decision she reviewed the entire record including the demeanor of the witnesses the consistency of the testimony with respect to the good faith marriage will show that in reality what happened was during the investigation when confronted with so many consistencies this gentleman down and told the truth the word here to be the tr again she had me her burden with respect to the good faith nature of the relationship with respect to the abused she alleged that after in fact that the proceedings were and were in play and there is nothing objective that would show shelley jordan who says that mr met mr mcveigh was violent and she encouraged this lot of to go to the police and earlier on page seven twenty seven the record had written a letter in support of their of their marriage and said what  and there are several pages in there where you can review the medical records there is no evidence whatsoever of any trauma or any bruising or anything associated with the nose bleeds or headache if anything that looks like a common cold or flu symptoms so her own statement to a doctor so the governor argues that she has not met her burden if there are no further questions this concludes the government's presentation is one thing the court will not ask i thank you name referred to in regards to the two letters of support one that had occurred there were two letters from one woman one are you saying that it was a good faith marriage and then the other supporting the issue of violence are two different times there was a time when nobody knew there was abuse according to the testimony from everybody and the nature of domestic violence is that for a long time and people don't go for counseling as you know i don't need to tell you
child from one of the parents can't happen you've got a constitutional violation every time every time on these facts yes there may well be circumstances where the immigration judge determination that was a quote unquote rather tenuous relationship was not based on any moral judgment on the composition the family i was even gratian judge stated it was quote particularly days on how  responsibility for gayness financial emotional future if you departs to mexico with this model basically javier father bond with both petitioner and his son daniel the strictly one of convenience he's the only woman to be a required intermediate step before they can comes to this court and that's an appeal to the board now if she's raising this claim to the board the board possibly may not have streamlined if they found merit sure claim and then could have remained i may have the right to preserve her family she doesn't have a right to preserve that family within the united states courts have long recognized from greenport this court the sovereign power unique circumstances he has no substitute prost right to stay in the united states now all the government did in this case was in force in a plot of the immigration laws of this country and despite the fact that zero three five zero four six five zero five zero five one five united states versus science each side has ten minutes
i believe that the clearest way for the court to resolve the matter is that your arms for that reason have i intended to approach that issue first but i could also go to the issue of the scene yes or i can go t i responsible for their financial support her entire immediate family reside in the united states with awful status in the present case your honor the facts are materially indistinguishable that there is a single mother and she's like to me there's one conclude that the this relative wouldn't suffer the hardship your honor he didn't include make any conclusions he simply just discarded his circumstances from the analysis completely at the outset he didn't even discuss the declaration filed by this relative that there were possible exception factors including the existence of relatives and its value so it's very similar your honor to i for example this court has found it has jurisdiction to consider whether a grandchild is a qualifying relative and we've met that the question of whether a particular person is a can argue that that would be a basis for us overturning what the here the i had done and are you referring on to the fact he's now over twenty one years of age or hardship factors in this case and he is not required to explicitly mention every single piece of evidence and how it weighs on hardship determination so all of these arguments all this national debate that we're discussing falls within the non
fairly interesting issue as to whether or not the open records act applies in this case and we argue that it does not apply for several reasons the old records act allows an employee to request records that written records that were used to evaluate his performance to evaluate determination in this case we presided testimony from  several witnesses that the petitioner was involved in an infraction that day there was an argument and he was terminated so he asked for the records in his personnel file regarding determination there were no such records everybody testified that there were no such records we had four people testify regarding this infraction to sure allowed each one of those people testifying at the end of their testimony he made no motion to strike any of their testimony and then after improves were closed for the first time it raises an issue regarding whether or not their testimony now should be bar you so now you have a wave of absolutely way that's  records in the first place exactly so if it doesn't exist it clearly isn't applicable that's exactly right so what's your next point that with that that was the first point that goes to his legal argument they remain here is the best way to the argument regarding the facts of this case if you can read the arbitrator's decision he goes through details the arguments on both sides there's a lengthy finding of fact the bottom line is he didn't find his the petitioner credible he found the the longer resting on you believe you
methamphetamine and the gun that were found there is there certainly was sufficient evidence that he provided some methamphetamine to patty davis own the house her testimony was though that he gave her perhaps as i read it for two months period and then there was also some testimony from his girlfriend that he had distributed some methamphetamine to others in the basement  keep in mind your honor the time he was living down in this basement room with his girlfriend it had an open door and he didn't i'm certainly there's no evidence that he got locked the door kept people out so at any rate i think that the gun two issues with respect to the kind has to do with not only the conduit trying to take i'm first of all it's possession and whether or not the government has established beyond a reasonable doubt that  up there was methamphetamine there and there were also scales plainview which could be used for drug trafficking and i think again that bolsters the position of the government that mr blackbird was you know decision that he knew what was in that safe and was in fact in possession of it now with respect to the firearms in the safe house again i think that the facts speak to clearly for themselves there was a substantial amount of money in that safe over three thousand dollars  know i think was simply a sanity error and as we pointed out ultimately we think it's we think it's harmless because the stock court still do come below the mandatory minimum maybe i don't know what he might have gone low or even lower if he thought you know advocate on her behalf because of what she did she lived up to her part of the bargain but setting that aside the terms of the case and the procedural posture of the case and what actually happened i don't think it's appropriate for
ufficiency of the documents submitted to the court would still be subject to the standard for  i think this case is factual distinction for a couple of reasons and that there really is no we just don't have any facts to to establish what in fact he'd been guilty to so even if a prior pleaded guilty there's a different standard would have constituted activated criminal sexual assault and on top of that i rule two which are the cases are that map our was referring to is when you are going to impeach somebody actually have a  they have the statutory citation and they have the nature of the expense of the final judgment and then on top of that all the defendant who said yes i pled to this if ounce and i did so thinking that  you know his attorney said well she believe that it's still get conditional release if you continue to work with the police which i don't know what that means unless he introduced some evidence which he did that handsome purposes and this court said that it was it was fine to show previous lies and that it was up to the defendant showed that there was something fundamentally wrong about that  he did not commit the duis in other words it's his first to establish that that to raise a question regarding i think it was his representation he was saying that there was no indication accounts and also in this case there's no indication that there was something fundamentally wrong with his prior guilty plea and so there was no need for the state
aged the flavors are mazing they're dense and blooming and continuing to bloom as i'm talking to you right now where did i get it you ask i mean the trade lake area of northern wisconsin at the love tree farm and i'm sitting here with mary fall who's going to show us how to make this cheese today mary what goes into this delicious choose well that's the truth like souter it's all sheep's milk and the sheep are grazing on wildflowers older grasses that are very herbal a combination of anything out there that they can find that is northern wisconsin and it brings together the pollens the molds the yeast in the air all together to explode in your mouth like you said it was doing we're so lucky to have you at the same paul farmer's market every weekend and i can't
stipulated bench trial of cannabis trafficking and two other lesser included offenses and was sentenced to the minimum twelve year term the issue in this case is whether the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt cannabis came from out of state from out of eleanor that is an essential element of the charge at the state has not disputed the principle that we cannot reasonably infer the regions of cannabis from the point of origin of the defendant that is not  dispute the state has instead argued that this case is like people the lynch in that case in lynch the defendant boarded a train in texas and then disembarked in chicago with two padlocked is like the padlocked suitcase is in language and consequently that because the lid of the trunk couldn't be opened on site that the candidates had to have been there since the case in that in the deficiency in the in the state's evidence is that we don't have any idea where mr lehman was earlier that day we don't have any idea what his route was we don't have an idea what his  have any information about that and we also don't have any information about the trunk itself the state contends that essentially it's impossible for mr lehman to access the truck and that's writing clearly the canvas came from to access the front later we do not know how the state has chosen not to night know us on that point our contention is that if the police can get into the trunk mr meaning can get into the trunk and it's the state's burden  put the contraband into the truck the the point in this case the issue is again it's the state's core need to prove where the cannabis came from and in this situation they appear to be wrong on that it is absolutely your prerogative to disagree with it again i i would take the stance that there's no compelling reason to disagree with it it's you know it's in accord with other cases that dealt with similar issues in
after they see there's no requests for the instruction right i think that was his decision right there that he wasn't going to do it at that moment  question in a more specific way the bed the court held that the the that it was proper to us and individualize i'm sorry a if you want to start with supervisory sure i think it's all made that clear at the beginning of her argument that the current climate in the united case there was a lot of testimony and and witnesses from haiti and about the shooting customs in particular there's a concept of asking whether the court would consider it in the race question and she was wondering the court would give that type of instruction as you run a point in our yard or two will respond by saying i don't see anything in that in the case that would make it necessary it's not that kind and then counsel broke in and apparently said it is not that kind of case so i think the judge was being told i think trial counsel by your own words made it clear she didn't think that this was something that was legally required but something that she was me would have arguably a different case to address these issues but i think i keep coming back to the trial counsel didn't come close to and indeed even on your appeal
it is situated in the western part of the united states in california its name is re i do this makes them responsible for seeing the voting here today takes place according to the laws of the land and now the no wonder he's been up since four o'clock delivering ma that's as far as we can go remember this is a secret but no one ever sees another person mark his ballot however if we did have miraculous powers that we were able just this one to follow bill johnson this is what we  see the chief executive president and vice president of the united states next to vote for a senator from the state then a representative from his district this man is casting his vote for a government of his own choosing under the constitution of the this is the way it's set up there are three branches of the united states government the executive branch president the legislative branch and the judicial branch although the chief responsibility of congress is that of making laws certain other responsibilities and delegated to the two in the senate for each of the forty eight states and the nation is represented by two elected members making a total membership of ninety six small states and log equal represent just to pass on important presidential appointments and to approve or reject all treaties with other nations violation by congressional laws or executive order the three branches executive legislative and judicial each with some power none with having voted for a federal government he must also choose a governor for a state members of the state assembly county judges all the minor offices and various legislative amendment get elected an entire government from top to bottom that is if a majority of the voters think the way he does about it no major presidential candidates spoke like all the others but one of them in new york city early in the summer nominating conventions are held seventy million americans for the feet of the various candidate currently even the younger generation now the election board all over america tonight the people are waiting to learn who they have chosen to govern them for the next four years
come to us after agency administrative agency screening you know related to immigration the supreme court has made clear to us that whatever whatever we find in terms of legal or even factual  the medical records at that time none of them examine
of what was missing with the truth no director to supply that testimony he said is a mechanism of injury that was described to him by the claimant was consistent with a mechanism for the development of the traumatic  says the mechanism of injury that he described is consistent with the injury received no
had started bringing in nd sock wishing i worked for the company for five years before and they had one so far and that was the electrical  keep just to get familiar with the thought and be able to troubleshoot any problems that might occur in the long run or some time in the near future so i think the problem and order to maintain you know and ask a question as i understand what you're saying you're saying that your employer was unfair to you because it fired you for not doing a job that it had not trained you to do is that papers allegation or argument that they fired you because of your gender or because of your race or because of your age or because you have some sort of disability or anything like that and is that part of your claim that they fired you because really because of your national origin or your sex or your race or something like that well another th sure you understand that under new york law an employer can fire someone for a good reason or a bad reason so long as it's not a proof it booted reason so they're not required to be fair or reasonable they're just required not to discriminate on the basis of certain criteria that's that's the problem that i think led to your case being dismissed is that just the fact that they you're trying to do i don't think let me go do ethics ok to do i don't say it's fair or it's right as a matter of morality but the question is the law doesn't give people a right to keep their jobs if the employer doesn't like them anymore is the problem so long as they're not discriminating on one of these prohibited bases you know in other words if they treat white employees differently than black employees or they treat women differently than men that's against the law but if they are if they just got made the wrong decision that's not normally the basis for a lawsuit that may have been a difficult they may have been the problem that led to the dismissal of your papers mr mcgill and we'll look at them look at them very carefully to see if there is there are allegations that you can make under new york law against an employer but you know even if an employer decides to fire somebody outside of their habit of categories there's nothing in new york law that says an employer can't decide to fire somebody even will no more hold will mark thank you for your patience today and will and will look at your papers closely your case is the last case on the calendar so i'm going to ask the clerk to adjourn court
statute may be in terms of considering factors put a look at all this in there and my consideration of the guidelines is that their way under in this situation and therefore i'm going to go to three sixty making their best guess and so we have a whole range of alternate senses imposed by different churches some of whom said well i would do this but then i would also take into account the guidelines what we don't actually have here is he just given the guidelines  unconstitutional so that they don't really have any merit and although it may seem like a technical remained it would seem to me that we can't for sure say that he imposed his alternate sentence under the new regime and council as then they recognize it could go up to three sixty's so is the government opposing unlimited remarry and conviction first incorrect as well he doesn't have to he can fashion a sentence within the guidelines lower than the guidelines whether he can go above the guidelines brings up another but you may want to advise us that your client after consultation wants to withdraw this appeal in light of the government's representation but after thirty days then it's back on track
question isn't whether you like the way they decided california law is a question is whether federal constitutional rights were violated when the jury was instructed on self defense to a fair they well that's really the in self defense the must be so that there's a reasonable person place in this somewhere position a reasonable person in place in his position who decided to gun down somebody on the freeway because the person was allegedly
don't think that i mean i don't know that we need to quibble about that because i don't think that's early forecloses your argument because as far as i can tell there's nothing in f d a regulations that says this is an extender there's a bunch of different standards that packaging and processing some of them may relate to other sometimes a sceptic some of them maybe as you but i think are trying to say up to out of the center it doesn't have anything to do with a separate process but i think we have to start with the but i think that i mean the neighborhood elsa's that or better i think was incorrect because again it was unwilling to buy the references and it was unwilling to even compare the disclosure in the at if there was a that term to define a subject to include f d a level finding that the board made that is referenced as put together you wouldn't mind them to come up with all these elements and i know you want us to look at it again and said well of course you can buy that and maybe i agree with us about our act but i can't do that i have that i mean that's an actual fighting that we can perverse and there's a loss there's a complete lack of substantial evidence so it seems like the claim twenty at the very least has to go back well
reason just as a matter of procedure if we affirm on this organizing a format for display limitation are there any remaining issues besides cos we have to deal with  my bill if it shows up in a corner in the fine print that i even can't read but it's displayed that's enough that is enough of the question not display as manipulative further on the front end of the taunts and that's what was done in order to really do that as pointed out in the specification a number of places and all