MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
the original error in what the i j had to be i did with the i j but let's assume for the sake of argument that you're limited to the husband's climbing what's your best argument on his claim alone separated from his wife's about the one child policy just that one child then there's a wife did here they can remove she can have the i used to remove get pregnant here and then say ok now i want to stay in the united states i mean it would be like a floodgate was not well you i know you hands question you have as a simply ate the evidence what one way or another is generic i mean in other words it's as to whether she has a well founded fear  hundred ninety seven his wife and me and also left channel china shanghai to travel to the united states hoping to have a second child there are chinese time travel does well in early case any type of argument regarding withholding of remove all are improper remove all we're not saying that this is the case that raised the issue of jurisdiction in those cases so the fact that he's here it's just that he has no arguments  argument question is do we have jurisdiction over his crime the board decided his climb on the merits was that he did not need as the immigration judge correctly determined the respondents burden of proof and not the math as an end of the order you're saying is that it has to go back to that original act because all the way up after that he was there were just stations made in his case independently so if you say anything jurisdictional you has to be in his own right didn't argue the hard be i e that he could not be a derivative beneficiary because he could have found his own right well your honor since we know nothing about him we don't know whether he's eligible actually in this very odd situation we do because of the case that we were discussing earlier guaranteed confidentiality so they can make the decision even if asylum is does not mean that applicant could not want to have the public at large know the applicants private information it could be  specialized skills and then he applied and nothing to do you hold time put twenty months here but we know nothing about him so we don't know what kind of education he got twenty months that we know he got twenty months of education united states with the intention of having children planning to return in so there's some question about what time are we talking about with a coworker you know like region country parts make clear that the plates very important places each province has different now this is my point and so we don't know as as far the place or time of that but the country reports also make clear that china has
listen to the extent of the cases had put a limiting principle here it always seems to revolve around the d w p i scenario and i do think that that's a scenario that gives the court not only that not only that in different situations for example in the gay c c a when we look at curtis johnson and we look at castle men then the court took the same definitional language the same definition of language it took a physical
so nine minutes late we will call jericho slick toward meeting to order seven o nine july fifth two thousand well as is the so the first item on the agenda are comments or issues to be raised by the public which are not on the agenda i think so the second item i guess we can't do we can't really do minutes from the previous right yet but we'll leave that so the first item is yeah and i and so i thought i talked to them at that time and they explained to me the whole you know the and the nature of the alternate and the nation our position yeah and what they did and then also you know it's decisions count it's not just a talk show and not everybody who gets into it quite understands that they think oh well this is kind of you know get together and talk about the future of the town right now that may happen fifty for projects you know with velcro for several years and then with other you know federal development projects as well so i'm sure a lot of those here are going to be really thrilled that the guy who tells them they're going to stop to seventy forty and then the lowest bidder was playing at sixty eight thirty nine they estimated just shy of twenty eight hundred tons which is what staff had estimated actually i have a question i've always been interested i don't know much about bathing and always been just at the court in terms of time when it takes a lot of work and machinery so for the lay the time the target of target actually cost sixty bucks that's a that's a wrapped in price for the application of the actually tax rates yes before you came on and before we started actually i was asking talk about the fact that i didn't remember when we discussed this earlier that there was going to be a two point seven percent increase and general fund tax which is higher than makes me really comfortable but he said it's almost entirely due to the shared rescue fire department person yeah which in fact isn't a done deal yet so i think it's likely but it is a done deal i also then gave him a little thing people understand they voted for they lie and we say that's what it is now whether that now what do the math for me is tell me what the increases for somebody who owns a three hundred thousand dollar  august eighteenth ok i am not absolutely sure this point but it's likely that i can't make that but i'm likely to be able to make anything around it so  change because i don't think catherine can be here so if we don't change it and i can't make it we don't have a meeting and either we kept it so are you
today yes that's correct your honor in other words the issue of the for the jurors occasion was actually not originally raised and it was not part of the decision from the district couper that the reason is that of course from the  that theory is it isn't that exactly the way statute of limitations works it puts a cap on certain specified legal remedies that can be imposed after certainly not of time but it doesn't  available and here fifty six say we have the the really specified is no longer available is rescission or they had a choice not specifically with the kids from the score removal and the that the protections to that stage that otherwise that the protection of the statue of limitations precision would really be meaningless if you could just take the next and remove someone were right why does that same and it's true that you know one of the one of the reasons why people want permanent residence is so that they want but they can be in a position to become a naturalized citizen of the united states but it isn't a right and you know it isn't as certainly not an the haven't frames it that there's now a positive for the status arising from the court's interpretation of the statute of limitations but you know i think understanding you know and looking to the common usage of the word that that person because of it regardless of their having no culpability in the misrepresentation that was neat is forever barred from citizenship when they need all other where the statutory requirements have not been met but we're not talking about granting citizenship we're talking about a question that if it's only the supreme court how to dress for me would not be fronting as a matter first impression in our circuit and  is under what circumstances do we take the law for all its mission to be substantive versus procedural jurisdiction to granted or where the elements weren't satisfied but regardless or put aside the specifics of that case but in a situation where there was not waffle admission to begin with are we going to treat that i procedural and we said extending it into the
own life and his safety and his family place and safety if he were mean mr blanco left behind his one year old daughter and his daughter's mother and he fled under us for this country soon after he received the last fifty years have been death threats and country thirteen if you ever been to it the the immigration judge and the b r c they both concluded that there was no past persecution here threats were not imminent concrete and menacing you're on a debt that is not the correct legal standard and this court explained in herrera grave the court interest if not the imminence of the threat at ballot tell me a little bit about tell me about our standard of review here i'm struggling to try to determine how we evaluate the findings difference i think that you know the facts on his record would support past persecution you know and under a proper analysis but the board never considered data whether he had a well funded fear of the future persecution so even if we agreed with you on the existence of past persecution we'd have to send this back for them to continue to evaluate the asylum and they're withholding removal claims founded fear of future persecution and that he did not establish eligibility for withholding or relief under the convention so that the board your honor with respect to did take these those issues  argument but you may be misconstruing my question i don't know that we can do that based on this record that my question was directed to whether or not we don't have to at least spend this back to have it be i immigration judge developed a record further on the question of future put it well founded fear haven't talked at all about the three letters in the telephone call so let me ask you how the the the threats that mr blanco received are different from for example the on fulfilled threats that we discussed and leave that was the case of the chinese woman who had a couple of children and they threatened that if she had any more she would be you know she would have suffered physical violence and threats that were eventually unfulfilled but situation i'm bothered quite frankly by the fact that the leader of the i j a of the p i yeah i mentioned the fact that there were actual killings connected both with the abduction incident and some of the people are impermissible can we not reverse once we take the only aspect out of the record such as in your failure to notice that people were killed the lying upon no injuries differently from the way we say they should be weighed perhaps even not at all then can we not correct that i'm so sorry and so in conclusion i  insufficient and i believe your honor that's what happened in this case as as we've heard earlier in these proceedings others who attended the same march as mr blanco were harmed and abducted and killed the board did not address case again we're talking about an abduction a beating and follow up death threats all of which are severe we heard some discussion your honor about ciavarella what we what i did not hear your honour's with respect is i did not hear the government
season violation of her fourth amendment rights and i will is the questions seem to go horseshoe your question seemed to go more to the second encounter i will i will go to that pulls up next to you in his squad car in full uniform and ask you to stay and wait because he's clear in another traffic stop and wants to come back and talk to you  the role of the trial court was to determine whether his tone his intent was us see here rather than a consensual encounter if you look at the trial court when the trial court does address whether or not working on this other case then he left the area and the driver stayed so the test becomes what does a reasonable person think is happening do they have the right to leave she state i think she stayed because the uniformed officer asked why her told her not to leave that this is correct now literally but it is the trial court's role he turned the witnesses he waived their credibility and he only by the he is in the best position to interpret whether that request was truly  me to stay there and it wasn't but it was a language which showed that he was giving her a genuine choice to leave he didn't say you know what i think even you can go off but i stay there he said he his words were and he wasn't even talking and he basically said he couldn't recall the exact words but it was awkward you stay put could you stay put because i i have literally out another traffic stop because it's that important for me to come back here and talk to you and i do know i can never manage it any reasonable reason would give us a person who thinks at that point that an officer telling you i'm going to come back and talk to experience consensual encounter when an officer did wrong to now say oh it it was ok and this was consensual he told her just he asked her to stay because he needed to come back and talk to her no defendant the defendant defense counsel says judge if the first seizure was was if the first car was in this stop i'm paraphrasing here then certainly the second encounter was a seizure the state just has nothing to fill in the gaps if you listen if you look at the actual solution made by the trial court there's no real indication that they actually
are separate opportunities to reach the right decision pension protection clause the language that speaks to this is the forcible contractual relationship and of course when we talk about contractual relationship we have tons of that contractual relationship and the difficulty for me is if it is calculated using the wrong formula and there is an incorrect calculation that trumps the fact then it would seem forcible is this contractual relationship to actively pardon me there is a change it's not you know our house it was no longer the judge it was the final because it's possible changes judgment i guess that's where i'm going so final judgments are never quite right good legal process or reaching the decision what is rude that happened in each of these cases it happened while we were this legislation in the legislation does nothing but allow the right to correct a mistake but there are time limits and after that we've got a vested decision and so there's a lot of semantics going on or perhaps mr has a line just really approach the definition of a procedural rights is sucked into rights a different way and he says the substantive rights are only the words of the statute and that's not the case in this case the statute incorporates has the contract a process where determining what be important but here we have a substantive ruling in determination that established a right the right to receive and do with the pension doesn't mean the white and it only fails miserably because they want to apply the unjust enrichment as a way of constraining definition of the pension pension was there really a review of the equities here the retirees have cited in our own neighborhood numerous examples of f x is specially with the spray for making clear administrative agencies don't get to reopen he says just because they believe the state's name the definition of a final
see if the risk was something that was distinctly associated with her employment it was a risk personal to petitioner or was it a neutral risk which most lists are at the time of arbitration evidence the injury i was seventy seven years old should undergone by lateral placement surgery there is documentation a month before this incident where she saw dr makary treating her for degenerative problems with her back and she difficulty idiopathic fall i come before you today mindful that i'm up against the manifest weight of the evidence on this personal risk issue i'm not going to win the personal risk the problem i say is that when you look at the lower that's different that having an inherently defective i guess when you say nobody did anything about it there's testimony that they say she was in the front of the line there was testimony from from response witnesses that the map was not bun when you look at that analysis you look at i mean the location petitioners here for training this she was here she had been here a few times in the past for training but this wasn't something that she encountered at the time the l preschool this is where the head start program is for the springfield and other testimony was one hundred forty one children attending school at this facility the location was the main door that they call it the parent the work the staff before her saying that you know it was flat when she walked in and i think the best one of that we have is her witness who said that she saw bunched up before she she fell over but there was no testimony that she did positive or there witness and i think that's that's a greater risk than a member of the general public i know that this was sort of the parents story parents but sometimes you see the story but there's no testimony indicating there's this many people commission was cracked in finding there's enough evidence for the commission to find that it was the defect in the carpeting that cause the employee in that case to fall rather than you know her stripping on herself
what's your motion you disagree with her and then anything specific she didn't do for you i'm an ensuite corey in your original brief you did not include the because it doesn't contradict your assertion in your brief but there's nothing in the record to contradict the defendant's claim that there was a two year offer well we does it refute that you know judge did not rely on his proffer when he made his findings he never said he's making any credibility determinations in factual determinations he never mentioned any of the four two conferences where the judge said was this was a will if the state invokes the offer there's no possible relief there's nothing on the table be revoked the offer how can we possibly order the state to give a something that was informally discussed which is that with his lawyer they need that i mean these were definitive offers on the table and if if it's in effect if the deficient performance of counsel calls mr morgan to not take the he did speak up he spoke in the fitness evaluation he spoke of when he made his motion for effective assistance he spoke up on remains he stated his claim time and time again it what the problem is we are conversation with the defendant was none of that is on the record and so at a minimum here in this case a good needs to be sent for another  present for the conversations between defendant and defense counsel and that is the crux of the matter in this case and now in our brief we will get the facts before two conferences including back while the prosecutor told the i wrote in the brief and if i apologize for not including that fact but again i believe that the most relevant the most telling fact which was the facts stated by the prosecutor and we on that's what i'm staying correct in people again what is the possible prejudice what what do you offer the you keep talking about this for you was reject the dancing on the record by the defendant with full knowledge of the consequences how c we possibly say that he turned them off or down based on some speculative conversation when these confronted and given the option of taking the four years out record by the trial who are in the  that those were the goldfish and if the those could be the negotiations and mr morgan's claims could still be true mr morgan's claims are him based on what happened between him conduct a factual inquiry could question defense counsel about what she said to the defendant what the defense said to her what the defendant's understanding was at the time he rejected that putting obviously in the end of la
so the absence of the tangible evidence that was not would call by dr serrano but it was the jury was asked to excel because these assumptions these hiding of a record for failure to disclose over the court to account that there was no willful problem with the basis of the judge's ruling both at the time of the instructions records in the medical records as well as in the testimony so will therefore the quote unquote evidence in question was cumulative and the case law is quite consistent that no final one instruction will be given when the evidence is being questioned is already in the record before the court before the jury in this case the hou standard of care for a physician was not correctly communicated in the instruction they are needed and he didn't say it was presented to the jury showed that there was no prejudice experience and so th phone the instruction would have been one way for the jury to hear and that the jury in this case on this and actually in a stronger presentation from the very beginning of the trial to the theory end of the trial here on the were the operative report talked about the first implant didn't talk about the first implant didn't hit any impact whatsoever on the plaintiffs outcome and there there was evidence they had the recording to question didn't exist but was introduced so that's a completely different situation and it's a situation where as we have this court to do the there was a statement at the outset of counsel's presentation this morning there at the defense can seize the record was incomplete or deficient and there is simply not the case it was raised during the motions in limine today and then the court also had done research and had argument of counsel at the at the stage of the instructions conference and had reviewed the statement on no cause examination no argument to which the difference objected on this point on the plane this theory that there was some sort of hiding of the evidence who are doctor was not convincing to the jury adam very quickly and the plainness contention concerning the manifest way with the evidence  mr papa before this morning to testimony of doctors right and i have to correct his description of the testimony he did nat say that he had no recollection of this based on his custom and practice to the cots and that's what he testified to try on he didn't have no recollection of the case generally speaking and of the surgery generally speaking because
ok so the order that was answer file to excuse performance of the order to pay the mortgage when he could have filed something that would have said i can't hate it's an impossibility  file if anything to say i'm unemployed i can't make the mortgage payments that she said and oh by the way the house  modify any fines on count for about the farm equipment so because he's in contempt on the farm equipment i'm going toward money and then he does the same thing with attorneys and enforcing i'm going to modify the earlier order and now you keep it when here's what you all and was are but there's no record of him specifically saying i'm modifying the previous order well th time
appeal in that order must be reversed because all the way from will to most recently in lindsay the illinois supreme court has made it absolutely right that we're there is not strict compliance cannot reach the merits of anything that was raised in motions to withdraw your plea below then it cannot reach the merits of anything raised for the first time on appeal the is counsel and there was this issue that i wanted to raise in this issue i want to raise the illinois supreme court has only rejected the judicial economy argument that were that argument was made years ago indifferent was originally charged with three counts murder based on different mental states but also alleging that he committed the murder by using a handgun in the state put forth notice that they were going that he is subject to the pool penalties range of penalties and there is no sentencing agreement so if it is not a negotiated plea there was nothing that that pertained to  surprise the defendant was basically backtracking from what the court had considered as the factual basis which was the evidence presented in the preliminary hearing explicitly considered by the board a substantial basis and in the preliminary