MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
murder and assuming he didn't talk to them or simply as investigator didn't talk to them we know what it least one of them definitely would have said because he testified the other denture hearing so the real question it seems to me is what difference it makes that he didn't actually interview them himself before the trial because it most they would have said that there was also a red car also find some red truck to ride around in to do the shooting it was very problematic there was this court can't resolve this case so we've reference to the prosecution that were squealing he heard on the pavement in the east end of the alley where the body was found now over on the west end of the alley is the red truck the police reports and even the statement of facts recount the fact that the body was found one hundred forty feet from the put all of this evidence to the other it becomes self defeating and this was what mr yard was attempting to avoid and that's exactly what he testified to he said that he was attempting to put on the strongest possible case and in fact in his ar to the jury his tack was to attack the strongest parts of the prosecution case and it was his present from the strongest evidence they presented was actually the testimony of because he was consistent with his statements to the police but because he was inconsistent with those statements and in ours herself and was attempting to cover for the common law husband of his you inform the police that he'd been drinking at the time i i don't think that's reflected in the statements and the first couple of interview he was interviewed three times i think yeah when was it that he later testified one was that he later changed his testimony  actually he was i don't think he's under the influence there there is some statements in the beginning of the trial just prior to the trial beginning where i believe the prosecutor was asking for an order regarding this to be granted because he was becoming problematic so i don't think he flipped and told the time of trial or around the time trial and all that was explored before the jury it was explored in including the question of whether or not she appeared to be under the influence of alcohol during the interviews judge did note that mr yar seem to recall having a harvard certain extra contradictions in their statements so it's particularly on clear now mr chicago and we know it was statement that should come on related and he did not find it to be a credible response and frankly given chicago an opportunity to perceive what was going on sleeve those words spoken he couldn't say who spoke them and in what circumstances i mean this was an alley backed off against all of the lot of residential space did not think would draw a lot of attention to the credibility of his case because he knew that his strategy was going to be to attack the credibility of the prosecution's case
with why she would come forward with a different story now than was true at the time that that was happening so when she gave this statement you know she said i was aware of it but somehow in between their trial now that she's back in police do and so relied on that you sort of need to know that there was an effect potentially cannabis found him and so using that was at least an attempt to show that there was a change in the demeanor of the defendant which was their argument and so  jury instruction opposition is a voluntary act on the state would argue that this was any error if this was not being aired that this court believes the world was harmless on the language given to the items of clothing that were placed into the back while she was helping so she could be completely sure that there's nothing in the bag she said she had a generally good idea and if she had any indication that there was anything illicit in there she would not bring them in
there is no other evidence except for the fact that she had licensed drivers license which was that he has a certain person who does the driver's license had the same address as the parcel and i think particularly person w part of the parcel that contain drugs but nevertheless it doesn't show in any way shape or form that she knew what was in the parcel when she opened and that is the critical point tha fanon in the background and she ran into the bedroom so they had to force the door because no one would come to the door to open it in the bathroom they found two of the packages devices the toilet is the one who's going to flush it down the other three in the vat number nine when this happened and the testimony that i could read the transcript is that the stand was not in the kitchen they saw her out on the balcony and she ran into the bedroom bottom some of them to wonder what's in the know but the thing is what is really lost when we overturn the do is put it where you have to say that the evidence of my client opening the package turning it over and finding something in the package what
period of time or by just unfortunately by the time this judge walford denied our motion we had no idea what happened our staff completely switched over and no one knew if there was a specific issue with this motion explanation makes the amount of time here the one hundred and ninety dollars days reasonable they were were talking about it you have to persuade the court it's reasonable what can you tell them what is the reason for this much honor we relied on the case law at the time the base that led us to believe that our motion was filed within a reasonable time according to that don't think that the amount of time on a reasonable standard is linked to what the explanation is for needing that time i can tell you when the one hundred and seventy seven dollars a case that got be very well that was one of our motions and the court in the nieman consider it they just granted the motion and had lost track of this and you didn't hear the lead it wasn't purposeful maybe i misunderstood what you said about what was going on in your office unfortunately at the time the motion was filed there was a different set of staff working on these motions they had all left and a brand new set of staff was working i know that people are that's where i mean that to be the case how is that consistent with the argument that that you missed this deadline all of that then you say you compare the other cases but it wasn't that you were thinking that you had this opportunity for the lady right at the time we filed a motion we believed that there wasn't going to due benefits were they do anything anyway because of your motion we believe they were not she has received the bulk of the benefits what is still sitting is that left over the twenty five percent that still sitting there  only thing that she would get back is about six thousand dollars in egypt fees that we were awarded my question you've answered part of it more precisely were her past due benefit the until the notice of what is issued the court alternatively held that even if it was considered under the reasonableness standard what's your position and i mean it seems like there should be some clarity here as to which standard the twenty five percent the right your honor the commissioner's position is that we do not have we don't take a position as to what the correct standard is we are happy to work with what the court sets forth as a standard and we will provide a reason to me they thought it was time that's their argument and so they didn't provide any reason for that for the counsel's now explained that it was the staffing switchover that follow any reasons for the delay at fifty nine dollars a motion to alter or amend the judgment and again did not provide any reasons for the delay the district court denied that motion attorney alinsky followed an appeal and again until and there is no this is a body of work which operates largely by boilerplate motions as those of us who are district judges would just say all of this no but that's not a particular
where someone is caught and nobody's questioning the veracity of the cas the correctness of the task but someone says i just didn't do it so i must have been duped someone tricked me i must have been didn't i swear we can we create when or how he was duped i was at a party with one hundred people just a bit where i was to is that never sufficient to overcome the presumption is that a matter of standard of proof that even more words higher level than here that's on the other side of the scale sales are going like this so the question is how am i going to decide which way the scale goes as a matter of wall independently here or is this basically have actual question and the question is why  asked the questions that satisfy themselves that your client was not telling the truth on one to actually on three occasions then why isn't that an explanation for how the board decided its case well because test results and i was it just me or gore's credibility but that's all that hat and what concerned the trial that clearly was the fact that the board did not or maybe i should say more specifically discounted of the things the government has said in this case is that the court below the claims court really weighed the facts and i have a secular part of the court's opinion that troubles me and i just want
to the board that they weren't granted to conventions but there's a separate set of facts it's a different burden to prove the protection is different what you're protected from is different didn't raise it to the board and they didn't read the to the court yesterday the application was filed out of time it was received on april first and the judge made specific finding that it was that of times that was not challenged before the board it cannot be challenged before the court i don't believe it was of persecution which is absolutely true first of all there's no political motivation just because the government who were sent to destroy her workplace were members of a religious group doesn't make it religious persecution or political persecution but i do want to put the adverse credibility in a little bit of context which is we've all seen and the judge specifically said i've seen lots of asylum applications from people who can't speak english and are literate in their own language and they the judge couldn't put her finger on it and we don't have to either but the point is that with the context in which she viewed nevertheless the judge did say even if credible she hasn't established a clear probability of persecution because you had people it clearly the other tailors were worried because she had a successful business that was undermining that then because they were underselling her and we were talking about on the waterfront unfair later and labor practices this happens all over there was nothing political about it she was very clear that the competing businesses established businesses were very very resentful and they were trying to push around it and they did it but it wasn't on account of a political opinion or religion or social what happened was they came and they put her out of business and that was the end of it they did not see her workers the workers to decide it was only when they tried to stop them and this is all hearsay on her part anyway it's credible that they pushed them aside they did not husband yes indeed he did have a really unfortunate in that was one incident it was isolated this was not bad enough to say it's level of persecution and even if persecution it was an on account of just because and they were why did you change your telephone number it's too much trouble to do with a bag or dash it's easier to move the family to the united states all they want out they had were telephonic threats they were never fulfilled when they were there is no an indication as they continue there's n
of the documents in the record that all all that has been done by the insurance commissioner in any of these cases is to adjudicate in particular the complaint is that he has implied a statute of limitations written by the legislature requirement even if it didn't and we had to show bad faith the records that are presented shows that once we do get to a state court with something the state court judges have a judicial are we getting to late but when we do get to court we're faced with judges who are understandably worried about retention and then we or sometimes even up against people that are represented directly on the
the withhold which has to do with the notice is that we'll talk about them a little bit so after us why we should take something let's sue them for the sake of argument that it's moot not asking you to concede yet let's assume for the sake of argument at this date of hearing it is mo
purist versus cambria or in this case we have an actual finding of incompetence by a trained psychiatric professional for days after the time of the conclusion of this trial and we also have in the records when mr pierce was subsequently committed to pat spend little time with them says yes i really do incompetence and as soon as they really get a whole lot in fact he says it's the same old stuff all over again this guy can fool look professional but actually when he first went back to incompetent at that time and he also that's the difficulty with this case though i mean the california courts know all about and have all that information and they say taking everything into account we think this guy is competent to vacaville hospital where he had some subsequently been convicted sent after his conviction was affirmed in this case we obtained those records from patton and it was at that time that we learned that he was initially not did not come to light until after we were here in federal court but in any event i think it's i'm reasonable think the court of appeals here found that that confident the finding four days after conclusion been forcibly medicated i mean he this gentleman has a long term history of mental illness i don't think i think it's indisputable that he is mentally ill and there's also evidence here is that he has a very low i q at sixty five and yet the state courts are trying to say that he's able to somehow school all these different doctors there's i think six seven maybe eight different doctors that examined him when he was in custody in los angeles a very surprised and found him incompetent and they did and what happened he's saying is if you get this guy if you get him out of a particular situation where he's trying to accomplish some result and you put him in our patent thing and we watching for a while we find out he's just awfully clever he's ever disputed even the tap records don't undermine the fact that he has mental illness and i think the important thing is how active is this mental illness at any given time and in this case not only is there evidence that he was actively mentally ill during the trial but most importantly the doctors that examine him at the time are almost immediately concurrent with the time of the trial found that he was incompetent he's not somebody people that are mentally ill  gentleman that under some circumstances obviously department and particularly during the stress of this trial obviously the compensated and he was actively mentally ill during the trial he was found to be mentally ill by a pierce's right to due process of law there is no conflicting evidence that few current with the time of the trial to show that he was competent and i believe that conviction should be reversed thank you
to that is is the victim and here and again that says she was in fact we have a videotape of it was she injured in the taking does that mean as a result of the action of the defendant you know pos know and very quickly by the way down by assuming that yes you're the victim absolutely what if each of us have it's a fifty dollar bill and i've got my thumbs on one side of it register and she's attempting to move his and away he's attempting to grab you know he says so do you concede that she was injured as a result of her slapping the defendant's hands and slippery slope here what what is the trial judge of say about this issue of the use of force the trousers in this test and it i don't recall it but at the time of the motion to dismiss you're talking about so i think the exceptions are fairly clear and you know unless you are removing an item or on a victim's person with out the victim's knowledge and without the pick the victim
and the government are by and for the people the history of our still young and growing nation is written in every star and fold of our great flag the great blessing our founding fathers thought words to describe the future nations and the flag which typified in the famous preamble to the constitution the words we the people signify the chain of unity which now wells our vast empire of forty eight separate state bunker hill flags one of the pine crepe like the pine trees like used by the continental navy the famous rattlesnake flag with a warning don't tread on me the rhode island flags the earliest use of thirteen stars in a blue field and the cambridge or grand union flag the alternate stripes indicated a dissension on the king's rule but the union jack also indicated a feeling of loyalty to the mother country a definite break had not yet been made general washington heard that the declaration of independence had been signed he ordered the grand union flag flown f family of the original resolution passed by the continental congress june fourteenth seventeen seventy seven adopting the flag of the united states this resolution was proposed by john adams later president of the united states a significant part of this resolution is the word  stands stars fight in a blue tails representing a new constellation it is in these words that we find the very soul and spirit of the american flag this resolution of adoption did not prescribe how the stars were to be arranged as a result in the beginning they were arranged in a circle to symbolize the hope that the union would be without and the stars and stripes with the flag of the states which was carried through the battles of the revolution and which inspired our soldiers in their long fight for freedom flag of the united states for more than twenty years until eighteen eighteen eighteen eighteen the union increased to twenty states ohio indiana tennessee mississippi and louisiana were given recognition in an act passed by congress this act returned the number of stripes to the original thirteen and the grade that thereafter a these were truly the empire build this line was marked with many hardship at long last the empire builders had made it possible to cross the country by rail the continent was linked from coast to coast the westward sweep of empire carried with it a wave of new states more stars on the flag by nine hundred twelve our nation consisted a hundred and fifty years  progress of stars representing states which started east of the mississippi has been joined by a galaxy of stars in the west forming a complete constellation whose brilliance is reflected around the entire world  only as a matter of precaution for us to maintain a powerful navy army and air for the protection of our people and the press on the sea the eyes of the world are on the united states of america today we as a nation must examine to the world the proud fact that a government founded on the priceless liberties guaranteed by our constitution which came into being more than a hundred and fifty years ago is still a splendid example to all of the
years is two children both daughters u s citizens both of whom suffer from medical issues but beyond that he's able to provide for them to go to private schools he owns a used car dealership which doesn't sell three circumstance because this is very quiet just a few months ago in the plant this case that was discussed earlier this is only for begun to be sure there is some common sense discomfort in adopting the position that a single document you tell your publisher i'll get you the book by june st right in may you send the st half and the end of may send the nd half of the book you then sent the book out above that's a rough draft bit please the court grade math for the attorney general fundamental to the administration of justice of the principles of notice an opportunity to be heard petitioner received the notice in this case specifically he received the document that completed the
hard at work inventing creating building something the energy that is forever behind both the competitive sports of youth and the desire to build and create new things is the energy that develops industrious dependable citizens of tomorrow every spring in thousands of attics garages and basements throughout the country thousands of young americans set to work building their entries for the all american soap box derby the all american is the greatest amateur sporting event in the world because it come binds both the ingenuity and creative spirit of young america with the natural racing and sporting instincts of boys of all ages every boy everywhere but tween the ages of nine and fifteen is eligible for this great race sponsored jointly by the leading newspapers and america's leading manufacturer of automobile local derbies are run in represents many long hard hours of thought and building in every one can be seen the inventive and creative ingenuity of our american boys each entry gets his car weighed in and in the first sticker shows that the car has been checked by the technical committee and complied with all the rules the medals on trophy awards and other prizes to share the limelight there are two hundred forty nine of them in all and here are a hundred and sixteen all american boys that have won their local derbies and they've come to akron to compete for the coveted title all american soap box derby champion for nineteen thirty six a few of the champions are taking time out for a sightseeing tour of the city but most of them are going direct to the trying to just think of anything but the no race track in the world is more colorful than this and yet it's just boring all american boy at the top of the hill other racing to where the cars are going in the final going over for the big race here they are all right let's go  looks like we got off that one just in time i guess we'd better stick to the sideline are graham that to me and tom manning's getting ready to broadcast over a great nationwide hookup and millions of people all over the country are listening behind the roar of the crowd is the clickety clack of the typewriters and telegraph stories of the race washing over the wires pictures to vote for the newspapers or news room area hartson while bill cummings they most race drivers officiate at the finish line here goes another he look at the body english not start but then everything's fine as long as he on your own national champion in just one month of july and the winner can't rest on his laurels now both boys go back to the top of the hill and get that for the international race racing against the champion from over the ocean norman you're one of south africa for the international event but even now the other boys are working up plans for the nineteen thirty seven entry perhaps a complete change in the diet maybe more complete streamlining already of many other things