MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
examinations as part of what is characterized as sex offender treatment although that sex offender treatment is really just an extended interrogation court should not have considered any of the statements as evidence mr rogers failure to complete sex offender treatment the penalty in this case where in two ways the st of which was he was directly required to engage in a polygraph by the district court and he was also required to engage in sex offender treatment what they're really saying is that he wouldn't engage in the polygraph examination and he wouldn't reveal the information that the treatment providers and the probation officer that he had the right and was notified of the right to refuse to answer the question and that there wouldn't be a violation solely based on him exercising that right well we can see what violation of your conditions and would meet with your probation officer that is the counselor indicated that if he met with his probation office on a particular date they would consider keeping him in the fro and went from may when he was released until september when they made the decision to finally turning right i think that the interrogation itself is coercive enough and that the penalty that he faces know our answering those questions is significant enough so that the court can find that all of his responses aquarist and therefore involuntary and as such can't be used at all with respect to courage or supervised release that is my response that i don't think that it's just a matter of well they asked him questions about a pretty present pornography which in fact would be a crime i don't think that it was just that he had the right not to answer that question i think he had a right not to answer any of the questions about his access to internet capable devices i think that he had put up what i'm saying is give them a language search option just read you that's in the condition to submit to the rightfully so and the condition specifically says it and that is an independent basis or by a lady i guess i'm not understanding the argument either are you saying that there's something so it's inherently ursa just by virtue of the fact that the questions are asked and there are other ramifications if he doesn't answer yes that is what i'm saying the issue here isn't the task isn't it designed actually to impress upon one that they need to be truthful petition was filed at which he could express his concerns regarding the nature of the sex offender treatment he then had the full council proceedings before district court at which point he could have express participate in the progress testing in order to avoid repetition of sort of undermined by the fact that that is the only part of his that's not a treatment that he really participated  in terms of health thank you
i can't imagine how we can possibly safely practice long if we don't know that rules that out what we are required to do if we can assume that even if then if there was an issue or problem then they could resolve is still not having heard not having anything from a missionary who served you would think that the evidence was going in the two year time frame but even with that the question that you've asked that that were you get down to the experts asked were best were that's not a question of what was a big issue in in that court of ways and is also the only in this case was something that a judge will know as a matter of fact and to consider when deciding the underlying case so the question was would from the eyes through the spectacle of a fact and we have to use the manifest weight of the happiness to determine whether or not it was right or wrong and i don't believe that based on the record in this case it sure is that is
the m p i which is the i can't remember the m it's a pain inventory and the results of his pain in the inventory and actually seem to support a determination that psychological and that she would continue to have instrumented difficulties with depression anxiety irritability related to her chronic pain and attendant functional limitations finally pine's that her depressed and anxious mood was likely to interact with her pain that there was an interplay between psychology and physiology what one has to say about the hail j coming on her since able to work for quite a while after the has prevented her from leaving the house a few days a week and it prevents her from lifting more than ten pounds her treating physician dr robert rosendahl noted that she has to change positions frequently if even if there is one doctor that has conflicting opinions the l j one of these cases doesn't have to go back and order a new opinion if he thinks that there's enough evidence on the record to make a decision just because there's a there's a do this sort of review that we do them or consistently well no we do we do we don't we perhaps don't use the exact same standard as you do when you're sitting in review on because a person was capable of spending hours watching television that they were not credible less of their daily activities well that was basically a bogus reason for yes that's right and what i would hope and you know the court may or may not find this convincing but i think this in this case there's enough evidence to suggest that significantly limit their abilities to perform the work functions of their job and i think that the evidence supports that i think the fact that she claims to be disabled on the basis of accidents that happened when she was  well first of her twenty's and then thirty one i believe are thirty twenty nine actually and then she continues to work until ninety ninety nine that is a troubling fact i think that don't think that she's disabled it's only thirty six years old she was working up until such and such a time when you have to go through the analysis of whether or not you know well yes and no yes that's definitely related no i don't think disabled they would have had a different view of this claim the  said this person well in effect i don't have psychological impairment but i i need to say that i have one in order to stay on this benefits program that's a pretty powerful analogy to because the relevant question about that subject issue is not whether she actually has it is in denial but whether she has insight into the nature of her own brothers or not that she is willing to say to somebody else i don't have i i want you to say that i have this problem even though i don't in my own belief that's and that's my position on this and still these are the reasons essentially why we believe in the
for the social security offset it's only worth three hundred maximum so instead of two hundred fifty thousand dollars which i might otherwise i'm only willing to pay a hundred and fifty in that way the entire social security officer i those negotiations the problem with the commissioner's position in this case is that mr says well no you don't have a you don't have any kind of permanent total disability here there's nothing it's not a picture of the social security office going to have the off that imposed twice once in the works composition carrier that's a lid on his exposure i can't ever have to pay more than x actually is lower than it otherwise would have been because of the social security however that he's going to become disabled in the future that settlement document eight hundred thousand dollars to the client for his rights to temporary disability permanent disability survivor's benefits and vocational rehabilitation none of those things is worth anything if climate is working and working and we're still retirement it's clear from the agreement that paying one hundred thousand dollars for those rights means both sides think this guy's going to be disabled and of course they were right that's what happened that number was adjusted in the process of negotiations again as we proved by the workers compensation lawyers file though the saddest well marlene yes he's going to say something about that he's going to say greens are credible because for a number of men the circuit has got to give reasons germane to the case for disbelieving a witness and he has not done that i just think definitely would right for me that's a plausible short as a matter of fact that's why our what would be as a matter of law doesn't make any difference the fact that they were thinking about it and they don't have to say he's permanently and totally disabled in order to be imposing this as a matter of fact in the south because the struggle that means they're never going to designate a permanent told when he settles the case if he gives up the right for that to happen if we go with the a l j is raising in that better would have been clearer that does not take away from the fact that in these negotiations the os that was applied when that comp carriers thinking this is the top end of my liability i cannot pay anymore and the plaintiff's lawyer knows you made at the time when he was the go to share it with marlee like and she said well we're talking about these numbers and she's talking about the social security office that our point is when she's talking about the social security office that she knows and mr green knows that they're i see my time is up if i may continue yes of it would be valid practice she would be fired if she didn't take it into now if it's a factor that she has on her side and it can't go away there's a legal limit on what she's ever going to have
every relationship in his life is at risk aware of the stakes involved my clients  and pursue his proceedings before us c i s so therefore there is no prejudice here and the immigration judge was not presented with apparent eligibility such that he would have his three arrests and convictions given that they were all of a very similar nature were just so negative the immigration does not explicitly layouts of the various positive factors but he did not ignore them because he said that the negative criminal record outweighed the judges is allowed to weigh the seriousness of that conviction and the exercise of his discretion to list out every good possible quality it's the applicant to raise those when he's been given the opportunity  the immigration judge does acknowledge what's for him and weighs as a matter of discretion and that is sufficient
of recklessness the second issue is whether or not the immigration judge has the proper standard had and or considered an illegitimate or improper factor and the exercise discretion now the government has not the government has not made any kind of substantive terror attacks on these arguments and staff but the government is not as opposed to jurisdictional opposition you come out and our case law on our case all things make a pretty clear that it really doesn't make any difference if you if you are did not raise directly resized really the issue because he if he is not going to give the agency an opportunity to address the a crime involving more trouble you go to page one fifty sacks and page four eighty of the record of the case one fifty six he's asked if he agrees with everything is done for eighty if you go to for eighty that's a notice to appear practice in immigration cases is for the immigration judge to put down what is admitted i putting in a next to it on the left side you go to page four eighty all the charges are a claim that a new claim in the board has the ability to either address that issue or to say you didn't raise this is admitted so therefore we're going to stick s so if we thought there was a particular result compelled by any president would it still be required to remain on your honor i think i correct exactly right it would be my view of it he would have to address the issue on the merits if we felt that the insurer required a remailer that would be my view of what i would hope that would be the agency as to the second issue raised i think the court's precedent and it's it's a clear there is this is just a few process playing well a discretionary claim close to the process only this court doesn't have jurisdiction over that issue and once again
i don't know how bad the radiation the news man what is it america's been attacked h bombs maybe they aren't sure yet don't they tell you what to do when it comb my wife and kids i can't find as soon as we have accurate information on the extent of the radio logical contamination that you will be told we repeat stay under cover your shoulder may be the basement garage but inside hallway stay there close inside and listen carefully to the time being you're absolutely safe where you are we'll get you out but the safe way will take time perhaps several hours it's safe down there just remember that m i have information you stay inside and keep you kids and you'll be looked after just as soon as possible help i've got to go no one the others in the block you shouldn't be outside my baby has to have warm now i know not to stay outside too long are you sure that noakes ate quite sure how to milk and clean water don't worry about me mister i'm not one of those guys who didn't learn anything my wife saw to it that i did we've had our battery radio tuned in on qana read the first warning down on the cellar lean to when the blast first hit then you know to stay under cover sure they did and warn those that don't know
federal debt collection act can be the basis for washing consumer protection in twenty you have any authority for that i think that issue is assumed by both sides on the summary judgment motion that that would be the fifty four found that the security interest to balance the property even though the procedure of imposing it was unusual about it not being actually signed by the people who are injured but that has nothing to do with whether or not the sale should have gone
this case where we're trying to figure out whether or not your client knew he was a felon in possession whether he knew of that he would have felony convictions or he had thirteen of them and we have our recent decision says we can look past the trial record here there was only a guilty plea so it could is there any reasonable possibility that he didn't have the requisite knowledge respectfully i don't think the question is whether we can doesn't demonstrate and again to the must be wholly and voluntary isn't isn't a question for a bird for searching for the record as a whole if i scary explicitly rejected this approach the conditions seem to follow the guidelines but the condition they threw out in march was in my mind indistinguishable from the one in this case so it isn't a trick question i'm just trying to figure out if we're bound to follow that case how can we distinguish their condition in this case from that one i would say your honor that did it in that case it's at look to the guidelines and the why the guidelines say going with me that looking at the two conditions side by side gives no real distinction i would agree and i would say that your honor that at this point there should be some very direct guidance so that  jury and say that our jury would find it beyond reasonable doubt this court can also certainly say facts not in the record that that judge mentioned and take that and say that
let me ask you a question that i know you've said that counsel has said that he didn't get the mail notice of the changes that anywhere in the record is there actually anywhere in the record the council did not get the affidavit with a motion to reopen that have been enough to trigger a need for a hearing i cannot say what the immigration judge would have done with that information but i have found information affidavit what the immigration judge would have done with those statements i cannot say for certain but maybe because a large part of the
malan dispose of the real estate when he made that provision in his will that allow the capital e to purchase a portion of that  counsel is it your position that male and dispose of the property while he was alive when he included in his will the provision that allows your client to purchase
meeting is l a cochran and on count one today we have from our cooperation council office we have one of louie and also richard ross and from the police department captain dilem thank you and  hank you turning to our agenda item one dash nine litigation matters the stratford good hue and doreen good hearses county of maui civil number fourteen das zero zero zero zero six the committees consider other related actions as noted in the correspondence this matter is time sensitive as there is a settlement conference with the court scheduled april twenty fourth two thousand and fifteen the court has requested that this matter be presented to the committee prior to the settlement conference i would like to ask the corporation counsel to provide comments in open session on the status of the case and that that you can and so that the public and this committee can more fully  filed by stratford and doreen goodhue they were attempting to distribute religious pamphlets near the entrance to the twenty thirteen maui county fair while they were doing that  an executive with the fair alliance observe their activities and and determined in his mind they were creating a safety hazard because his his testimony was that blocking the sidewalk forcing people to walk this kind of activity would not that would not be permitted in future that plaintiffs would have the right in the future county fairs pass out their literature without further interference it's so so that that aspect of the cases is directed squarely at the county  requires a consideration of information that must be kept confidential pursuant to the state or federal law or a court of order moved by the second by and by any further discussion
case i did want to get out one point and that is if the ukrainian government had done anything at all had lifted one finger to ensure the safety of my clients they would still be in the ukraine erred in failing to find that he will be persecuted not only on account of imputed political opinion but also because of the membership in a particular social group that social group counsel now disbarred no longer an attorney failed to file his asylum application within the one year deadline that she was required to do so and that i want to address court through the least through the legislation can and can catch this case with the exceptional circumstances legislation they don't make it by how much when they don't make a determination ahead and find that the asylum application was either timely filed or at least because of sexual exceptional circumstances the v a could to find relief and the first would be imputed political opinion which the judge the immigration judge never discussed although the stablished that he has been a victim of persecution because he credibly testified that he would be harmed by the individuals who he named as having committed tax fraud his life was threatened his wife was assaulted in later miscarried and shots were fired at its heart his opinion ever gets discussed in any of the and on the phone calls received by the mail petitioner in the encounter that the in opposition had on the but there is absolutely no indication from these people at any time that they were impugning a conclusion that he communicated that to them it was nothing more than he prepared on it and refused their bribe and later refused to change the audit there was no discussion or communication of i'm not going to change the audit be caught or
only is offensive by me because they did lock up the defendant's consent and what that s j c has said is that it's the affront to defend to the victim's personal dignity that makes the touching offens domestic crime of a misdemeanor kind of domestic violence that that crime tended compass both i would point out i think that again to you to suggest that it ministry no reason to somebody were spraying them in the face with a lethal spray is an offense or a battery meaning that it's only because of the front of it to the victim's dignity that that simply is not what it offensive battery means under massachusetts law and they made one additional point on this which is that in the march hypothesise situation which the supreme court is doing this all bear said you don't use in applying a categorical approach you have to look to the cases to see is there a realistic possibility that
fifteen years if mr wilson was found to have a prior conviction under the was in any state relating to the exploitation of children it's our contention that the district court erred by finding conviction we disagree with the government's response in the case of dickerson and believes that dickerson is limited by its own language to the construction of the term has been convicted which is different than ha conviction in eighteen u s c twenty two fifty one so a lot of federal statutes do outline what constitutes a conviction and congress certainly knows how to define that term when it statutes so what we have here in this statute with no statutory definition of conviction is the court looking at the clear and unambiguous language of the statute which direct believe to look at texas state law to determine whether or not what mr wilson had was indeed a conviction under texas state law or past you're arguing that abbe permanent action of whether or not there is a prior conviction have a conviction under the laws of any state so i do you have a case that you are relying upon to support your proposition that the determination of whether or not there's been a conviction prior case in a very recent case from two thousand and four where you where in the court in that case notes that there is no case law on this issue of what conviction means under twenty two fifty one there are an was to broadly construe the language to catch as many people as possible who have had trouble with the law or had had mental health problems were her regardless of their current status  language of twenty two fifty one is distinctly different it says does the person have have a conviction or does he have a conviction vs have been conviction convicted and we certainly have to  congress certainly we still have to give meaning to that concrete russian language from the an act of that language and and didn't include a federal definition of conviction we think that there are two cases that are a can a conviction for possession of for a first state session of a firearm charge so we think the definitions the distinctions are are very clear and that mr wilson's conviction you're from the government and you've got some time for money thank you then began begin with a category of files and review it and i think the protection for the citizens and a protection for a potential subject of a criminal investigation comes not in trying to craft a priority  search warrant so narrow and precise that they tell him in essence how hamper and officials investigation the protection comes from what that officer did here in this case precisely when she came across perhaps  because i think ultimately the fourth amendment requirement is a reasonable one not the most narrowly tailored one a reasonable one a reasonable one that would allow an officer to effectively conduct our investigation and i think that reasonable standard  was an argument we made at the suppression hearing was was that the government had tools through there and case software to limit the search by date and type of image the government's expert testified that
and you agreed we would have to reverse people it in order to find in your favor to absolute appeal so they were talking about the issue there was the underlying conviction one way or the other what the result would