MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
the statute clearly states that there is no time limit on the filing of a motion to reopen and then looking in back and looking at the statutory scheme very motions to reopen this court precedent and already that the statutory language was clear to we see that there is discretionary language so that i'm thinking your hono that has broader ramifications from traditional review by saying you really can't even reach that issue because there is an alternate ground here and that  e ground use of discretion doesn't present a legal issue or a constitutional issue because she didn't exhaust pull out the only possible legal problem can appreciate if you will in some ways that wisdom of the justice department approach here but it leaves some law out there dead maybe a little doubtful has to accept or reject the agency's decision based on the reasoning provided by the based on the reasoning so if you think the reasoning is implicit there is no violation of china really it's more a matter no basis to conclude that the thirty day filing deadline does not apply why would it go through all of that sort of language if it wasn't considering the arguments made very very simple just to say it's some it's a separate issue and this language doesn't go to right if you're wrong about that right would that be rejected syrian days but then go on and
little bit of background on this repair it and then i'll go into the actual messages and the communications and then i'll go into how those messages could be categorized or fit with the various of the offenses that we have and finally i'll show even responded again and through the end broke off the message is that was the last conversation with the actual miner yes and then he picked up a conversation with the officer
let me ask you this can kid can't can't employee continually  threw out do you do you say you think feet interactive means you have to sit around a table face to face and talk void therefore you get sort of a crack and the reason the interactive process was void is these letters going back there's got to be a face to face meeting and now i'd like your response to that because apparently the
ruling ignore numerous disputes of material facts we believe the answer to that question is yes suicide by hanging in the city a lot of ups are not at all unusual they are a common occurrence in part or on her we did not believe that it was necessary to in light of some of the admissions that were set forth in the e mail that it that we believed were sufficient in themselves to establish that the city was aware that this was a continuing issue it was aware of some of the things that needed to do to express the issue and then it took a conscious it made a conscious decision to simply do nothing which may be much more in the u s sure i think what we mean by successful suicides or are individuals who obviously i know what a successful suicide but i have no idea what suicide it may have to do with screening on intake it may have to do with cell design if there are exceptions that can be taken with respect to emergency response training and policies means to reduce the risk of suicide or be teamed deliberately indifferent you know ok i think seems to me that it is from the great case   the suicide and suicide attempts by hanging from clothing working anyway especially in the old iraq and because they were continuing and because the city point if the city is going to leave these horizontal bars then they need to take at least some additional measures to adequately trained their employees who are on the front lines of protecting these arresting you know  period of high suicide risk on returning from court now and where well but you see i hope you see my problem you are saying that the city had to treat intake and return from court the same way we about what kinds of cells what kinds of conditions what kind of what where you know largely right after intake and so on it may be that the answers to my question can be found contemplated the city cranston plated a more thorough intake process to be able to identify individuals who may be suicide all and we know that the city did not in  twenty eleven and we also build new facilities without permits and so it's our position that the record does not reflect any affirmative evidence from the plane responses don't indicate that that person ready wrote them is actually pretty employee do we think that ultimately they could be verified and the foundation established yes we do we also think those emails policy which is the one that was  question i just as far as
understand that i but i'm looking here it looks to me like you've got pages two fifty six through south through seventy two seventy four through two seventy five four nineteen through four twenty two that's not in consequential i mean there's a significant amount of evidence that i understand to be the very evidence that you're referring to that the i g a had in the record apparently considered prior to rendering the decision is think you're entitle to course whatever view you want but the reality is that's a different matter than what you were saying before which was that there's evidence that you wanted to get in and you feel there was a due process of the nile because you couldn't  get it in the way you wanted to get it then my point is simply that the record sheens theories like that all of the evidence that you wanted to get and ultimately got in before the v i j rule is that correct yeah and i believe that there was may or may not like that just as you may or may not like what the judge rules but you made no objection to the judge the judge went forward your argument is that certain evidence that you felt was important did not get in but the record reflects i degree of discretion each judge has to rule or you know organize and control his or her court and that's just a fact of life and in this particular instance i don't believe that there's any way you can contradict the fact that each part of the evidence if you said you want to get it it's got and the question is you wanted to be spoken by the wife in this case and i mean i respect the fact that may have had more of a dramatic effect but the reality is that the judge had discretion the judge concluded that it was an untimely and improper proffer but allow the evidence to come in by you or your client i just i with do not allow the evidence based on the fact that it was untimely is not true it was submitted in a timely matter because it was submitted at the time that it's become available you cannot submit something that you do not  you know if even if you don't agree with the local rules fact this guy didn't that's correct your honor and i also believe that in terms of the due process to was numerous other alternatives that were available to counsel whether they should have come to the hearing with claims were denied based on the fact that he was deemed to be not credible based on evidence that went to the heart of the matter there are numerous factors that's based upon and they're all
the lesser sentences because they are merged into effectively the more serious offense and therefore there is no no record division no punishment whatsoever for the lesser offense and fall premise that every reality you're actually sure to sense when you're really on he's serving as you say twenty six years so one other thing that you said three and the fact that there is some sort of for want of a better term pressure digitization that reduces it down to twenty six on the theory that this person isn't true to her bones are two realities and simultaneously of cremated defendants in a situation suspended animation until such time as their sentences have expired and they end up then being given to next  kin i want to cover one other point assuming that we've heard of this is an opinion we've had other cases where we've asked how the public counsel typically the public defender argument they basically said what ever i want to say now is in my briefs unless you have any questions you may sit down i would like to sit down and i'm not suggesting that i'm attempting to impose any
legitimate point but i think we're just going to come down to this is insufficient evidence in the record to support the argument that because of the facts lingering medical facts of the accident there were legitimate reasons compelling her entire life and i just i
issues today are what is the effect of conversion of this case from a chapter eleven to a chapter thirteen and as the court directed us to look earlier this week is the on two just because the issue of whether or not there was any statues that had conflict and some how or whether or not the ruling of this court of affixing case would somehow because some date that the case is converted there after your honor we think judge hollow the bankruptcy court found it easy to look to thirteen zero five and this was  provide however a safeguard for the i r s and others who after the thirteen was filed or prior to conversion if the debtor incurred additional debt then the i r s where the claimant could make an election as to whether or not they want to go file storage case that said or they collect judge to wait till after the thirteen case was over and then sue the debtor for the full extent of the law or any interest penalties in principle that they might what congress was trying to do judges give give the claimant an opportunity to select which avenue he wanted to go so we think you're on the answer is congress specifically intended to do this for thirteen and us judges that would be the effect we think of  another chapter is not even more specific than whether the second thirteen zero five deals with chapter thirteen i don't know that they might be in conflict judge and that's what i think we're all their turning priority of claim even if it's not as well in the discharge context that it was addressing there and i think the supreme court's opinion and no one that we addressed in our brief and the fourth circuit opinion and the merry go round enterprise this case as concluding the three forty three is not intended to pertain to discharge ability to call yours is still very clear that it applies to the question we have here of clarity i think the this case doesn't present the same sort of conflict issues between two text the bankruptcy code here three forty eight the space applies to certain sections including section conversion or section one one point two which is the type of conversion we have here converted from chapter eleven to chapter thirteen section three forty eight does that and so i think that they can coexist without there being any conflict between them and there's no reason two to find  we have a new order for relief we have a new bar date if you would for claims unlike a seven you have to go back on thirteen and a new proof of claim the cases we've cited say that i don't think that's in dispute so the issue is judge they have to file a claim whether or not they choose to update that claim and file that claim against the a state as opposed against but debtors which is going to a dance here is their choice they're the ones who can select either to get out of the bankruptcy estate matter just argued will be submitted
removal my arguments will be he would have been timely within the government's position that it must have been filed one by march three for two thousand and three but then again our position physical presence you never challenge the stop time law in front of the board because he didn't do that you feel she's lost his administrative remedies depriving the court of jurisdiction to consider the matter on review however even if this court were to find that it has jurisdiction issue first of all i think in the court's order directly on august seventeenth which was not issued by members of this particular panel but it asked whether the board's silence should decision giving an individual an additional thirty days to voluntarily department in this case that didn't happen and i would submit to the court that first of all the court last jurisdiction to review the voluntary departure issue well that may be but make clear that this far as we're concerned voluntary departure has always been there and isn't time for us and our mandate issues let's say thirty these are sixty days from the time of our decision he has whatever that time period is in which to voluntarily the par record the decision was not sent to counsel until january thirteenth two thousand and three so there would be an additional time as to the issue and i  trash cross is now submitted for decision and the court is now a
meet the staff the fire department and see some of the equipment they use i really have to thank the public works department this year given the ongoing renovations at station number one they were instrumental friday in making sure everything was ready to go for the event on the the lines there is they're getting more that the subcontractors have been busier this week so there will be busier this week i should say and the past week or so on i'm pretty hopeful the project to be time for the would that be the remainder do you didn't think it's somewhere in the neighborhood of one hundred thousand dollars i believe yes we are really not yet at the the project they still have i believe and i have to check this i can get back to all right on a miscellaneous anyone have any missed one of these are just very quick reminder good we have upcoming council meetings next monday night for the budget regarding the rolling hills project delineation and financing and then on october twenty ninth our second next few weeks actually we're working right now with a bid for our liability and property insurance coverage so i want one or if period of time can one last thank you several weeks ago i asked you
of guilt or hypothetical possibilities of guilt the in the information that was filed eight years  hundred eighty eight few initiate the prosecution and technically i guess the prosecution itself was not initiated by the district attorney's office and childlike and told eight months after detective leonard kind of a two part analysis here the sufficiency of the evidence claims of necessarily includes if you will whether or not as a matter of law and information should have been filed and what i guess what i'm saying is if the if the and no i'm not trying to make it a rebuttal of you saying that it's at presumption is is some evidence right and i'm certainly when you think a defense lawyer would be arguing presumption in that case what would you mean the state would be arguing defense argument to upset the burden of proof that the government hands and going to end admitted leave the defense did make that argument the defense made that argument to the jury but nevertheless i mean obviously what argument could you make  to discount this presumption seems to me like that's a pretty big piece of evidence for the defense well and and i don't i don't want to do you know i don't want to languish too for too long because the time that i have with regard to the fact the office or rachel rachel car was abducted from the office to take put in the van and killed in the van or taken from in the van says some other location and killed there not one bit of forensic evidence presented by th wasn't on the premises and you have confession now the jury could have disbelieved any one of those things but now now looking back down on  those items either separately or taken as a whole doesn't can i say that my physician obviously cannot cannot lead to a conclusion that that was sufficient evidence to a moral certain points that i think are compelling and lead to i think should funnel discord in the direction of that moral certainty problem and that is the forensic evidence did not point to guilt the hair evidence the blood evidence the fingerprint evidence all exhausted it's my position and our partners issue on appeal that as a matter of law the lower court was aired on that because a lower court relied almost cried almost exclusively on the panel decision and peterson versus lambert cases have some whiskers on them now because at the time of this briefing it was you know the they were they were at that time a little bit more recent confrontation clause cases but nevertheless confrontation clause cases the lower court you know what you're really saying if full briefing on the sixth amendment issue which is a compelling issue it's it was the heart of the case being able to cross examine coley and at the very least allow us to do that in front of the lower court unless the court has any further questions  they only addressed the violations are never out as evidence of the statutes that was a choice that was made by counsel and that's an important distinction this is not a pro her post conviction status petition it is a direct basically those were a strategic choice made by counsel the
the retailer in pharmacists resident defendants had or should have had knowledge from published information that was out there so that's what i would like to hear you on is i why that shouldn't make a consistent here in any of that paragraph forty four through fifty eight of the amended complaint deal very clearly with the ways that the farmers just knew what should have known about this there was no  brief i'm impressed with their argument seems to boil down to if we say the defendants in our complaint then there is an assumption it must be only there and we didn't specifically played against the pharmacist later and the case law that we've cited hargreave said even argue window if there are firms out there that do that which we don't we've got that proof but if there are that is not reason to drop to pull the case in a federal court  that there is nothing in this record anything's that suggests that you have any sort of a deal with any of these others non diverse twenty there's no record that because there is no deal and there's no that it is the odds on reasonable to believe that a grocery store clerk or a convenience store clerk is going to be reading the medical literature you know say i'm a grocery store clerk in a small town and never see the new york times or read the l medical journal or any that's well first of all there were seller mississippi recognizes that for diversity purpose or any other purpose that seller cannot be held liable so on the face of this complaint i grocery store or convenience store must be viewed as an innocent seller unless there is some suggestion that a grocery store clerk our convenience store clerk is going to be aware of that information and i would submit to you that there comes a more of an allegation geraud or where the all allegations and reasonable have fences are taken this true by conclusion reallocations of law and unwarranted and purposes are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss would submit to you that it isn't unwarranted and for us to suggest that a grocery store clerk or a convenience store clerk would have any information from the medical literature about the yale study or any of these other issues how do store also but there's no suggestion that that that that the fact that something is a drug store does not mean a farm system well how do we know i mean this is noticed we've you're saying you're assuming that these are just unless there's offender and assuming that at that moment the time the jambs running for removal problem is it may or may not well i don't know i just like or judge well yes but isn't that the question we have to answer would a mississippi state court judge say this is silly therefore the resident defendants are out  northern district mississippi
will you allege for a reason set forth below police and this is just with regard to one defendant breach this agreement both world ending writing through the charging of clearly excessive fees that's really all that  even i mean to have a jury decide an issue of legal fees jury give me authority for that i mean is there any authority that you're aware of that that that is a subject matter for jurors determination that there is none that i'm aware of certainly this context where the legislature has the sufficiently articulated a statutory basis for this issue to be determined upon the discretion of the force and there's no there's no claim of negligence anywhere in the return to disgorge meant you would not be asking for any other damages so isn't that identity of the causes of action one with respect to the excessiveness of fees that you were talking about earlier if it were next level which some what happened in this case i mean i think i could have a client who doesn't want to pay his or her legal fees and moves to maybe moultrie county or so and then files a lawsuit moultrie county saying that this guy charges five hundred bucks an hour and to pillage is outrageous because a motor county that might be outrageous so basically you're you're opening the door to there for every free petition and right is that w
advisory suggestions
that this court recognized in bankruptcy and masters and also reaffirmed in harris rescue and that is to have first option under the we're talking about specific jurisdiction under fifteen twenty four fifty nine there were certainly targeting here and it's clear under oath bancroft masters and house russkie that where you have a cooperation it's both incorporated in the state and it has its principal place of business here in this case only place of business at the bank of harm would be suffered here and defend in this case new sensor knew quite well that would happen but it's clear that from how it's russkie that the conduct doesn't have to california the same is true here let me turn now to the contract claim this is not a case where the defendant bought some product from a catalog and it was just happened to be a random purchase from  the authorized distributor relationship is being advertised to the public that's not a transit purchase the contract claim does not come in front of us as a freestanding claim this is not the only one you know yours so for the public that is a continuing arrangement that the public is intended to rely on not simply for the month in which the publication comes out but whenever they want to water the product and i don't think that the decision in jan mark goldberg his wife's and the most recent cases their space i think the problem is that they fail to recognize that there is a qualitative difference between the facts of those cases and the facts that we have here and the distinction in which the defendant is accused of entering into a contract with a third party that causes economic damage to the plaintiff that's what we have here and what was involved in those cases which is going to defend it is accused of resell them there is no allegation that there was any control over the distribution the only advertising of my client as a distributor was the point this unilateral lack it was not something that the fans it ever did so really trying to bootstrap themselves from the top arrangement quite frankly i have the same type of arrangement with ron and then over the past several years i've made fifty sixty purchases i think telephone calls is that if you have jurisdiction over a particular defendant on a client that there's an argument in favor of jurisdiction over related claims on the same plane and you don't need the same degree of showing contact with