MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
just and history of the rarest fundamental right to testify should have gotten him more than a recommendation counsel was under an obligation to him the government's argument in the twenty to fifty five instead the outcome of the child would not have been different if james to testify that is merely speculation because we have the first trial where james testified with his two alibi witnesses in such a way that they could not have willingly entered into a conspiracy with the case law is the re as the leader person who planned every executed robbery the problem with their testimony and the problem with counsel trial tactic in the second trial was using all of the testimony against him without completely disgusted with his attorney james as the season of court room close and just prior convictions might have stood up in court and said i want to testify but remember in the the problem with defense counsel strategy and it may have been his only option but the problem was he had to basically ed near that james was a violent person and by admitting that james was a violent person he want to do it and wants to say
but but since you also stands for the proposition that you have to confront the individual or ask the individual about his ability about the chaining of profit of documents and provide the but this certainly the board has a duty the board certainly has a duty to look at it at the record i mean as an independent duty to look at the record with regard to  bar how does that play into each of the decisions that the board makes sense is it a bar to bring the client at all or is it so i'm questioning whether we really just look at ok you know applying a lot of the facts of this case do you really think that the bar applies here and they didn't they didn't do that in this case the immigration judge you know  is that it seems to me reading the briefs of both parties that people you know went off and a lot of other directions and briefed a whole lot of other issues not exclusively focusing on me and his credibility and i just wonder if it would be helpful for the court to have supplemental briefings that would be restricted only to that issue i just threw that out what he was you know what he what he had in mind here but it would seem to me if you thought somebody is going to kill you and i kill somebody else instead you would be very eager to discuss that and be really one month period and i think this by then they've completely failed and there's no reason they would continue their effort to persuade them to do that in the future i don't know why decision board mentioned there was no meaningful addressing of the average credibility but then it goes on to say that we find the adverse credibility finding adequately supported by the record so they make
different and that when they did not if i understand it correctly the board did not try to apply that retroactively as i understand it we're dealing with a law and whether or not this was a particularly serious crime under preexisting argument on this issue was rather that there was a collateral estoppel that basically agree that the idea you couldn't find something your for the nd time around that had been found in the earlier version that there was no but your view is in response to the lead question that there is no if you will i'm tethered right on the part of an i v terminate them asylum that does not have an expression three apply because it's my understanding that that doesn't allow them to end asylum by looking at a particularly serious crime so i'd like you to answer that sure should you like an answer that now  address the issue and so at the outset i would ask the court if the court disagreed with the finding that it should go back to the agency for a specific analysis or conservation of valid i don't i don't think that's was very concerned with the fact that it literally was the same exact and ends that had been submitted on both occasions as tourist petitions claim and so the court was concerned that how could an i g grants an set of facts but in mystery in your own case the agency found that he was credible in book instances he was credible when they initially granted you believe and he was credible when they reopened and
we have to take that allegation for purposes of rule twelve as correct so there is your injury someone paragraph something as a premium product that wasn't a premium product the person different paid a premium price for something that wasn't  edominates and you end up with something that is either not is nutritional actually could be dangerous and so as i was reading this time i was thinking it seems that it seems a bit of an overstatement to say are indistinguishable there's no d n a of the genetic material there's no genetic material bio engineering and the finished product so the real question would be whether the plaintiff has alleged that it's different in any way that isn't that right and whether or not you can come here and say deceptive if it fails to review facts that are material in light of the representations on the label so both the f t c and f d a require that claim being material in order to be deceptive it has to me by engineering isn't the material so can you tell me why seven sixteen thirty nine i has not come up in this case yet  material to the case and as agreed with my opponent here won't have an impact here the u s d a was charged by congress to come up with labor requirements so the inconsistent for genetically engineered products for three reasons that will have no impact  happy to rest thank you thank you
didn't get any you see the argument unless she can point out something we need about the benefits coming from one source versus the other i want to try that
but on the part of organizations that the government is unable or unwilling to protect and with regard to control i'm in control and with regard to the persecution it was the mother who mony wasn't given any opportunity that the judge was going to make finding and adverse credibility there was no opportunity for him to explain any supposin inconsistency so as a consolidates you can even if you can't take even if taken alone a couple of those instances may not have risen to the level of persecution when you look at them but you still i guess the government is also contending on that you're racing for the first time about him being and disfavor group that that wasn't part of your argument previously and they're saying that just a very group argument for the ninth circuit came  and you lose on that how does that affect any claim that he's part of a just paper group has the court and you know didn't believe him well i think you have to look at what what the adverse credibility help by the army but it doesn't go to anything beyond that mister the judge did not mention i first credibility finding with regard to finding that the numerous instances of persecution  that i don't know sort of what i would call to be like the trilogy of cases fail long and in all the ways that you're talking about what would be your position about whether there should be a reminder of the board of immigrations to fuller development of whether plane had a well founded fear persecution based on membership the board in this case could they have brought it up if they didn't exist and we had a substitute briefing on long after it came out and so you can end the opening brief and it's a very cursory just saying requirement is if the for the record compels the conclusion that mr halima is any different than the millions of other chinese questions to deal with harassment and discrimination every day and indonesia find that it doesn't apply it hasn't been argued and the point i think make a stronger argument and you can but i have to decide but why should i if that if the government isn't giving me a very good reason but what do you make of the fact that the ad if the adverse credibility is supported how does that affect the body of evidence that we're looking at right here if that is the petitioner then entitled to still have all of that finding by the agency said that the government didn't do anything and that right i'm playing your mother and i don't believe you in that situation and what petitioners counsel is arguing is that everything else is presumed to be credible is that true or not true or  tentacles go out broader than that and the judge also referred to it being an exaggerated testimony and  career which undercut and how he was traumatized however if and to the extent that it doesn't go far enough i think the agency is determination and if you have no future questions
the special reports should be the first one employee recognition that's being rescheduled currently there are other people involved that we need to coordinate to get there so we're probably going to do that at the next meeting expressed an interest in the past and i think that you know probably it would be efficient to check with them and see who would still be interested if not then we have to overcome as well would we conduct interviews to then express pollutants are sediment and phosphorus you get sediment from construction sites forming activities you get phosphorus anything from one for allies or golf courses to farms we have a long brush around so old imitation the d p s putting on some seminars as a result of this lawsuit to educate the public i think another thing that came out of the lawsuit was public input was one of the big things that the environmental group you know was pushing the p a to have  our strategies throughout pennsylvania as a power bottom line more time more effort more money in terms of storm water management and in terms of specifically these tea and you know plans it seems like the d know anything's probably on the table at this point you know actually this wednesday is the first of the d p workshops the assistant engineer myself are going to go there and kind of hear what they have to critical because as much as it's going to affect us and work for you and cost there may be mechanisms they're going to have to put in place so the sooner that information would get out to the people who are in that those industries would make sense but it seems like you're saying that we as a township are going to be responsible for education going to school so not the state not the d p themselves you know work you know all kind of trickles to trickle down from testing to education to publish to the different groups and we have a submit that how we're going to deal with that and we may have noticed in some of the magazines where we put out there's information about water your dog are all the reports terms of the questions only a room when she leaves i did have a question i apologize for the recycling you were talking about beginning to roll out the recycling when we were talking a while back and one of the means we talked about the people who are delinquent with garbage fees are we going to be giving recycling containers to the people who are selling point yes we're given to every every late two thousand and fourteen october this is going to require us to review our coaches clearance falsely for one thing as well as   rec were using the third party national group to do the clearances the way i read that law that's not they specifically point out the state child abuse and criminal records so i'm not sure that's going to be
that robbery isn't met that's about whether a robbery took place at all and there were there were five factors five evidentiary factors in addition to my client's own testimony that were readily available to cast doubt upon or refute the quote unquote victims the testimony but sadly only one of those factors was brought out a your trial had developed only one of those five factors of course you didn't put my client on to testify but is developed on one of those factors and that factor was that the client had forty two dollars in his pants and was and was employed which made point that my client had a legitimate reason for being on the sidewalk at that point tonight but the prosecutor objected to any attempted to make the point and took him into chambers or it up to the bench and  not had failed to develop their credentials support for so we had only one for five factors and he was left with nothing but hyperbole as an example you argued that there was no evidence that his client spoke victim's testimony and he didn't put his client on the stand to do it directly refuted if not do the second factor is it legitimate purpose for being on the street for spector was the one that he did put on the third factor was the client was well groomed to substantiate the fact that man was supposed to be traumatized by post traumatic stress disorder then he went into a liquor store the clerk became uncomfortable with him and there was a car with the door open outside front  of anger certainly yes he hasn't once tried to steal a curtain of beer and if i guess the question is what a reasonable lawyer be willing to take the risk but somebody has got expert psychiatric testimony that he's suffering from  an exaggerated startle response it's it's perceiving a paxil situation than a normal person would in a reasonable person normal person wouldn't see is threatening but a person with p t s d the well will misinterpret will exaggerate and will see danger were no one else would see danger and that's the characteristic of p t s d and and and that's why i was so important in this case because he saw he saw in the actions
however it isn't always a question of fact and we bring to the court's attention three main cases on this point erin carlisle and often heard by judge press summary judgment cases where the evidence was overwhelming in favor of the attorney who is accused of malpractise and we rely on those cases the may second two thousand and four letter at least it was dated that day is it needed or drafted that day he began drafting it that day and it was the same information in his head all the way through that's correct your honor as far as i know while he does say in his letter that he was reading the court the matrimonial court april twenty fourth two thousand and four order and having quote i knew i had to file this letter motion the order makes clear that mr kaplan lied to me and the court and defrauded me and the court on a number of occasions so that kind of shows the timeline of mr battens thinking we don't have to define what was there pretty after that april two thousand and four conference however it seems that mr bratton became really vehement in his dislike of my client and expressed it unequivocal and the so the letter going back to when the letter was drafted so we've got the three dates  and anything after the second is going to be untimely that's our argument so the summary judgment standard and that's the that's what we're applying here requires that all entrances be drawn in favor of the non movement and isn't it as equally likely that the letter could have been drafted in principle part on the sixth as on the second so in doesn't your argument rely upon an assumption considerations were already in mr brought into mind the moment he put pen to paper and you can see that from the first sentence through fifty plus other paragraphs none of them show and he has to say my client is out he's already thrown down the gauntlet so i do understand yes he might have written only a few lines were crossed out those lines in the intervening days but it wouldn't matter because all we have to show we said he lost trust and confidence at the time we started writing it  argument is that the entirety of the letter demonstrates a loss of trust and confidence even if those words aren't used and therefore it doesn't really matter which paragraph started when it's all of a piece right i mean invoking common sense and the deposition shows that is not the case as they wanted that question answered not way they could have asked the questions when i lost confidence that i lose confidence by months and i just
ascendance was imposed on your client and then there were efforts made it after a sentence was imposed on your client mr so could you please not treat of the court's authority to entertain post sentencing a new allegation of conflict that has not been made before outside of twenty eight to fifty four you have during walk hearing the challenged world on the arguments presented a neurotic human is not presented until after the sentencing hearing well and you are going to explain to me why there was heart because if you see a client have any standing to pursue a criminal charge that's up to the government wants to because there was this possibility that the issue could be considered a twenty to fifty five issue and this court has in the past sometimes really characterized these type of motions as twenty to fifty five this is not that's not the case here because that from him has disclaimed any reliance on twenty two fifty five but we submit it's a jurisdictional issue that cannot be weighed down in any of them the record does not suggest an intent from the government to as i take it the defendant has not disclaimed if the district court did not help jurors stiction then twenty to fifty five defendant has not disclaimed that one where i met your honor is that the defendant has disclaimed reliance on twenty to fifty fire in terms of his post sentencing motions whether he intends to bring a twenty to fifty five in the future now would be up to right our position is that this issue is not before this court it was raised from the first time those posts sentencing motions ok were questionable at to say the least i'm not certain whether it was it's sort of lack of competence but it certainly created problems on appeal
on page eight of our reply brief i submit that that case is controlling and that is that is on all fours as a case in that case state law and under the way you determine sentencing skeen and parole work under oregon law this court or any court can order the board can fashion so it's equitable power it was money that takes into account the fact that the individual has been unconstitutionally deprived of their freedom for us that number of months or in this case assuming in favor of the  remedy to cure the violation there is an oft quoted precept in the segregation cases where the supreme court stated the scope of the violation determine the scope of the remedy and for the denial of mr
it's a strange kind of procedure consider the sixty six issue or more to dismiss the appeal with my approach my preferred approach would be to affirm the appeal because there really was no abuse of discretion based on the information for this record to give it to do it without prejudice consolidated cases in the traditional cases i know that that was routinely done i understand in the last year or so there have been a number of courts that have not required that but i think in this case we can ask presume that there is merit to this you certainly have the power to do that but my i think you really think i can argue that you've gone so but i just think it would be better to have that little check on the system where we actually have an attorney making the determination that there really
possibility for you to come back if you got contrary signals from the european tribunal as to whether it would be issues relevant so if you're saying this is going to end with the next pronouncement that will come out of that try to
practices or actual workings of the state parole board and particular as policy statements to discern whether or not there has been in an ex post facto violation and applying that analysis or directive in this consideration hearing yes the condition return to the psychological condition which rendered the person a dangerous offender at the original sentencing is absent or in remission the board must then set a release reconfiguration of the of the decision making function is because we now know from the agency's policy statements and its practices that the board desire policy statement or memorandum we call the santos memorandum that institutional policy statement or memorandum authored by the board of parole then chair danny santos explained the rather than the psychologist and the reasons that we know offenders the boards to both of you both statutes have been applied to prisoners detained under both and yet this court by examining the psychological reports involved in that case to determine if the court actually in reality applied the new standard and found there had been an ex post facto violation that is what i asked the court to do in this case is that on examining the two psychologist starr's evaluations dr murray merely found characteristics and a quote minor element of the originals mycological disorder that led to mr alexander's minor elements of the behavioral and emotional problems which would lead to his incarceration and continues to be a minor danger to other individuals within your personality disorder was and i spoke of personality disorder the doctor here in conducting a evaluation prior to mr alexander's release hearing finds only minor criteria something to say that some scientists are enough because that means that somebody had to sign a number of different section criteria that would be anathema to be applied non dangerous offenders one forty four one twenty five this particular statute involves parole releases for dangerous offenders one forty four to twenty eight those statutes are quite different and  statutory language the titian are continues to point to and challenge the language and one forty the amended language in one forty four to twenty eight so one set of b however two the board always had the authority to consider information outside the psychological evaluation in making its ultimate determination whether to set of parole consideration date for dangerous offenders that and brown the majority found that mr brown in fact didn't have the requisite diagnosis better state law that in fact the requirements of state law were not  noted is that the condition must still be present now this record is much much stronger than what petitioner makes it out to be if i can refer to dr starr's a valuation and this  here doesn't require that there's nothing that requires a diagnosis or anything less or more than some signs some signs or many of the characteristics  arrested and this was a forcible rape as well as he didn't even mention the stock he thought it was consensual until it was actually arrested the psychologist appeared to believe that in fact that has not changed