Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of two dollars upon her representation that she was greatly in need of it. She could not defend by denying that she took the money by force and in her brief assume the position that she took it forcibly in the belief that she had a right to satisfy an honest claim in that way. If [appellant] had admitted upon the witness-stand that she took the money by force for the reason [that she had an honest claim to it], the record would have presented the question whether her claim was bona fide and could be the basis of a legal action. 45 Ariz. at 364, 43 P.2d at 205 (emphasis added). A defendant may not claim that he forcibly took property under a claim of right when he testifies that he did not take the property by the use of force. Accord, Woratzeck v. Ricketts, 859 F.2d 1559 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, defendant testified that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding qualified immunity defense unavailable to the united states in ftca action (B) holding unclean hands defense unavailable against the government (C) holding that the claim of right defense is unavailable to a defendant who claimed he did not take money by force (D) holding that under  521 the coercive force applied against a plaintiff must result in an interference with a separate constitutional or statutory right and it is not sufficient that the right interfered with is the right to be free of the force or threat of force that was applied (E) holding that i have a gun is sufficient to justify the sentencing enhancement because it merely requires a teller to make the reasonable inference that a robber would use the gun he claimed to have if he did not receive the money he demanded
Output (English): holding qualified immunity defense unavailable to the united states in ftca action