Sentences with phrase «facts and evidence under»

He finished by leading the crowd in a boisterous call and response inspired by an LGBT activist chant: «Facts and evidence under attack,» «Act up, fight back!»

Not exact matches

I checked under my bed and in the closet often when I was a kid, and there were never any monsters, or monster tracks, or left behind monster pieces, so no matter how creepy the dark room may have been, the fact that there WAS NO EVIDENCE meant THERE WERE NO MONSTERS.

In fact, I will bet London to a brick that; (i) in their search for two miracles, they will quickly find them, just like George Bush's underlings, under pressure, found «slam dunk» evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; and (ii) the two miracles will both be medical «miracles».

The evidence of a laddish dressing - room culture (Kilcline proudly proclaiming that he took youngsters who couldn't handle their drink under his wing, John Beresford thanking the Quayside and its array of pubs and nightclubs for the fact that he got divorced), while hardly unique to Newcastle, now appears in a more troubling light following David Eatock's revelations about the sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of coach George Ormond.

However, Fazio has failed to impress and is now clearly down the pecking order under manager Mauricio Pochettino, as evidenced by the fact that he has been limited to only one League Cup appearance so far this season.

If they hear the evidence on some debated question and decide the right answer is X, then no one is allowed to offer any evidence or any argument that in fact X is wrong, under threat of fines and imprisonment.

Raji told Justice Abang that apart from the fact that the prosecution was quoting another source on the evidence, «the evidence itself is incriminating, damaging and not admissible under the Evidence Actevidence, «the evidence itself is incriminating, damaging and not admissible under the Evidence Actevidence itself is incriminating, damaging and not admissible under the Evidence ActEvidence Act».

«The fact that there is an on - going judicial Inquiry probing and taking evidence under oath means that I do not believe that I could usefully add to the facts in this case though I remain available should circumstances change or new evidence emerge,» Sir Alex wrote in a letter sent earlier today.

Regardless of the type of legal proceeding or which side uses scientific evidence, the forensic scientist must be able to write a report and testify under oath about: what facts or items of evidence were analyzed or tested; what tests or analyses were used; how valid or reliable those tests or analyses have been found to be by other courts; why and how the forensic scientist was qualified to conduct those tests or analyses; and, what the results of the tests or analyses were and how those results are relevant to the issues in dispute.

«The evidence this court heard was that it could take anywhere from two to almost ten years and cost $ 50,000 to $ 450,000 or more to bring these cases to conclusion under the Dismissal Statutes, and that given these facts, grossly ineffective teachers are being left in the classroom.»

Under the scholars» own standard, only six studies containing any evidence that teacher certification is effective were left standing, a fact that was omitted in Wilson, Floden, and Ferrini - Mundy's text.

Each found evidence that staff had come under pressure from parents and governors with strongly held religious beliefs, and in some cases had forced changes to the curriculum which made them resemble faith schools, when in fact they were state - funded secular ones.

But I would point to the fact that many teacher preparation programs don't offer future teachers as much clinical training as they ought to receive — especially training in high - needs schools; that districts are by and large not as effective as they might be at teacher induction and professional development; that teachers are generally under - compensated and specific individual excellence isn't rewarded; and that the policy contexts in which teachers work are being constantly revised in ways that are sometimes contrary to research evidence.

Under close inspection it becomes apparent that one of the paintings is in fact a copy of the other, a step - by - step re-enactment, revealing evidence of a strict and rational process.

So your avoidance of the evidence that disputes your position accompanied with your continued avoidance of any acknowledgement of your habit of posting under multiple names will mean I and others will continue to question your motivation or interest in the subject (other than a desire to be a pain in the backside by avoiding all the inconvenient facts).

Likewise, when I cite evidence like «Debunking the Reagan Myth,» Paul Krugman, 21 January 2008, where Krugman points out that the economic «boom» of the 80s went mostly to the rich and left the middle class no better off than they had been under Carter, Republicans fanatically deny these documented facts, dismissing the charts of income growth for the mile class as «lying liberal statistics.»

Evidence is mounting that we are not nimby's or deluded or under some irrational nocebo effect, our walls do indeed shake from noise and the noise emissions are in fact harmful.

The measurements taken in the 1800's were acceptable but not as reliable and valid as the wiki article potrays, as evidenced by the still significantly off measurements and predictions made in the 1950's, although these facts do not undo past measurements completely, I take issue with the brief and under stated remarks about the 1800's and shying away from calibration issues.

IMO it's misleading, because the US administration is still insisting (a) on only discussing emissions intensity targets (for reducing, not total emissions, but only the rate of growth of US emissions), and US emissions intensity will reduce even under business as usual; and (b) the US administration is still insisting on only considering voluntary targets, despite the fact that even many major US corporations are calling for mandatory caps and despite the fact that there is no evidence that their existing voluntary targets have made any difference.

The Washington Supreme Court upheld the hearing's officer's decision to exclude this evidence, citing Admission and Practice Rule 19 (e)(5), which states that «no information relating to an ethics inquiry, including the fact that an inquiry has been made, its content, or the response thereto, may be asserted in response to any grievance or complaint under the applicable disciplinary rules, nor is such information admissible in any proceeding under the applicable disciplinary rules.»

In fact recent cases such as Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services have illustrated that the lack of proof for compensation under the Act meant that compensation has been provided even when the scientific evidence runs contrary to the petitioner's position.

Adverse possession codified under s. 4 of the Limitations Act was established by evidence of three facts: (1) actual possession, (2) intention to exclude the true owner (i.e. on title) and (3) effective exclusion: Masidon Investments v. Ham, 1984 CarswellOnt 578 (C.A.), at para. 14.

Under our rules of evidence and given the fact that parties have the right to cross-examine witnesses, you don't enjoy those protections in a courtroom.

[68] The evidence is overwhelming, and I have no hesitation in finding as a fact, that at the time of the accident Mr. H was driving his vehicle under the influence of alcohol to such an extent that he was incapable of its proper control.

With that baseline set, you could then give the judge leeway to find facts by a preponderance of the evidence (including facts that underlay charges on which the defendant was acquitted) and rely on those facts to vary upwards under 3553 (a).

Unlike the situation in Newton, there is basically no restriction on the evidence that can be called before the Tribunal... The Tribunal has representatives from other Métis Settlements and that fact combined with its statutory mandate indicates that less, as opposed to more, deference is due to the decision of a Council at least as regards an issue involving desent of Metis Title under under the Land Policy.

Where there is a dispute about any fact the court shall receive evidence under s. 724 (3)(a) and the prosecutor must establish any aggravating fact beyond a reasonable doubt under s. 724 (3)(e).

While it may seem like stating the obvious, the fact is expert evidence can be undermined if the expert's approach to preparing and writing a report is sloppy, or oral testimony is not argued effectively under examination.

Inquiry by justice 535 If an accused who is charged with an indictable offence is before a justice and a request has been made for a preliminary inquiry under subsection 536 (4) or 536.1 (3), the justice shall, in accordance with this Part, inquire into the charge and any other indictable offence, in respect of the same transaction, founded on the facts that are disclosed by the evidence taken in accordance with this Part.

The trade ‑ off for permitting the police to deploy their dogs on a «reasonable suspicion» standard without a warrant is that if this procedure is abused and sniffer ‑ dog searches proceed without reasonable suspicion based on objective facts, the consequence could well tip the balance against the admission of the evidence if it is established under s. 24 (2) of the Charter that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

But a case worth several million would require extremely compelling facts, multiple survivors under Florida's wrongful death statute, good evidence of strong relationships between the deceased and survivors, good evidence of the defendant's guilt, and plenty of insurance coverage.

(10) In the trial of an issue under this section, oral evidence respecting an unfair practice is admissible despite the existence of a written agreement and despite the fact that the evidence pertains to a representation in respect of a term, condition or undertaking that is or is not provided for in the agreement.

[11] Unreliable evidence is of no assistance to the trier of fact and is therefore inadmissible under Rule 702.

The competition focused on a fact pattern based on the 2010 case of United States v. Warshak, dealing with the unconstitutional search and seizure of e-mails under the Stored Communications Act, and whether they should be excluded as evidence... [more]

[22] As shown by the recent Court of Appeal decision in Deep, Steinecke is still good law, as the Court found that Deep could not rely on documents inadmissible under civil proceedings due to s. RHPA 36 (3), and found that, «[w] ithout this evidence the appellant has no way of proving the necessary facts to support his claim.»

In fact, there is evidence that where ABS have been there has been little impact on providing great access to the most under - serviced areas of law such as family and criminal matters.

The district judge excluded the evidence, emphasizing the lack of an error rate and that, under Rule 702, the testimony would not assist the trier of fact.

Litigants are now incentivized to submit more extrinsic evidence, even in cases where they would not have under the old standard, and hope the district judge will use it to craft a favorable opinion with plenty of citations to underlying facts that must be reviewed with deference by the appellate court.

Consider, for example, a case where the Crown proves the basic facts required for by s. 753 (1.1) beyond a reasonable doubt, and where the accused, in response, presented evidence that did not disprove on a balance of probabilities that the required criteria of a dangerous offender finding under s. 753 (1) were met.

In his view, the trial judge was under no misapprehension of the facts, and her reasonable inferences from the evidence and findings of fact amply supported her conclusion that the Appellant impliedly consented to Mr. Tessman operating the vehicle.

The Appellants took the position at the hearing of the special case that it was inappropriate as it was premised on the assumption that the ownership agreements were valid and enforceable, it did not include facts necessary to decide the case, and the court would be required to answer the questions for determination — whether the Respondent was entitled to charge or levy the cancellation fee and whether it was entitled under the agreements to levy the renovation project fee — on the basis of contested evidence.

(2) Any certificate purporting to be under the seal of the Minister and signed by a person authorized by or under subsection (1), or any certified copy, shall be received in evidence in any prosecution or other proceeding as proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts so certified without personal appearance to prove the seal, the signature or the official position of the person appearing to have signed the certificate.

This difficulty is compounded by the fact that traditional laws and customs are transmitted orally from generation to generation, so evidence of these may be restricted or inadmissible under the hearsay rule.137 This is an issue that has been identified by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its Review of the Uniform Evidence Act 1995.138 The Commission proposes that the uniform Evidence Acts should be amended to provide an exception to the hearsay and opinion evidence rules for evidence relevant to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander traditional laws and customs.139 The Commission also observed that there are strong arguments that the NTA should be amended as the relevant provision does not provide sufficient guidance on or certainty on the admissibility of evidence in native title proceedings.140 However, legislative amendment to the NTA falls outside the terms of reference of thisevidence of these may be restricted or inadmissible under the hearsay rule.137 This is an issue that has been identified by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its Review of the Uniform Evidence Act 1995.138 The Commission proposes that the uniform Evidence Acts should be amended to provide an exception to the hearsay and opinion evidence rules for evidence relevant to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander traditional laws and customs.139 The Commission also observed that there are strong arguments that the NTA should be amended as the relevant provision does not provide sufficient guidance on or certainty on the admissibility of evidence in native title proceedings.140 However, legislative amendment to the NTA falls outside the terms of reference of thisEvidence Act 1995.138 The Commission proposes that the uniform Evidence Acts should be amended to provide an exception to the hearsay and opinion evidence rules for evidence relevant to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander traditional laws and customs.139 The Commission also observed that there are strong arguments that the NTA should be amended as the relevant provision does not provide sufficient guidance on or certainty on the admissibility of evidence in native title proceedings.140 However, legislative amendment to the NTA falls outside the terms of reference of thisEvidence Acts should be amended to provide an exception to the hearsay and opinion evidence rules for evidence relevant to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander traditional laws and customs.139 The Commission also observed that there are strong arguments that the NTA should be amended as the relevant provision does not provide sufficient guidance on or certainty on the admissibility of evidence in native title proceedings.140 However, legislative amendment to the NTA falls outside the terms of reference of thisevidence rules for evidence relevant to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander traditional laws and customs.139 The Commission also observed that there are strong arguments that the NTA should be amended as the relevant provision does not provide sufficient guidance on or certainty on the admissibility of evidence in native title proceedings.140 However, legislative amendment to the NTA falls outside the terms of reference of thisevidence relevant to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander traditional laws and customs.139 The Commission also observed that there are strong arguments that the NTA should be amended as the relevant provision does not provide sufficient guidance on or certainty on the admissibility of evidence in native title proceedings.140 However, legislative amendment to the NTA falls outside the terms of reference of thisevidence in native title proceedings.140 However, legislative amendment to the NTA falls outside the terms of reference of this review.

«We're not seeing evidence of a slowdown in leasing at our properties due to very desirable locations, and the fact that the markets we're in are under - retailed,» says Richard Baker, president of National Realty & Development Corp. in Purchase, N.Y..