Klein has
denied committing the act.
A Member of the New Patriotic Party, Hajia Fati Amadu, who was questioned by police on Tuesday for allegedly smashing the rear windscreen of a vehicle belonging to the party's General Secretary, has
denied committing the act.
Not exact matches
To the folks who are vehemently
denying this person was a Christian, I would urge you to consider this: If a person with a muslim name
commits an
act of terrorism, he is immediately labelled an «Islamic» terrorist, no questions asked, even though the Quran clearly states that a person who kills an innocent is like he / she has murdered then whole of humanity (the Quran mentions this in reference to murder of ANY innocent person, irrespective of the victims belief): To quote from the Quran: «On that account We ordained for the Children of Isra`il that if any one slew a person — unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land — it would be as if he slew the whole humanity: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole humanity.
Ultimately only God can answer to God, and Ahaz can not
deny that without
committing a grave
act of disobedience.
The players
denied having
committed either of those
acts.
Trump apologized for the comments, but
denied he had ever
committed such
acts.
I support the Respect for Marriage
Act and the overturning of the federal so - called «Defense of Marriage
Act,» and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to
deny the freedom to marry to loving and
committed same - sex couples.
The Department of Education may
deny an applicant a certificate if the department possesses evidence satisfactory to it that the applicant has
committed an
act or
acts, or that a situation exists, for which the Education Practices Commission would be authorized to revoke a teaching certificate.
Since a child can't really
commit an intentional
act if they're not likely to understand the consequences fully, it would be unreasonable to use the intentional
acts provision to
deny coverage for
acts committed by the child.
Ct. 344, 353 (1996)(insurer did not
commit an unfair
act or practice by
denying defense where there was no coverage under the policy).
Since a child can't really
commit an intentional
act if they're not likely to understand the consequences fully, it would be unreasonable to use the intentional
acts provision to
deny coverage for
acts committed by the child.