Sentences with phrase «done in a court of law»

No one can prove as you would attempt to do in a court of law that Jesus was the Messiah.

If you do not feel that you have violated a Florida Traffic Law, you have the right to fight your traffic ticket, but that means doing this in a court of law.

Not exact matches

Hasen's point appeared to be borne out Saturday when Stone submitted an affidavit to the Nevada court pledging to post a list of cautionary commands on the «Stop the Steal» web site in an effort to ensure that its volunteers do not break the law.

According to notices from the New York State Board of Law Examiners and the Colorado Supreme Court, users who show up with a Touch Bar - equipped model in those states will have to write their answers by hand, but they will be allowed to re-download the ExamSoft software to another machine for free if they do it in advance.

But now, in an appeal filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, plaintiffs argue that the law does not protect companies that «manipulate reviews for their own profit.»

However, he praised the U.K.'s legal system, saying «we have the good fortune to live in a country where everyone... even government is subject to the rule of law, so the government will comply with the judgment of the court and do all that is necessary to implement it.»

The judicial system does not track civil cases filed in circuit court by the section of law cited, but he does not remember hearing of any lawsuit based on the disparagement law being filed in circuit court anywhere in South Dakota.

The judge said in a 91 - page decision that, while the Army Corps substantially complied with the National Environmental Policy Act, federal permits issued for the pipeline violated the law in some respects, saying in a court order the Corps did not «adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice.»

After the Supreme Court in 1911 struck down the form of resale price maintenance enabled by fair trade laws, 59 Congress in 1937 carved out an exception for state fair trade laws through the Miller - Tydings Act.60 When the Supreme Court in 1951 ruled that producers could enforce minimum prices only against those retailers that had signed contracts agreeing to do so, 61 Congress responded with a law making minimum prices enforceable against nonsigners too.62

Unless we are prohibited from doing so by any applicable law, regulation, court order or instruction or guidance of a competent regulatory authority or agency, in terminating your account we may do any of the following at our sole discretion: A. transfer the funds back to the source; or B. convert your account balance to Bitcoins at our then - prevailing rate, subject to applicable fees and as soon as practicable give you 48 hours» notice that we intend to deactivate your account, requesting that you provide us with an alternative bitcoin wallet address to which we can transfer your bitcoin within that period (the «Redemption Period»);

I think the Supreme Court of Canada would deal with it [quickly], because I don't think the law is very complicated in this case.

There are a number of examples in Canadian case law where issuers were attempting to sell «utilities» or something similar to modern day tokens and coins, where the court simply didn't buy the argument.

If they don't, they can be sued in the court of law.

10 times out of 10, if you say in a court of law that god told me to do it, you are considered insane, retarded or deceitful.

Full of himself, he stepped up when his case was called, and began, as we were taught to do in law school: «May it please the court, my name is Edward R. Lev and I represent the Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago.»

And before you offer up the excuse the bible uses that... «Lot was too drunk to know better»... ask yourself if that excuse would fly today in a court of law, if not, don't use it here to justify his behavior, and god does not punish him so your god must be ok with drunken incest.

He can claim all he wants to the God «told him» to do this, but I think that's called hearsay evidence, and it does not normally stand up well in a court of law.

In Smith, the Court interpreted its First Amendment decisions as holding «that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a «valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)»» (id.

Lively, with representation by Liberty Counsel (an evangelical legal organization), responded that in both the U.S. and Uganda he exercised constitutionally protected speech rights; that he opposes violence and neither committed nor plotted any; that Uganda did not in fact pass a proposed draconian anti-gay law, and that in any case Uganda's political institutions, instead of himself, are responsible for its political decisions; and that the court lacks jurisdiction and the plaintiffs lack standing.

As for your seriously off base torture comparison, if we saw a drastic increase in violent crimes, and there was a public outcry for harsher punishments to try and serve as a deterrent, and the Bill was drafted, made open to the public, and the solid majority of the population didn't turn against it with protests, signatures, and contacting their representatives; maybe a torture law could make it (though it would never get past the Supreme Court as the Consttution is now, but we'll let that slide as a hypothetical).

In the United States, the Louisiana state Supreme Court ruled last year that state law does not require a priest to notify authorities after hearing evidence of child abuse from a child making a confession.

This country did and allowed them to get away with their lawless behavior in the courts of law.

That wasn't even Olson's case, but with assists from a federal district court judge who came out as being in a same - sex relationship only after ruling and retiring, and elected officials who chose to forgo their traditional duty to vigorously defend state law, Olson and Boies did succeed in disenfranchising millions of Californians on a procedural technicality.

And, indeed, this was done in the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that declared the Washington State law prohibiting physician - assisted suicide to be unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the guarantee of personal liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Marty's new book is a resource for people of conviction who want to be good citizens in a pluralistic society: «You want to do the right thing by your God, your tradition, your country, the public order, the law and the courts, and your fellow citizens.

Did we think that the illegitimacy of the Court's performance lay in its liberalism or in its activism, its politics or its contempt for law?

The consti «tution does back up these justices and if the trial was held in Berkley and the courts had gone the other way I have no doubt that their interpretation of the law would back them up in the same matter.

The reasons for accepting it do not form the kind of deductive proof we require in logic or pure mathematics, but they resemble the arguments used in a court of law to establish innocence or culpability.

What Mother Theresa and her organization are doing is criminal, which in a court of law, would have a laundry list of offenses listed against them.

When does saying, in the United States of America, that a specific group of people should be killed and it not be considered a hate crime or uttering of threats and be dealt with in a court of law?

Great — so, either these four young men never were abused, but simply saw an opportunity to shake down an individual with a questionable reputation (the «where there's smoke» strategy), and Pastor Long either caved in to the pressure, or sought an expedient route (possibly used before) to make the problem go away; OR, these really are four young men who've been abused, but rather than make the pastor answer for what he did to them in a court of law, and spare other young men in the future the trauma they experienced, they allowed their silence to be bought.

He wants people to live according to Seven Basic Human Laws: To believe in One G - d, not to blaspheme Him, not to steal and kidnap, not to murder, not to do adultery, etc., not to eat the limb of a living animal (animal cruelty) and to set up effective courts of justice.

The cost of police, law courts, and prisons is included in GNP, but a rise in these costs does not mean that consumers are better off.

After conferring, they announced that it didn't matter whether or not the «evidence» would stand up in a court of law».

This is such a truism that one is almost ashamed to pen the words, and yet it remains a fact that, in a great deal of the more conservative biblical scholarship, it does seem to be assumed that the appeal to factual accuracy would he as valid and important a factor in the case of ancient Near Eastern religious texts as it would be in a modern western court of law or in a somewhat literally - minded western congregation.

In the now famous Goodridge case, the Court leaned critically on the insistence that procreation is not a requirement of marriage, and that the laws on marriage «do not privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse between married people above every other form of adult intimacy.»

He employs as an epigraph an assertion by Oliver Wendell Holmes: «The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by law.»

He will be reminded of what that simple old sage remarked in ancient times, «When they meet together, and the world sets down at an assembly, or in a court of law, or a theater, or a camp, or in any other popular resort, and there is a great uproar and they praise some things which are being said or done, and blame other things, equally exaggerating both, shouting and clapping their hands, and the echo of the rocks and the place in which they are assembled redoubles the sound of the praise or blame — at such a time will not a young man's heart, as they say, leap within him?

What would you do if something was proven in a court of law, and evidence, and scientific scrutiny..

He gave us Seven Laws to follow: To believe in One G - d, not to blaspheme Him, not to steal (and kidnap), not to murder, not to do adultery, etc., not to eat the limb of a living animal (animal cruelty) and to set up effective courts of justice.

We don't really want the Supreme Court to ignore the actual wording of the laws they interpret and go rooting around in the legislative shadows — the so - called «penumbras» — to get a particular result that the plaintiffs may favor.

Overturning a lower court's decision that ruled that the laws unconstitutionally limited access to abortion in the state, New Orleans - based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals judges wrote, «on its face does not impose an undue burden on the life and health of a woman.&rcourt's decision that ruled that the laws unconstitutionally limited access to abortion in the state, New Orleans - based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals judges wrote, «on its face does not impose an undue burden on the life and health of a woman.&rCourt of Appeals judges wrote, «on its face does not impose an undue burden on the life and health of a woman.»

If it were an accident, the first time it caused rashes and or nose bleeds and diarrhea, they would have written what caused it in my Medical Records to stop others from causing the adverse reactions, but no, they have to try to prevent a Law Suit and write that I am delusional about the adverse reactions so every Doctor after that forced the adverse reactions on me and or refused to give me the Medical Treatment actually need, while they make money off charging the government for the Toxic Harmful Drugs that a Judge ordered them not to give me, tut they just falsely called me delusional about the Court Orders, to made money poisoning me with Toxic Drugs and Rash Creams, but normally they do that to their suspecting Victims to make money off doing Kidney transplants like they did to my Uncle, but they will not replace mine, because that is what they planned to do to kill me, just ask their associate assassin Dr Kanter of the Minneapolis VA, of course he will say I am delusional after he assaulted me saying the other Hospital Labs were wrong about that Blood Test that show the harm they caused.

It's a little too late for praying, it's Mrs.Clinton's call to be @ the helm; now, with her hubby Mr.Clinton as VP; and one of you out of all of you, need to tell Romney he's committed fraud, for leaving the Post of so - called gov.that theirs a 2 yr.interval that must be met; the same fo Obama; whom is worst off then Bush Jr.then for none of you to have no Allegiance to be nothing but commander of thieves, since April 4th, 1968 to presently; in the killing of Dr.King Jr.must still go under Oath to all you perjurers; that mustn't go unpunished to the array of charges I have stored up against each of yo on every job, on every public premise; that Obama didn't praywhen he lied to GOD ALMIGHTY in perjury; to have left the seat of sen.to jump to the office; knowing he hadn't a clue what to do; so he got Joe, which is Cheney all over; whom should of been out of public; and he knows that and all the fugitives, even in the Italian led court in DC; that will have to answer to what is -LCB- H.R. 7152 -RCB-; and why they let Olsen for Bush Jr.waste the American's People's time, not to mention all the lives that's been lost; for the tyrannies since 1968 to presently has cost; Vote I, Edward Baltimore; to confirm I; Governor of DC; as of 2/16/12; cause DC; has been a State, already; and all you slaves from State to State; need to snap out of your peonage which is prohibited by Federal Laws; on anybody!!!!!!!

But he was willing to hold — insisted on holding, for plausible reasons — that the role of a referendum proponent does not confer standing to represent the constitutionality of state law in federal court.

The fact is that when courts have applied the «compelling state interest» standard in the past, religiously required exemptions from laws of general applicability have not done well at all.

The Court's statement in Seeger that a registrant's characterization of his own belief as «religious» should carry great weight... does not imply that his declaration that his views are nonreligious should be treated similarly... very few registrants are fully aware of the broad scope of the word «religious» [as interpreted by law since Seeger].»

The justices on the current Court will do the real work of jurisprudence if they draw on the briefs, take the time to set forth the evidence, and show why the state or the federal government has a compelling case for casting around infants in the womb the full protection of the law.

I can't speak to Protestant Europe with authority, but I would presume that the state did take a greater interest in the regulation of marriage as Coontz claims, but for reasons involving the departure of the Catholic Church and its laws and courts.

Something I haven't seen anybody mention before is that even though the government does establish nor prohibits religion (Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,) the system of laws can inadvertently end up being setup to practically prohibit being a Christian by the advocacy of certain groups who go above and beyond to have the courts rule in such matters.