Sentences with phrase «individuals against official»

«The team was able to collect blood samples from the three affected individuals under full chain of custody for delivery to the OPCW Laboratory and subsequent analysis by OPCW designated laboratories, and conducted identification of the three individuals against official photo - ID documents,» the new OPCW report reads.

Not exact matches

Some argue using a permission blockchain would help as it would only allow a few people to fully access the records, but the possibility of having a government official (or just the regular public) know how an individual vote goes against the premise of free and fair elections.

A group of six individuals have filed a $ 40 million lawsuit against Ferguson, St. Louis County and several police officials for what they say was violations of their civil rights during the unrest that followed the shooting of unarmed teen Michael Brown.

A group of six individuals have filed a $ 40 million lawsuit against Ferguson, St. Louis County and several police officials for what they say was violations of their civil rights...

Official indifference to fathers» identity goes directly against the principle of families and individuals taking responsibility for their children and sharing this responsibility together.

The official indifference to the fathers identity goes directly against this government's agenda about families and individuals taking responsibility for their children and sharing this responsibility together.

Prime minister David Cameron said in a newspaper article published today the review would also look at increasing prosecutions against benefit fraudsters, incentivising individuals to inform officials about others» fraudulent benefit claims and sharpening penalties for fraudsters.

Currently, New York law blocks organizations or individuals from being able to sue banks for securities fraud, and only allows legal action against them to be taken by the State Attorney General's office, union officials said.

The deadline for pistol permit recertification in New York has passed, leaving possibly thousands of gun owners with permits that are no longer valid, though law enforcement officials have already said they won't be pursuing criminal charges against these individuals.

In each restatement of the charges, federal prosecutors have refined the wording of their complex and wide - ranging case against two former high - ranking state officials and six other individuals.

Lib Dem officials, determined to quell a nascent revolt against Clegg's leadership, had demanded that ICM, the polling company, reveal the identity of the anonymous individual who commissioned the poll, claiming this was required by polling company rules.

So if you ever want to see if we have a problem in policing related to race, pay related to gender or a problem with violence against transgender individuals, in all of those cases it becomes impossible to make a scientific argument — because if those categories are never recorded in official documents, you can never do the data collection to show what's true.

Official methods of estimating violent crime using this data cap the yearly number of violent crimes against any one individual at five, despite around 5 % of respondents reporting a greater number than this.

How the community, individual / police / military / government official / families / communities deal with sexual violence against women / girls or rape in the area

As concern over America's competitiveness abroad intensifies, education officials in the U.S. are beginning to consider using individual states and districts — not just the nation as a whole — as the units against which to measure their international peers.

(2) signed by an individual, or his parent, to the effect that he has been denied admission to or not permitted to continue in attendance at a public college by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin, and the Attorney General believes the complaint is meritorious and certifies that the signer or signers of such complaint are unable, in his judgment, to initiate and maintain appropriate legal proceedings for relief and that the institution of an action will materially further the orderly achievement of desegregation in public education, the Attorney General is authorized, after giving notice of such complaint to the appropriate school board or college authority and after certifying that he is satisfied that such board or authority has had a reasonable time to adjust the conditions alleged in such complaint, to institute for or in the name of the United States a civil action in any appropriate district court of the United States against such parties and for such relief as may be appropriate, and such court shall have and shall exercise jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this section, provided that nothing herein shall empower any official or court of the United States to issue any order seeking to achieve a racial balance in any school by requiring the transportation of pupils or students from one school to another or one school district to another in order to achieve such racial balance, or otherwise enlarge the existing power of the court to insure compliance with constitutional standards.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington released its report, Those Who Dared: 30 Officials Who Stood Up for Our Country, on July 16, «recognizing the brave individuals who have acted and spoken out against unethical and dishonorable conduct in... Continue reading →

Even if Maryland were a proper forum, there can not be a claim for equitable relief, as opposed to a claim for damages, against a government official in his individual capacity, the motion argues.

The Third Circuit in In re Bevill Bresler & Schulman Asset Management Corp., developed a five - part test (the Bevill test) to examine the merits of such an assertion by an individual employee against company counsel.50 Under this test, employees must show that (1) they approached corporate counsel for the purpose of seeking legal advice; (2) they made it clear that they were seeking advice in their individual capacity; (3) counsel sought to communicate with the employee in this individual capacity, mindful of the conflicts with its representation of the company; (4) the communications were confidential; and (5) the communications did not concern the employee's official duties or the general affairs of the company.51 The Bevill test has been recognised by other jurisdictions as a means of assessing whether a company employee may assert attorney — client privilege in an individual capacity arising out of communications with corporate counsel.52 (See also Chapter 13 on employee rights.)

penalizes the defendant for engaging in public participation «plaintiff» means a person who initiates or maintains a proceeding against a defendant; «proceeding» means any action, suit, matter, cause, counterclaim, appeal, or originating application that is brought in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, but does not include a prosecution for an offence or a crime; «public interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pagainst a defendant; «proceeding» means any action, suit, matter, cause, counterclaim, appeal, or originating application that is brought in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, but does not include a prosecution for an offence or a crime; «public interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pAgainst Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pagainst whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper purpose.

«The case does show that the government is taking action against individuals and a company's worst fears that their senior officials could go to jail over this kind of thing may come true,» says James Klotz, chairman of the anti-corruption and international governance group at Miller Thomson LLP and the past chairman and president of Transparency International Canada.

And the Roncarelli case [Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121] established that publicly elected officials can not arbitrarily invoke the law against individuals, as Mr. Duplessis had done.

The hardest cases for an employer to defend against are those in which the employer doesn't have official records that state the reasons the individual was fired.

When official complaints are brought against a licensed professional, the accused individual faces numerous challenges and complexities peculiar to the relevant disciplinary board.

We help employees hold their employers accountable for unjust and discriminatory treatment at work, and we protect individuals against abuse and misconduct by government officials.

Generally, when a public official or agency commits harm against an individual, that injured individual has to jump through significantly more hoops before they can bring that government official or agency into court compared to a normal individual.

The act allows civil suits to be filed in the US against individuals who commit torture or undertake extrajudicial killings while working in an official capacity for any foreign nation.

The rule waives the requirement for individual agreement if the victim is unable to agree due to incapacity or other emergency circumstance and: (1) The law enforcement official represents that the protected health information is needed to determine whether a violation of law by a person other than the victim has occurred and the information is not intended to be used against the victim; (2) the law enforcement official represents that immediate law enforcement activity that depends on such disclosure would be materially and adversely affected by waiting until the individual is able to agree to the disclosure; and (3) the covered entity, in the exercise of professional judgment, determines that the disclosure is in the individual's best interests.

The final rule waives the requirement for agreement if the covered entity is unable to obtain the individual's agreement due to incapacity or other emergency circumstance, and (1) the law enforcement official represents that the information is needed to determine whether a violation of law by a person other than the victim has occurred and the information is not intended to be used against the victim; (2) the law enforcement official represents that immediate law enforcement activity that depends on the disclosure would be materially and adversely affected by waiting until the individual is able to agree to the disclosure; and (3) the covered entity determines, in the exercise of professional judgment, that the disclosure is in the individual's best interests.

(B) If the individual is unable to agree because of incapacity, a law enforcement or other public official authorized to receive the report represents that the protected health information for which disclosure is sought is not intended to be used against the individual and that an immediate enforcement activity that depends upon the disclosure would be materially and adversely affected by waiting until the individual is able to agree to the disclosure.

The attorney doesn't need to wait for the results of an official investigation in most states in order to file a claim against an individual or even against the facility if there is enough evidence presented.

In such cases, when law enforcement officials are requesting protected health information because the individual is a suspect (and thus the information may be used against the individual), covered entities may disclose the protected health information pursuant to § 164.512 (f)(2) regarding suspects and not pursuant to § 164.512 (f)(3) regarding victims.

The covered entity must make the decision whether to disclose only in limited circumstances: when there is no mandatory reporting law; or when the victim is unable to provide agreement and the law enforcement official represents that: the protected health information is needed to determine whether a violation of law by a person other than the victim has occurred, that the information will not be used against the victim, and that immediate law enforcement activity that depends on such information would be materially and adversely affected by waiting until the individual is able to agree to the disclosure.

Third, this paragraph allows covered entities to disclose protected health information about an individual without the individual's agreement if the disclosure is expressly authorized by statute or regulation and either: (1) The covered entity, in the exercise of its professional judgment, believes that the disclosure is necessary to prevent serious harm to the individual or to other potential victims; or (2) if the individual is unable to agree due to incapacity, a law enforcement or other public official authorized to received the report represents that the protected health information for which disclosure is sought is not intended to be used against the individual, and that an immediate enforcement activity that depends on the disclosure would be materially and adversely affected by waiting until the individual is able to agree to the disclosure.

The practice's recent representations include: (i) CONMEBOL in connection with U.S. criminal investigations and prosecutions into allegations of bribery and corruption in the international soccer world; (ii) the Special Committee of Banco BTG Pactual S.A. («BTG Pactual») in an internal investigation of alleged corruption involving its former CEO and other bank executives, in which we found no basis to support the allegations against the Bank and its employees; (iii) two of the largest construction companies in Brazil in potential civil and criminal investigations and litigation involving the Petrobras bribery scandal (Lava Jato), the largest corruption scandal in Latin American history, involving allegations of over $ 2.5 billion in bribes and kickbacks; (iv) the Government of Brazil in a corruption matter involving former senior government officials and multiple jurisdictions; (v) the General Manager of one of the largest energy companies in Central America in connection with allegations of bribery in Guatemala; (vi) a Mexican high - ranking executive for Wal - Mart Stores, Inc. in connection with DOJ and SEC FCPA investigations against Wal - Mart; (vii) a large Argentinean oil company and its owner, one of Argentina's wealthiest individuals, in connection with high - profile DOJ and SEC investigations involving alleged FCPA violations to secure an extension of oil rights in an Argentinean oilfield; (viii) the United State's largest chemical and industrial products companies in an internal investigation of alleged corruption involving its Mexican subsidiary; (ix) the Rosenthal family, one of the most prominent families in Central America, in a number of related criminal matters; and (x) a senior executive of one of Venezuela's largest engineering companies in DOJ investigations into corruption and money laundering involving PdVSA.

(b) The right to security of person and protection by the State against violence or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual group or institution

The third is a $ 750 million lawsuit Dale served in April 2010 against TREB officials and members, as well as a number of other individuals, including senior executives from Royal LePage and Re / Max Ontario - Atlantic Canada.