Sentences with phrase «kinds of law do»

Your questions do not have to be mind - bogglers, but do not ask «what kinds of law do you practice?»

«Tell me about your employer» or «what kind of law does your firm practice?»

Not exact matches

When I told this story to Alan Tecktiel, Global HR Director at the law firm Baker & McKenzie, he noted that Jill was able to go to the lengths she did because companies like FedEx (FDX) their employees to do these kinds of things.

It's a small - scale example of the kind of entrepreneurial derring - do that looks beyond the laws as they are and seeks out opportunity in the laws as they may be — a notion that has perhaps never been so celebrated as it is today.

«Though the vast majority of Americans think it is wrong and should be against the law, [most state] laws do not protect the LGBT workforce from this kind of discrimination,» Peter Romer - Friedman, an attorney with Cohen Milstein, a law - firm in Washington, D.C., says.

«Every other country in the world has some kind of securities law,» Santori said, «so just because you're trying to avoid the U.S. securities law it doesn't mean you [avoid] the rest of the world's securities law.»

I had been competitively tracked from middle school to high school to college, and by going straight to law school I knew I would be competing at the same kinds of tests I'd been taking ever since I was a kid, but I could tell everyone that I was now doing it for the sake of becoming a professional adult.

Currently, the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act - the strongest law of its kind on the books - does not bar companies from sharing students» data, as long as the user consents.

«If you anticipate the kind of huge appreciation in your personal wealth that could come from an IPO or a company sale, the best thing you can do is transfer stock to your heirs before the sale, because it will be worth much less then, and that minimizes the tax liability,» explains Allan Landau, a partner with Boston law firm Sherburne, Powers & Needham.

«I hear all kinds of excuses from business owners who don't want to get involved in estate planning,» confides Joshua Rubenstein, a partner in the estate and trust department of New York City law firm Rosenman & Colin.

OFFSHORE COMPANIES (INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS COMPANIES) is a company which does not carry out any substantial business activities in its country of formation and is framed in a law of no tax jurisdiction for the purposes of legally reducing any kind of tax payment and enhancing one's wealth management.

«The Department of Justice is not going to be extorted... «we're going to do what is required by the rule of law and any kind of threats that anybody makes are not going to affect the way we do our job.»

«We're going to do what's required by the rule of law, and any kind of threats that anybody makes are not going to affect the way we do our job.»

NOW Under current law, you can perform a kind of do - over if you've recently converted an individual retirement account into a Roth I.R.A..

«We're going to do what's required by the rule of law, and any kind of threats that anybody makes are not going to affect the way we do our job,» Rosenstein said.

«Each period, whether a day, a month, a year or longer, represents an infinite number of possible learning opportunities, revealing more and more about correlations, hedging, law, regulation, culture, sizing positions, trading versus holding, activism, bankruptcy law and practice, government action and political impacts on investing, organizational realities and growth, as well as the kind of personal characteristics that are required to do this job well.»

Most of what a Federal Reserve Board member does is dealing with microeconomic issues having to do with bank regulation, bank mergers, bank supervision, consumer protection laws, CRA [Community Reinvestment Act], fair lending statutes — all kinds of things that have nothing to do with monetary policy.

But don't you dare go making sweeping generalizations of secular people who are kind, peace loving and law abiding... unlike some people of faith who harbor child abusers within their own confines.

The Pharisees were the group who taught that the letter of the law kills, and thus were seen as merciful and kind (Josephus), versus the Sadducees who didn't believe in the «oral teachings» and thus read the Tanach very literally and applied it literally.

Its a sad day when our young black men do nt have the freedom to walk through certain neighborhoods without being harrased are mudered, no one has the right to just take a life just because of the color of your skin we as a people has to stand up to injustices such as this no one wants to hear the truth there is still a racial devide in America and our justice system create laws so that this kind of injustice can continue to happen rather u want to admit it are not our young black men are the prey.

Kevin your right personal beliefs and or religion does not belong in law, and I am not saying that what this atheist organization is doing is wrong or anything, I think what there doing is a good thing, I just think this particular message could have been done from a different perspective, this message makes them appear like the self righteous ones, and it might give out the wrong kind of message, instead it should have said something like you believe in god fine, but don't put it in our laws.

show kindness to one another this is the greatest Law of all even if you don't believe just be kind to people, if your unable to do it then you know why you do not believe in God and if you can not show kindness then you will not receive it either.

What would you do under that kind of rule of law but escape to a place where you will be left alone?

Nor do Christians understand Jesus Christ as some kind of Ayatollah, communicating a blueprint of an ideal society and calling upon his believers to make laws, pronounce judgment, and execute his will in the political, economic, and social spheres.

We acknowledged that many people have recognized that these two texts pretty clearly do prohibit at least some kinds of male - male sex... The law really means what pretty much everyone has taken it to mean for centuries.

If the Church alters laws of that kind and to that extent itself changes, it does so only within the immutability of a fundamental principle, namely, that the Church has the right and duty to make changeable regulations for the spiritual good of its members.

In short, anyone who appreciates the rapid change in historical circumstances and does not flee from this into a ghetto; anyone who knows that there is and always has been a mutable, human law of the Church, and that this kind of change has always been practised; anyone, moreover, who reflects that the Church not only has the right but the duty of shaping its canon law in accordance with changes in the times, will not be surprised at the change in many legal regulations which he is living through at the present time, but will recognize and accept this as a sign of the vitality of the Church and its pastoral care.

When the law was passed last week, Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jack Seiler issued a strong warning to any deviants who would think to continue to be kind and decent to their fellow man, telling reporters that «Just because of media attention we don't stop enforcing the law... We enforce the laws here in Fort Lauderdale.»

Trading legalism for pietism is really no improvement, we are no longer under the power of the law, and no longer slaves to sin, we still can and do fall short of perfection, in fact, Romans 7 gives us a pretty clear picture of the kind of abject failure that results from trying to live a pious life under our own power.

People refusing medical treatment because they think they can pray disease away, The demoralizing way religion makes you feel about yourself (I am a wretch, a sinner, a bad person by nature), the religious wars that have been fought for millenia, the self righteous passing laws based on THEIR beliefs (change to the pledge of allegience which now excludes anyone who does not believe in a fairy godfather, the change to the national motto that turned it into the lie «in god we trust», the bigotry that «my religion is the right one and you are wrong so I'll pray for you» kind of crap... don't you realize that it is insulting to me when someone says they will pray for me... its the same as saying I'm going to do something for you but there won't be any effect, so it is just a waste of time.

It does mean, however, that in Jesus Christ we see not a new set of laws but a new kind of divine love.

i am sorry J.W but i don't believe there is a god of any kind... if there was a god, why would such a so called all powerful being allow for the treatment of its creation by its creation... the argument of free will is an old and tired one... if the existence was true and the laws put in place to honor such a creature were equally upheld by god then i would have been punished a long long time ago and so would have the majority of people... believer or not!

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.

When religious people stop attempting to codify their religious beliefs into our laws just because they are the majority and think they have some kind of divine right to do so, then they wouldn't need to be bad mouthed.

Their entitlement is biblical: religious laws regulated the kind and amount of work animals could be expected to do and mandated how and when they were to be fed and cared for; they legislated the rights of animals.

This means that humanists should incorporate all kinds of species into their «moral sphere», says Law, and in fact most humanists are more than prepared to do that.

They often include provisions about religious practices for the couple and for any children who may arrive; whether or not they plan to have children; what they will do in the case of a pregnancy not wanted by one or the other; what will happen if the couple decides to separate; what the financial arrangements will be in such a case; what provision will be made for the children; how in - laws, relatives, and friends will be included in the relationship; what sexual practices will be followed; under what circumstances the couple will move from one home to another; whose job will take precedence; and what kinds of freedom each partner is to have.

You see answered prayer and I see the combination of the law of averages (some things asked for will eventually come true simply because they were likely to, like getting another job, or finding love) and getting results that are above average (where most people may not survive a particular kind of accident, some do.

This means that when he tried to understand what he saw, and give some kind of explanation for the life and movement he witnessed, it did not occur to him to look for an abstract principle or a natural law.

I do not think it matters at all because these new kinds of anti American / Christian / White laws.

It rather represents the rule of the law over the human being as long as he or she doesn't believe in the Redeemer Jesus, the kind bridegroom, who kills the bridegroom «law».

Does it not suggest that this is a general law of life; that the living creature, compelled for its own survival to attach itself materially and spiritually to others of its kind, and to an increasing extent as it progresses autonomously and in individual freedom, is automatically prevented by Nature from rising above a given level of emancipation and consciousness?

So according to him, Sakhkhara does not mean the conquest or exploitation of nature rather it should be a kind of relationship in accordance with God's laws and responsibility of the human beings as vicegerents of God.

But the government can and will make some laws concerning who you can employ, what you can require them to do, and what kind of benefits you can legally offer them.

Nature does establish limits which can not be transgressed: «the laws of Gaia, which regulate what kinds of changes in «nature» are sustainable in the life system of which we are an inextricable part.»

Contrast this with the genuine church teaching of Pius XII: «This anti-Christian hedonism... promotes the desire to render always more intense thepleasure in the preparation and actualisation of the conjugal union, as if in matrimonial relations the whole moral law could be reduced to the regular accomplishment of the act itself, and as if all the rest, in whatever manner done, remains justified by the effusion of mutual affection, sanctified by the sacrament of marriage...» [11] In fact, it would be hard to distinguish Popcak's «One Rule for Infallible Lovers» from the kind of reduction described by the Pope.

I was lucky enough to have two kinds of garlic - I don't really know the differences, but one was from my father - in - law's garden and had a purple / pink colored skin while the other was the regular white garlic.

My Sister in law did it and the pot kind of exploded and the enamel chipped off.

I just shared it again because I updated the photos, which is kind of funny because I just looked at the post and realized it included an announcement that I was going to start doing that!I actually ended up starting my own law practice, so I've been doing that and slowly devoting more and more time to the blog.

I like Chris Kresser's approach to paleo; there doesn't have to be any kind of paleo law that dictates whether a person is really paleo or not.