Sentences with phrase «not accusing individual»

Please also understand that I am not accusing individual people of using these methods.

Not exact matches

They invested their retirement money with Siskey, but the Kansas company — which hasn't been accused of wrongdoing — served as the custodian of their individual retirement accounts, handling statements and paperwork for the IRS.

@Hawaii I made an observation in the blandest possible way, accusing no individual, and not calling names.

Evicting from public housing not only individuals accused (not convicted) of drug - dealing and use but also families is becoming accepted policy.

The labels on that box read: «Handle with care or be accused of racism,» or «Do not presume the individual inside is qualified for his academic position,» or possibly «Caution: black neoconservative, probably a nut case.»

A bad penalty call is still a penalty and the points are not redone, a falsely accused individual can get their life back and seek reimbursement of losses, football teams can not.

As a body, I don't think it has any impact, because you're only talking about a few individuals, hopefully... versus dealing with something that the whole Legislature is being accused of.»

And please, let us do proper investigation so that when we take a case to court, we would have successfully prosecuted the individual and not all the needless energy on bail and media trial because if the case is not strong and the accused is set free, people will turn round to blame judges for corruption.

New York City has proudly claimed the label for itself, largely because it has removed Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials from Rikers Island, and refuses to comply with requests it detain individuals not accused of violent crime.

Dr Sakara, in his resignation letter, accused the leaders of the CPP of building a personality cult around one individual (Samia, although he wouldn't mention her name), with the sole purpose of beginning a process of leadership by «dynastic succession».

«I don't think that an institution where the individuals in the institution accused of certain untoward actions should have that very institution investigating itself.

Both individuals need to be open and not attempt to accuse the other or be in the defending mode as soon as your mistakes are pointed out.

Civil libertarians like Robert Shibley of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education argue that these «systemic» investigations improperly required colleges to revisit other complaints resolved long ago, potentially leading to colleges overturning not guilty verdicts against students accused of harassment or assault.

Instead, he or she generally evaluates the hypothesis of common source (whether or not the biological sample from the crime scene came from the same individual (usually the accused) who supplied an authentic reference sample).

McIntyre responded to Briffa in a ClimateAudit post, and while he claims that he did not «say or imply that Briffa had «purposely selected» individual cores into the chronology,» he continues to accuse Briffa of withholding data, and describes how «some people (not myself) have interpreted this as evidence of malfeasance.»

Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public inAccused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public inAccused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public inaccused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public inaccused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public inAccused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public inaccused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public inAccused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public inaccused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public inaccused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public inAccused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public interest.

36 The result has been that the courts have pronounced on a wide range of value - laden subjects historically reserved for the people's elected representatives, including but certainly not limited to abortion, private health care, the death penalty, assisted suicide and prostitution — and all through a provision of the Charter whose accepted original meaning was simply that accused individuals be entitled to a fair trial.

And note, individuals in our society incur those costs not to protect the rights of the accused, but to protect their own rights, since the two are one and the same — today's victim might be tomorrow's accused.

it does not accuse Mr. Iannicelli even of targeting individuals for sharing information with them based on whether or not they were a juror or were there for jury duty, and 3.

Fort Lauderdale criminal defense attorney, Michael Dye, has successfully represented individuals accused of criminal offenses including, but not limited to:

To be successful such a claim should be supported by evidence indicating the accused was not the initial aggressor, that it was reasonable for that individual to perceive there was an imminent threat and that his or her response was proportional considering the threat.

Section 34 (2) of the Criminal Code states that when the court is determining whether or not an act constituted self - defence they should consider the characteristics of the accused, the other individual in the scenario and the circumstances surrounding the interaction.

With an «arrest first, ask questions later» policy, it is not uncommon for individuals to be unfairly accused, have restraining orders placed against them or face charges that don't match the circumstances.

Represented an individual defendant in case where he was accused of violating his covenant not to compete.

Because the burden remains on the Crown to establish identity, and the trial judge found the photographs were probative in showing that the accused fit within the class of individuals described by the eyewitnesses, the trial judge's decision on admissibility should not be disturbed.

In July 2007, a B.C. Supreme Court judge accused Palkowski of orchestrating a «sham» bail scheme for Gilliland, when a friend Thomas Ryan agreed to put up the money and it was split among three individuals who did not know Gilliland or Ryan.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in an issue of first impression that a family who accused the Town and more than two - dozen police officers can not recover for negligent supervision absent a finding of liability against any individual employee.

Due to the interest and legal obligation of a regulated individual or entity to cooperate with its supervisor, administrative proceedings are usually less time consuming than criminal investigations, where the accused party is not under any obligation to cooperate (nemo tenetur).

Unfortunately, in some cases for action is required by an accused individual to ensure their record remains clear of offences they have not been convicted of or have received a discharge or pardon for.

The accused's conduct is to be considered on an objective standard and so the individual characteristics and experiences of the accused are not relevant.

On the criminal side, the undertaking is to defend suspected or accused individuals who can not afford paid counsel.

Bitcoin diamond has also had its fair share of controversy, with many accusing the largely anonymous individuals from China as simply creating an artificial cash grab and not really generating a new currency that offers real features or support.

The opposite of conviction, an acquittal is a verdict that finds an individual not guilty of the crime for which the person has been accused.