To secure a benefit or avoid a loss in this world, we often find that we must
somehow use the law.
Not exact matches
I had a feeling that anything I would say would
somehow be
used against me, not in a court of
law, but at some family gathering in the future.
Using such old codes as basis for current
laws is
somehow counter-intuitive, especially for people within IT industry (modern means better).
First, there will be the great repeal bill, one of the largest and most dangerous pieces of legislation a British government has ever introduced, copying - and - pasting all of EU
law onto the British statute book and then
using a dazzling array of ministerial powers to
somehow try and fix it so it it makes sense.
There was talk that Raffa was an arsonist and his beating a mob hit; that five gallons of kerosene had been found in his car and had
somehow disappeared from the station house; that «every cop in Brooklyn» knows the name of Raffa's assailant but higher - ups refuse to arrest him; that the car containing the combustible evidence was driven away from the scene by Cuomo's detective - bodyguard, who's a relative of the Cuomo family; that the police reports (DD5s) on the case were missing from headquarters; and that the governor was at the scene shortly after the incident and had
used state troopers to erase any evidence of his father - in -
law's possible criminality.
In British
law, is there
somehow a possibility that that conversation can be
used to defend us?
Everybody here over 45, with an OHLS LLB, or who has been out more that 10 years, or has a settled position doing something acceptably remunerative, regardless of how long it's been since you stopped regurgitating (sorry, graduated), put up your right hand if you can think of one valid reason to bother paying OHLS anything to issue you a piece of paper that has York U on it in bigger letters — oops, sorry, that says you can call yourself a Junior Dick (head)-- other than it's
somehow more prestigious because it
uses the same questionable Latin that would appear on what one gets from the School of
Law and Bowling Alley Management in Effigy, S.D.
In the afternoon plenary, delegates were treated to an informative and (
somehow) amusing round - up of what lawyers can still do for clients
using legal aid in family
law, asylum and immigration, public
law and social welfare.
By showing the publicly accessible TVO video in class, she was accused of creating an unsafe and toxic learning environment, the crime of transphobia, violating Laurier's gender violence policy and
somehow breaching both the Charter of Rights (which actually protects free speech) and the Canadian Human Rights Act (which didn't apply to Laurier), proving that when non-lawyers in positions of power think they know the
law, they always get it wrong when they
use it to bully and harass their subordinates.