Sentences with phrase «true court of law»

While the rules of evidence and procedure are not the same as they are in a true Court of Law tribunals can not decide cases without adherence to these basic rules.

Not exact matches

This may come as a shock to you — BUT - evolution could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court — if it is a «Law» of science and not a theory explain to me why Scientist in the same field have differing opinions theory has undergone massive changes since the 1850's when Darwin first came up with the THEORY — there are a lot of interesting similarities to true science which makes it sound so plausible, but it should sound good — After all the top scientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all pretty smart

Yes, there are, sad to say, some cases of priestly sex abuse that have been proved to be true in a court of law or have been admitted by perpetrators.

The successful experience of the State of New York with such a law in which hundreds of cases have been adjusted satisfactorily even without recourse to the courts encourages us to believe that the difficulties are not nearly so great as some feared or wanted us to believe.42 It is true that one can easily put too much faith in sheer legislation which may be rendered futile if it is not supported in the community consciousness.

The good news that God sent his Son to live a perfect life, die the death we deserved to die, and rise again to glory is of first importance and is true regardless of courts, laws, or culture.

You speak on what is «True Doctrine», could we also point to something such as the Consti; tution and the daily court room arguments of lawyers and clerks who feel that they alone know and understand the true meaning of the what the framers when they wrote the laws of this lTrue Doctrine», could we also point to something such as the Consti; tution and the daily court room arguments of lawyers and clerks who feel that they alone know and understand the true meaning of the what the framers when they wrote the laws of this ltrue meaning of the what the framers when they wrote the laws of this land?

Culture has many complicated meanings, but I use it here simply to describe a system of beliefs (about God or reality or ultimate meaning), of values (about what is true, good and beautiful), of customs (about how to behave and relate to others), and of the institutions which express the culture (government, church, law courts, family, school and so on)-- all of which bind the society together and give it meaning.

It's true that a few people have said things along the lines of «That would never hold up in a court of law.»

But Mr. Kotey, who was quoted by The Enquirer newspaper, told this paper that, the publications in the media, accusing Madam Valerie of pushing Lawyer Nii Armah Ashietey and Nii John Coleman, to use the law courts to oust Zanetor from the NDC ticket, could not be true.

The aforementioned suit over a candidate's use of LLC money was settled out of court, so there hasn't yet been a clear test of what might be called the Sugarman Doctrine, which assumes underutilized power in the sections of election law prohibiting attempts to circumvent contribution limits and obfuscate the true source of campaign money.

The court found that the Department of Education failed to reveal the true impact of closing the schools, as required by a 2009 state law about mayoral control of schools.

«It's been mischaracterized as an expansion of abortion rights which is not true,» said Hochul, who says the aim of the bill is to make sure New York's 1970 abortion laws are updated and are consistent with the current federal protections, in case the U.S. Supreme Court ever reverses Roe v. Wade.

Loving is the true story of Richard and Mildred Loving, whose landmark 1967 Supreme Court case abolished laws that prohibited interracial marriage.

That's certainly true of the undeniable love between Richard and Mildred Loving, a real - life interracial couple who took their battle for civil rights to the Supreme Court, leading to a landmark ruling that invalidated any law prohibiting their marriage.

The true - life story of Richard and Mildred Loving, who were the center of the landmark Supreme Court case that struck down laws again interracial marriage.

Against The Law (US Exclusive Premiere) A powerful drama based on the true story of Peter Wildeblood, a thoughtful and private gay journalist whose lover, under pressure from the authorities, turned Queen's evidence against him in one of the most explosive court cases of the 1950s — the infamous Montagu Trial.

In this episode, award - winning writer / director Jeff Nichols talks about bringing a highly charged true story to the screen and finding the personal connection to Richard and Mildred Loving — apolitical people at the center of the landmark 1967 civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Based on the true story that led to the Supreme Court's historic 1967 decision overturning laws prohibiting interracial marriage, this beautiful drama helmed by Jeff Nichols (Take Shelter, Midnight Special) follows Richard and Mildred Loving as they endure the legal battle of a lifetime to protect their love.

On the basis of this case study if judicial review is not available, either in law; or because F does not have the knowledge or resources to fund an application; or if there can be no challenge to the Commission figure at the liability order stage, then F will be fixed with a sealed court document which, on the above facts, represents an unchallengeable misrepresentation of the true facts.

According to a New Jersey Law Journal article on lawsuits against L'Oreal over the marketing of its anti-wrinkle creams — now consolidated in federal court in Newark, N.J. — the plaintiffs» claims include allegations «that Lancome ads use airbrushed or «Photoshopped» images of celebrities and models, which do not reflect the true effectiveness of its products,» and the complaint includes a comparison of a Lancome ad featuring actress Kate Winslet and a photo of Winslet from People magazine.

In considering a defendant's motion to dismiss, the court must assume that allegations in the complaint are true, so that any challenge at this stage is made strictly as a «matter of law» — what the law of your state says about a specific situation.

It is true that, in the Court's pragmatic and functional case law, statutory rights of appeal were not dispositive (see Pezim and Southam on this point), and Dunsmuir largely confirmed that idea.

It's true for a pretty clear reason: appellate courts are courts of law.

It is true that the case - law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) clearly states that Article 7 ECHR can not be interpreted as prohibiting an extension of limitation periods where the relevant offences have never become subject to limitation (see ECtHR, Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos.

Furthermore, although it is true that the procedure laid down in Article 267 TFEU is an instrument for cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts, by means of which the former provides the latter with the points of interpretation of EU law necessary in order for them to decide the disputes before them, the fact remains that when there is no judicial remedy under national law against the decision of a court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal is, in principle, obliged to bring the matter before the Court of Justice under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU where a question relating to the interpretation of EU law is raised before Court of Justice and the national courts, by means of which the former provides the latter with the points of interpretation of EU law necessary in order for them to decide the disputes before them, the fact remains that when there is no judicial remedy under national law against the decision of a court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal is, in principle, obliged to bring the matter before the Court of Justice under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU where a question relating to the interpretation of EU law is raised before court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal is, in principle, obliged to bring the matter before the Court of Justice under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU where a question relating to the interpretation of EU law is raised before court or tribunal is, in principle, obliged to bring the matter before the Court of Justice under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU where a question relating to the interpretation of EU law is raised before Court of Justice under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU where a question relating to the interpretation of EU law is raised before it...

This is true of both court ordered payments and out - of - court settlement agreements, which occur when both sides of a law suit agree on an amount to end a case before the courts are forced to decide the outcome.

This is true, but ALRI prefers the more direct approach of simply statutorily removing appeals by leave of the court on a question of law.

This decision provides a thorough overview of defamation law related to media publications in Canada, and represents the most current application of the defence of Responsible Communication on Matters of Public Interest established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Grant v. Torstar Corp.The Findings The Court analyzed defences which included Qualified Privilege (where there is a duty or pressing need to disclose information), Justification (where the defendant establishes that the statements were substantially true), and Responsible Communication on Matters of Public Interest.

And those two things — asking people to believe something they can see isn't true, and stretching the law beyond what it can reasonably incorporate to justify an end the Court wants to achieve — are troubling precedents for the functioning of the law and our legal system.

If the law passes, however, the true test will be whether Quebec's courts and human rights tribunals can apply it consistently, without unfairly singling out people of particular cultures, ethnicities or genders.

This would generally be true in most U.S. jurisdictions usually as part of unauthorized practice of law rules promulgated by a state supreme court.

But it is also true that they are both parts in delivering a unified message: that of the common law courts» endorsement, sometimes ringing and sometimes more muted, of the value of access by the citizens to the adjudication of rights claims.

And this is what I understand to be the meaning of our lawyers, when they say that these civil corporations are liable to no visitation; that is, that the law having by immemorial usage appointed them to be visited and inspected by the king their founder, in his majesty's court of king's bench, according to the rules of the common law, they ought not to be visited elsewhere, or by any other authority.53 And this is so strictly true, that though the king by his letters patent had subjected the college of physicians to the visitation of four very respectable persons, the lord chancellor, the two chief justices, and the chief baron; though the college had accepted this carter with all possible marks of acquiescence, and had acted under it for near a century; yet, in 1753, the authority of this provision coming in dispute, on an appeal preferred to these supposed visitors, they directed the legality of their own appointment to be argued: and, as this college was a mere civil, and not an eleemosynary foundation, they at length determined, upon several days solemn debate, that they had no jurisdiction as visitors; and remitted the appellant (if aggrieved) to his regular remedy in his majesty's court of king's bench.

It was accepted that the orders had implemented the first defendant lord chancellor's prior policy decision (the decision) that the principle of «full cost recovery» in setting court fees (the principle) should be applied to public law family proceedings; that the rationale for the decision had been a wish to fix fees at a level which reflected the true cost to the courts services and to replace the then extant model which involved heavy subsidisation; and that s 92 of the Courts Act 2003 (CA 2003) was relevant insofar as it empowered the lord chancellor to prescribe court fees by order, and that it set out obligations to «consult» specified judicial persons, the Civil Justice Council in civil proceedings, and «persons likely to have to pay [fees]», prior to the making of any ocourts services and to replace the then extant model which involved heavy subsidisation; and that s 92 of the Courts Act 2003 (CA 2003) was relevant insofar as it empowered the lord chancellor to prescribe court fees by order, and that it set out obligations to «consult» specified judicial persons, the Civil Justice Council in civil proceedings, and «persons likely to have to pay [fees]», prior to the making of any oCourts Act 2003 (CA 2003) was relevant insofar as it empowered the lord chancellor to prescribe court fees by order, and that it set out obligations to «consult» specified judicial persons, the Civil Justice Council in civil proceedings, and «persons likely to have to pay [fees]», prior to the making of any orders.

The New York Medical Malpractice Law Blog: «The true impact of this case is, of course, that similarly situated victims of inadequate drug warnings will now be able to initiate actions against the drug maker in state court.

It is true that immediately thereafter the ECJ makes reference to Melloni, by clarifying that «in that respect, the national authorities and courts remain free to apply national standards of protection of fundamental rights, provided that the level of protection provided for by the Charter, as interpreted by the Court, and the primacy, unity and effectiveness of EU law are not thereby compromised».

And while it is true most of my students are not likely to practice in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, I have no doubt they will be doing this work in front of various state supreme courts, probably on this very law.

Regarding the second issue pertaining to the significance of the misrepresentation, the court ruled that the actions of the insured woman fulfilled the definition of «misrepresentation in insurance contracts» under state law in that «the insurer in good faith would not have issued the policy... if the true facts had been known to the insurer as required by either the application for the policy... or otherwise.»

The official blog of the Massachusetts Trial Court Law Libraries admits that this isn't true, but it might have stemmed from a real - life law about the general transport of animaLaw Libraries admits that this isn't true, but it might have stemmed from a real - life law about the general transport of animalaw about the general transport of animals.

Since we do not provide opinions about your answers on the online questionnaire or apply the law to the facts of your situation, it is your responsibility to ensure any documentation you submit to court is true, correct, and accurate.

It's true, many insurance companies offer a great discount for drivers who can prove that they attended a driving class without being forced by a court of law.

Collaborative Law is worth considering if some or all of the following are true for you: (a) you want a civilized, rational resolution of the issues, (b) you would like to keep open the possibility of a viable working relationship with your partner down the road, (c) you and your partner will be raising children together and you want the best working relationship possible, (d) you want to protect your children from the harm associated with litigation between parents, (e) you have ethical or spiritual beliefs that place high value on taking personal responsibility for handling conflicts with integrity, (f) you value control and autonomous decision making and do not want to hand over decisions about restructuring your financial and parenting arrangements to a stranger (a judge), (g) you recognize the restricted and often unpredictable range of outcomes and «rough justice» generally available in the public court system and want a more creative and individualized range of choices available to you and your spouse or partner for resolving the issues.

«I,, do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law and that I will well and truly serve Her in the office of Judicial Registrar of the Family Court of Australia.»

«I,, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law and that I will well and truly serve Her in the office of Judicial Registrar of the Family Court of Australia, So help me God.»

True, some courts have barred PAS, which is not surprising for a newly - described disorder being adjudicated in a court of law.

If you could get in heaven because of your good deeds, why would JESUS had to have gone to the cross, you will not go to hell because you sinned, the bible says we all have sinned, you will go for rejecting GODS free gift, his son, JESUS, SEE, HE TOOK YOUR PLACE IF YOU EXCEPT HIS OFFER BUT IF NOT YOU PAY FOR ALL YOUR SINS, KIND OF LIKE COURT, BETTER TO TAKE AN ATTORNEY THAN REPRESENT YOURSELF, sorry for caps, GOD loved you so much he sent his son to die for you as payment for sin, you will answer to GOD for everything you do, JESUS lived a perfect life which was accepted by GOD for payment of sins, thats up to you if you except it, is bible vs man made religions, thats alot of commeon since, there are man made laws you go by or suffer for, plus, there are so many religions you can make one up to best suit you, it do nt work that way, plus, excepting JESUS is the best way to heaven, why would you think you caould live perfect your whole life, you cant, the devil will use religion to lead as many people away from CHRIST as he can, even in the garden, eve was decieved.if the bible is not true than no man has anyright to even say whats right or wrong, things some people do they think is fine and so on, is stealing your car wrong, why, who said, and why are they right, think about it, salvation is simple, man makes it hard, other religions say you have to earn it, fine, if they live that good, they should except JESUS, why not except him, my way is through JESUS, if thats wrong, what have i lost, other ways are thru something or anything else, what if they are wrong, high price to pay for opinion, what if your son took someoneles punishment, and it cost him his life, how would you feel, think about GODS feelings, you cant take a few verses from man religion and get anywhere, read the bible, if you believe theres a GOD in heaven, please do nt reject his son, all very good questions, thanks, i do nt want to be a problem, i just want you to be in heaven someday, i cant be good enough to there there on my own, so i looked to the perfect one, JESUS, you do nt worked to get saved, you work because you are savd.you get get back out in sin and backslide, but, if your really saved, the LORD lives inside you, it will bother you to do certain things, but you can get numb to it, plus, the bible says, you are not your own, you were bought with a price, JESUS BLOOD, free to you but cost him his life, GOD will chastise for repeated sin, you are his child, just like with your children, spend some time alone with GOD, ask him to show you, would love to talk to you guys over phone, i cant type, you can tell, theres so much more i can say please call me [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED] or email is [EMAILREMOVEof your good deeds, why would JESUS had to have gone to the cross, you will not go to hell because you sinned, the bible says we all have sinned, you will go for rejecting GODS free gift, his son, JESUS, SEE, HE TOOK YOUR PLACE IF YOU EXCEPT HIS OFFER BUT IF NOT YOU PAY FOR ALL YOUR SINS, KIND OF LIKE COURT, BETTER TO TAKE AN ATTORNEY THAN REPRESENT YOURSELF, sorry for caps, GOD loved you so much he sent his son to die for you as payment for sin, you will answer to GOD for everything you do, JESUS lived a perfect life which was accepted by GOD for payment of sins, thats up to you if you except it, is bible vs man made religions, thats alot of commeon since, there are man made laws you go by or suffer for, plus, there are so many religions you can make one up to best suit you, it do nt work that way, plus, excepting JESUS is the best way to heaven, why would you think you caould live perfect your whole life, you cant, the devil will use religion to lead as many people away from CHRIST as he can, even in the garden, eve was decieved.if the bible is not true than no man has anyright to even say whats right or wrong, things some people do they think is fine and so on, is stealing your car wrong, why, who said, and why are they right, think about it, salvation is simple, man makes it hard, other religions say you have to earn it, fine, if they live that good, they should except JESUS, why not except him, my way is through JESUS, if thats wrong, what have i lost, other ways are thru something or anything else, what if they are wrong, high price to pay for opinion, what if your son took someoneles punishment, and it cost him his life, how would you feel, think about GODS feelings, you cant take a few verses from man religion and get anywhere, read the bible, if you believe theres a GOD in heaven, please do nt reject his son, all very good questions, thanks, i do nt want to be a problem, i just want you to be in heaven someday, i cant be good enough to there there on my own, so i looked to the perfect one, JESUS, you do nt worked to get saved, you work because you are savd.you get get back out in sin and backslide, but, if your really saved, the LORD lives inside you, it will bother you to do certain things, but you can get numb to it, plus, the bible says, you are not your own, you were bought with a price, JESUS BLOOD, free to you but cost him his life, GOD will chastise for repeated sin, you are his child, just like with your children, spend some time alone with GOD, ask him to show you, would love to talk to you guys over phone, i cant type, you can tell, theres so much more i can say please call me [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED] or email is [EMAILREMOVEOF LIKE COURT, BETTER TO TAKE AN ATTORNEY THAN REPRESENT YOURSELF, sorry for caps, GOD loved you so much he sent his son to die for you as payment for sin, you will answer to GOD for everything you do, JESUS lived a perfect life which was accepted by GOD for payment of sins, thats up to you if you except it, is bible vs man made religions, thats alot of commeon since, there are man made laws you go by or suffer for, plus, there are so many religions you can make one up to best suit you, it do nt work that way, plus, excepting JESUS is the best way to heaven, why would you think you caould live perfect your whole life, you cant, the devil will use religion to lead as many people away from CHRIST as he can, even in the garden, eve was decieved.if the bible is not true than no man has anyright to even say whats right or wrong, things some people do they think is fine and so on, is stealing your car wrong, why, who said, and why are they right, think about it, salvation is simple, man makes it hard, other religions say you have to earn it, fine, if they live that good, they should except JESUS, why not except him, my way is through JESUS, if thats wrong, what have i lost, other ways are thru something or anything else, what if they are wrong, high price to pay for opinion, what if your son took someoneles punishment, and it cost him his life, how would you feel, think about GODS feelings, you cant take a few verses from man religion and get anywhere, read the bible, if you believe theres a GOD in heaven, please do nt reject his son, all very good questions, thanks, i do nt want to be a problem, i just want you to be in heaven someday, i cant be good enough to there there on my own, so i looked to the perfect one, JESUS, you do nt worked to get saved, you work because you are savd.you get get back out in sin and backslide, but, if your really saved, the LORD lives inside you, it will bother you to do certain things, but you can get numb to it, plus, the bible says, you are not your own, you were bought with a price, JESUS BLOOD, free to you but cost him his life, GOD will chastise for repeated sin, you are his child, just like with your children, spend some time alone with GOD, ask him to show you, would love to talk to you guys over phone, i cant type, you can tell, theres so much more i can say please call me [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED] or email is [EMAILREMOVEof sins, thats up to you if you except it, is bible vs man made religions, thats alot of commeon since, there are man made laws you go by or suffer for, plus, there are so many religions you can make one up to best suit you, it do nt work that way, plus, excepting JESUS is the best way to heaven, why would you think you caould live perfect your whole life, you cant, the devil will use religion to lead as many people away from CHRIST as he can, even in the garden, eve was decieved.if the bible is not true than no man has anyright to even say whats right or wrong, things some people do they think is fine and so on, is stealing your car wrong, why, who said, and why are they right, think about it, salvation is simple, man makes it hard, other religions say you have to earn it, fine, if they live that good, they should except JESUS, why not except him, my way is through JESUS, if thats wrong, what have i lost, other ways are thru something or anything else, what if they are wrong, high price to pay for opinion, what if your son took someoneles punishment, and it cost him his life, how would you feel, think about GODS feelings, you cant take a few verses from man religion and get anywhere, read the bible, if you believe theres a GOD in heaven, please do nt reject his son, all very good questions, thanks, i do nt want to be a problem, i just want you to be in heaven someday, i cant be good enough to there there on my own, so i looked to the perfect one, JESUS, you do nt worked to get saved, you work because you are savd.you get get back out in sin and backslide, but, if your really saved, the LORD lives inside you, it will bother you to do certain things, but you can get numb to it, plus, the bible says, you are not your own, you were bought with a price, JESUS BLOOD, free to you but cost him his life, GOD will chastise for repeated sin, you are his child, just like with your children, spend some time alone with GOD, ask him to show you, would love to talk to you guys over phone, i cant type, you can tell, theres so much more i can say please call me [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED] or email is [EMAILREMOVEof commeon since, there are man made laws you go by or suffer for, plus, there are so many religions you can make one up to best suit you, it do nt work that way, plus, excepting JESUS is the best way to heaven, why would you think you caould live perfect your whole life, you cant, the devil will use religion to lead as many people away from CHRIST as he can, even in the garden, eve was decieved.if the bible is not true than no man has anyright to even say whats right or wrong, things some people do they think is fine and so on, is stealing your car wrong, why, who said, and why are they right, think about it, salvation is simple, man makes it hard, other religions say you have to earn it, fine, if they live that good, they should except JESUS, why not except him, my way is through JESUS, if thats wrong, what have i lost, other ways are thru something or anything else, what if they are wrong, high price to pay for opinion, what if your son took someoneles punishment, and it cost him his life, how would you feel, think about GODS feelings, you cant take a few verses from man religion and get anywhere, read the bible, if you believe theres a GOD in heaven, please do nt reject his son, all very good questions, thanks, i do nt want to be a problem, i just want you to be in heaven someday, i cant be good enough to there there on my own, so i looked to the perfect one, JESUS, you do nt worked to get saved, you work because you are savd.you get get back out in sin and backslide, but, if your really saved, the LORD lives inside you, it will bother you to do certain things, but you can get numb to it, plus, the bible says, you are not your own, you were bought with a price, JESUS BLOOD, free to you but cost him his life, GOD will chastise for repeated sin, you are his child, just like with your children, spend some time alone with GOD, ask him to show you, would love to talk to you guys over phone, i cant type, you can tell, theres so much more i can say please call me [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED] or email is [EMAILREMOVED]

It is certainly true that members of the public and real estate licensees may contractually establish a relationship that is not an agency relationship; however, the extensive research conducted by Professor William Foster on behalf of the ATF confirmed that the courts view the relationship currently established by listing contracts and exclusive buyer agency contracts across Canada (except in the province of Quebec where the common law does not apply) to be an agency relationship.

Quoting from Kezer v. Mark Stimson Associates, a case previously summarized in The Letter of the Law - click here to read, the court stated that an active concealment occurs when a party has taken steps to hide the true state of affairs from another.