Search for: "John Does 5" Results 4681 - 4700 of 8,653
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Dec 2012, 12:10 pm
The second registration is probably the one which Luke alludes to in Acts 5:37, in speaking of the rebel Judas the Galilean. [read post]
11 May 2016, 9:00 am by Daniel J. Weitzner
Bellovin, Josh Benaloh, Matt Blaze,Whitfield Diffie, John Gilmore, Matthew Green, Susan Landau, Peter G. [read post]
29 Oct 2009, 6:50 am
In 2007, respondents Melinda Friend and John Nhieu filed a class action in California state court against Hertz Corporation, alleging that the company had violated state wage and hour laws. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 11:00 am by Alyson Grine
The mere exclusion of the person previously does not necessarily show an intent to commit a felony or larceny. [read post]
12 Jul 2022, 9:06 pm by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia
In a 5-4 decision issued by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that the Biden Administration did not violate Section 1225 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and that a guidance document issued in October 2021 by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to terminate the Remain in Mexico policy was a final agency action. [read post]
6 May 2020, 11:18 am by Josh Blackman
Likewise, the ABA routinely lobbies Congress,25 while the Federalist Society does nothing of the sort How does the Committee distinguish the ABA from FedSoc? [read post]
9 Oct 2007, 9:36 am
The FISA Court requested this, and the Administration does not oppose it. 14. [read post]
3 Jun 2007, 12:37 am
Rich's colleague, David Broder, has told us that John Warner is the key. [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 9:40 am by Raffaela Wakeman
  The White Paper does not scrutinize the legality of proposed executive branch action, as OLC typically does. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 7:19 pm
"  If you think, as Obama does, that the Afghanistan war was not a mistake, then this question does not seem so salient. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 3:59 am by Edith Roberts
” Counting to 5 (podcast) features a discussion of the court’s decision in Matal v. [read post]
2 May 2011, 5:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
Yet in the AT&T case, the majority is willing to find that California's no-class-waiver rule does not apply to "any contract" because, even though it does apply to any contract, it impedes what Justice Scalia deems to be the purpose of the FAA. [read post]