Search for: "MICHAEL GIVENS"
Results 8401 - 8420
of 14,783
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Feb 2013, 2:50 pm
Michael Conley, for the SEC, noted that courts that have looked at cases involving government agencies charged with responsibility for protecting securities laws that have negotiated at arms length with very capable counsel on the other side have given great deference to the agency's judgment of whether to settle.Mr. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 10:35 am
By Michael J. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 10:35 am
By Michael J. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 8:42 am
I am therefore unfortunately not in a position to determine what my own take would be (if fully versed) on a recent U.S. tax academic debate about CJEU tax jurisprudence - the smackdown (so to speak) between Michael Graetz and Al Warren on the one hand, and Ruth Mason and Michael Knoll on the other hand.As partly summarized here, Graetz and Warren argue that the then-ECJ has been blundering around in a "labyrinth of impossibility" in its anti-discrimination tax… [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 12:36 pm
Were the practice otherwise, he wouldn’t have given the document to his commander to sign. [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 4:30 am
Ken Chasse [Part 1, last week, questioned the propriety of law societies’ exclusive control of their monopoly over the provision of legal services, and their prosecution of offences of “the unauthorized practice of law,” given the many reports documenting the fact that the majority of the population cannot afford legal services at reasonable cost, particularly so for litigation. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 3:04 pm
Clearly there is huge value in the St Andrews name when used as a brand but, given that it is descriptive and/or an indication of geographic origin, is there a case here for a Certification Mark and/or PGI/PDO? [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 12:29 pm
Posted by Michael von Ansbach-YoungAs reported here, the FTC earlier this month released a staff report on mobile privacy. [read post]
8 Feb 2013, 1:39 pm
The Justice Department's White Paper on Targeted Killing Michael Isikoff at NBC News has obtained a Justice Department white paper that purports to explain when it would be lawful for the government to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen believed to be affiliated with a terrorist organization. [read post]
8 Feb 2013, 6:00 am
Author Michael B. [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 8:04 am
Michael Jarome Smith of Covington, Joel E. [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 5:30 am
Author Michael B. [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 5:43 am
And while the story describes Attorney General Eric Holder as having given a speech on same the subject that follows the same broad arc as the White Paper, it consistently emphasizes where the memo goes further than Holder—thus implying that that in important respects, the White Paper has broken new ground. [read post]
5 Feb 2013, 8:56 pm
Michael Isikoff’s original story for NBC News calls the document a “confidential Justice Department memo,” and a “confidential Justice Department ‘white paper. [read post]
5 Feb 2013, 4:30 am
In the interim, should they be allowed to prosecute the offence of "the unauthorized practice of law," given that such prosecutions now aim to protect a monopoly over the provision of legal services that is greater than that granted them by law? [read post]
5 Feb 2013, 3:49 am
Michael F. [read post]
4 Feb 2013, 7:04 pm
Michael Isikoff at NBC News has obtained a Justice Department white paper that purports to explain when it would be lawful for the government to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen believed to be affiliated with a terrorist organization. [read post]
4 Feb 2013, 11:34 am
Culminating this historical progression, the Fifteenth Amendment’s plain language and history demonstrates that Congress, not the courts and certainly not the states, was being given sweeping powers to stamp out every conceivable attempt by the states to deny the franchise on account of race. [read post]
3 Feb 2013, 9:01 pm
In Kristina Lynn B., Michael P. [read post]
3 Feb 2013, 9:01 pm
But even if it does, that would not be a sufficient reason to uphold DOMA Section 3, given the substantial discrimination that gay and lesbian Americans still face. [read post]
