Emphasis added.  It is evident that at the time payment was made to LCaribbean GOSL was fully seized of the assignment of the receivables payable from the Project and such these receivables could only have been categorized as a payable to KCL.  In First Vancouver Finance v. M.N.R the question for the court was whether a factor was entitled to recover monies paid to the Minister of National Revenue from receivables which were purchased prior to the Minister issuing a request for statutory garnishment, in connection with these receivables. The court ruled that monies owing on accounts factored prior to the date of the request for garnishment were not subject to the garnishment, however accounts factored after that date were effectively intercepted by it. In other words once the receivables were factored before the Minister issued a request to garnish, the National Revenue was prevented from asserting an interest in these invoices. Consequently, a declaration was made confirming the factor’s entitlement to the funds already paid to the Minister.  On this point I conclude that the funds paid to LCaribbean were indeed the property of KCL, which ought not to have been utilized as if it were the property of AMSL. Therefore GOSL is liable to pay to KCL the remaining sums under the Notices.
Emphasis added. 4 Hugh Beale et al, The Law of Personal Property Security (Oxford University Press, 2007), [5.07]. See also Bruce Whittaker, ‘Retention of Title Clauses Under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth)’ (2010) 21 Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice 273, 273–4. 5 Beale et al, above n 4 [5.03].
Emphasis added. The Whisman court failed to comprehend the truth of its errant analysis: no “right” to jury trial ex- ists until it is determined that litigation should pro- ceed before a court. Having executed predispute arbitration contracts before a claim arose, neither the Seventh Amendment nor Section 7 of the Kentucky Constitution was ever implicated.
Emphasis added. In what follows, the specific features of the EU-Ukraine AA are analyzed in more detail in order to illustrate that the agreement opens a new chapter in the EU’s relations with its neighboring countries and, more generally, in its external relations practice. After a brief introduction to the background of the new EU-Ukraine AA, its legal basis and objectives are discussed. Subsequently, specific attention is devoted to the institutional framework and mechanisms of conditionality. A final section deals with the constitutional challenges for the effective implementation of the EU-Ukraine AA.
Emphasis added. Mr. Owen’s final report dated December 31, 1999 On December 31, 1999, Mr. Owen issued his final report:15 This report supplements my Interim Report dated October 31, 1999 (Appendix B). In the Interim Report, I stated my opinion that the relationship between Crown Counsel and the provincial government would not be improved by [a]n independent mediator reporting out, ad hoc, on the substantive employment issues in dispute. Rather, I made tentative
Emphasis added. This is a far cry from the kind of active appellate enforcement of victims’ rights that Congress intended. Potashnik also ignores Fisher’s argument that the CVRA requires all courts – including appellate courts – to “ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in [the CVRA],” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(1) (emphasis added). Here the Fifth Circuit never “ensured” that Fisher was afforded his “right to full and timely restitution as provided in law,” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(6). Finally, Potashnik completely misunderstands the CVRA’s basic architecture when he contends that it would be impossible for Congress to have intended for CVRA mandamus petitions to serve as substitutes for appeals. Potashnik suggests that a writ is typical- ly available only when an error is irremediable on ordinary appeal. Potashnik Resp. 6-7. But that is precisely the situation in which many crime victims will be when appealing CVRA rulings. The CVRA specifically provides that “[i]n no event shall proceed- ings be stayed or subject to a continuance of more than five days for purposes of enforcing this chapter.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). Accordingly, to ensure effective appellate enforcement of CVRA rights within that time frame, Congress sought to weld together the rapid procedural vehicle of a mandamus petition with broad standards of regular appellate review. As one of the CVRA’s co-sponsors explained, Congress designed the CVRA to create “a new use of a very old procedure, the writ of mandamus. This provision will establish a procedure where a crime victim can, in essence, immediately appeal a denial of their rights by a trial court to the court of appeals.” 150 CONG. REC. S4262 (April 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein) (em- phases added).
Emphasis added exercise legislative functions concerning the educational system of the state, determine its educational policies, and, except, as to the judicial functions of the commissioner of education, establish rules for carrying into effect the laws and policies of the state, relating to education * * * ” (Educ. Law § 207). The 16 members of the Regents are elected by concurrent resolutions of both houses of the Legislature, and they in turn appoint the Commissioner of Education who is the head of the State Education Department (SED) (NY Const. art. XI, § 2; Educ. Law § 202; Educ. Law § 101). The SED carries out the policies enacted by the Regents, and is responsible for the general management and supervision of all of the public schools in the State (Education Law § 101). Pursuant to their delegated authority, the Regents establish the requirements students must satisfy in order to obtain a high school diploma. In the past, students could obtain a local high school diploma by passing the Regents Competency Tests (RCTs). Plaintiffs offered unchallenged testimony that the RCTs measured eighth grade reading skills and sixth grade math skills. Students who wished to obtain a Regents diploma were required to pass more rigorous tests. That system is being phased out, and a new system is being phased in. Under the new system, students are required to pass five state-administered Regents Examinations in four subject areas (English, mathematics, social studies and science) that are aligned with new Learning Standards. Students can obtain a Regents diploma evincing higher levels of achievement in mathematics, science, and foreign language by successfully completing eight Regents examinations. The State argues that the Learning Standards are aspirational and “world-class.” That the minimum requirements in order to obtain a high school diploma are aspirational, which connotes striving for something that is not necessarily achievable, may actually come as a surprise to high school students who must satisfy them. If these tests are aspirational, then the tests for an advanced high school diploma must be ultra aspirational. While some witnesses described the Learning Standards as “high” and “rigorous,” all the witnesses testified that they represent the minimum students need in order to be productive citizens.11 It is clear that in comparison to the 11Dr. Sobol initiated a 13-year quest to determine the skills that a sound basic education should provide. Dr. Sobol spearheaded th...
Emphasis added. In the context of the case now before the Court, such a rule would require International to respond directly to Fox’s allegation that no other elected union officer had been removed from office, or actually suspended from membership on account of delinquent dues by “point[ing] to similarly situated individuals who were fired for comparable reasons. . . .”, rather than providing the non sequitur that was offered, i.e., “50 to 100 suspension letters are sent to union offic- ers each year.”2
Emphasis added. 95 Ibid., 15. An additional philosophical conundrum arises from Willimon’s distinction between truth and effectiveness. Even as Willimon himself is considered one of the twelve “most effective” preachers in the English-speaking world, he insists that he has no concern for listener response. He writes, “Next Sunday, if once again my congregation appears to be unmoved and unimpressed by my homiletical efforts, I intend to ascribe their lack of response to God! Our job as preachers is to stand up and speak the truth as God gives it to us; congregational response is God’s business.”96 Such a statement, even if hyperbolic, proceeds upon the a priori decision to separate truth from effectiveness. Might not an ineffective sermon point just as clearly to truth as falsehood? Compare Jonathan Edward preaching during the 1st Great Awakening with the “Word of Faith” prosperity preaching; both are effective by their own standards. Rather than drawing proclamation closer to theology (the Word of God preached is the Word of God), binary commitments unintentionally enforce the very same anthropology that Willimon wishes to overcome. He writes, “We preachers are to worry more about what is being said and how well we can replicate that word than we are to worry about whether or not what is being said in the Gospel is being heard in the world.”97 Whatever the cause of our worry, is not such an effort a human effort? Would it not be more theological to bear witness to God’s Word in the biblical text and in the world, to preach God’s Word and trust God to communicate the truth to be found therein as well as any human response? Neither truth nor effectiveness ought to guide preaching because neither is within the confines of human agency.