Provides. “Spruce Up Colorado” and “Meth Lab Waste Recognition” volunteer safety videos to group coordinator.
Provides. “ It is the duty of parents to provide support, custody and education to underage children and, in the interest of such children, it is also their obligation to comply and see to compliance with judicial decisions.” stimulating sexual practices at an early age. Nowhere in the campaign materials were the parents mentioned nor were parents consulted so that the general values of Brazilian society could be harmonized. There is also a principle of cooperation, which serves as a guide to joint action of more than one entity to common tasks. Cooperation refers to a common responsibility. The principle of cooperation is a standard that guides joint activities among subjects with shared competence, thus allowing for associations and entities to supplement one another, without infringing one anothers’ private or exclusive competencies. The principle of cooperation is reflected in art. 227 of the Constitution of Brazil, which provides that it is the “duty of the family, society and the State to ensure [certain rights of] children and adolescents, with absolute priority . . . ”22 This provision summons all forces of social mobilization to ensure the rights of children and adolescents. The term “state” is not capitalized in this footnote but it is capitlaized in the next and inthe text of this paragraph above. Which is correct? As regards training, for example -- technical, intellectual and professional training -- the Constitution provides that it is the duty of the State and the family (art. 20523), and “with the cooperation of society [...].” The State ensures free and compulsory basic education (art. 208, I24), and access to such education is recognized as “public subjective right” (art. 208, §1 25). However, education goes beyond technical instruction: here is a moral dimension which is the primary task of parents, their private competence. The principle of cooperation, according to how it is now perceived, should be used to guide the common actions of associations when they have competencies in common, and in ways which respect the order of precedence among them,
Provides. If the commissioner of insurance, in consultation with the commissioner of health and human services, determines that a provision of Section 3A, 3C-J, or 10-12, Article 3.70-3C, or HHSC Contract 529-00-139-J Page 1 of 10 Pursuant to this authority, TDI waived application of Senate Bill 418 as it pertains to the above-referenced provisions of the Insurance Code for CHIP benefits and services. The intent of the Parties to this Agreement is that, for the above-referenced provisions of the Insurance Code, the law in effect immediately prior to the effective date of Senate Bill 418 will continue to govern the CONTRACTOR’s performance under this Agreement. Consequently, all citations in this Agreement to the above-referenced provisions of the Insurance Code, their predecessor statutes, and related administrative rules refer to the laws and rules in effect immediately prior to the effective date of Senate Bill 418.”
Provides. If the requested Party requires additional evidence or information to enable it to decide on the request for extradition, such evidence or information shall be submitted to it within such time as that Party shall require. …  Article 4 contemplates that the requesting state will have to establish a prima facie case against the suspect, sufficient to justify his or her committal for trial for the alleged offence in the requested state. This is consistent with s 24(2)(d) of the Act (which, by virtue of s 11(2), cannot be overridden by a treaty). There is a question, to which we will return, as to what constitutes “evidence” for these purposes.  Mr Davison argued that the treaty did not prohibit disclosure. He pointed to the fact that arts 4 and 9 provide that the law of the requested state applies to the extradition determination. Disclosure was, he submitted, part of the relevant law. We also note that Winkelmann J said in the judgment under appeal that there was nothing in the treaty that bears upon the issue of disclosure.63 These points raise the question of the effect of art 12.  Clearly, art 12 recognises the possibility of requests for further information. It may be, as Mr Pike argued, that it tends to indicate that there was no expectation that the requesting country would ordinarily submit all the evidence or information that it has about a suspect and the alleged offending when it makes its request. Rather, the focus will be on showing, by the appropriate process, that there is a proper basis for the suspect to be tried.  Be that as it may, Mr Pike accepted that New Zealand could seek additional information from the United States under art 12 but submitted that the United States was under no obligation to give disclosure as ordered by Judge Harvey. He referred in particular to Jenkins v United States of America, where Sedley LJ delivering the judgment of the Administrative Court rejected an argument that a District Judge 63 At . could order disclosure in an extradition context against the United States.64 The Court said that the correct approach was for the District Judge to ask the Home Secretary to consider exercising the power under art 9 of the UK/USA extradition treaty (which is identical to art 12) to request further information from the United States.65 The Court gave two examples of situations which might justify such a request – where reference is made to a statement in a document without which the statement is not intel...