541 resultados para violations
Resumo:
"June 1999."
Resumo:
"May 2001."
Resumo:
An evaluation of five of the eleven Local Alcohol Program projects funded in FY98 based on the following criteria: patrol hours; traffic contact rate (citation/written warnings); DUI arrest rate; alcohol-related contact rate; DUI processing rate; occupant restraint percent distribution.
Resumo:
"An act relating to stray animal control; rabies prevention; the liability of a person owning or harboring a dog which attacks or injures a person; providing penalities for violations thereof; and to repeal Acts therein named. P.A. 78-795, approved Sept. 11, 1973, eff. Oct. 1, 1973. Title amended by P.A. 83-711, 2, approved Sept. 23, 1983, eff. Jan. 1, 1984; P.A. 87-1269, 1, eff. March 3, 1993."--p. 1.
Resumo:
"#546r"--Colophon.
Resumo:
Appendix, parts 1 and 2; general index to Hearings, in v. 4.
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
A man labelled "Laxity" in the prosecutor's office sleeps through a blizzard of complaints about blind pigs and other prohibition violations
Resumo:
Vol. 8 consists of "Appendix: parts 1 and 2. Report of the commissioner of corporations on the steel industry. Pt. I-II"; "General index to Hearings"; and "Investigation of United States steel corporation" (House rept. 1127, 62d Cong., 2d sess., submitted by Mr. Stanley, "Views of the minority" by Mr. Gardner and Mr. Young)
Resumo:
"December 1983."
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
"May 1996"--Vol. 5
Resumo:
The business of privatized mortgage loan securitization (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits or “REMICS”) is so arcane and specialized that few people outside of that realm of investment knowledge understand, or even care to understand how loan securitization functions. However, if the difference between a legitimate REMIC and a Rogue REMIC is adequately explained, one can begin to understand why Rogue REMICs must be exposed as unlawful enterprises whose affiliates are not only able to disregard existing federal securities and tax laws, but are also able to circumvent state and local foreclosure laws at will. These ongoing violations result from the intentional and commonplace shortcutting of the proper mortgage loan securitization processes during the several years preceding the 2008 financial crisis. This Inquiry will not focus primarily on how and why Rogue REMICS violate federal tax and securities laws; although those aspects are part of the discussion by necessity. I will argue that all Rogues lack the perquisite legal standing to prosecute both judicial and non-judicial foreclosures. I will present compelling evidence that, in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, foreclosures by Rogues may have exceeded 10% of all foreclosures. I will further argue that county officials may be violating state laws by recording the documents that impart false legal standing to the Rogues. I will conclude with a suggestion to homeowners on how to proceed if a mortgage assignment to a Rogue turns up in the local County public records
Resumo:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-06