"nautical miles (70 km) northeastward. Following a FIDS survey in 1955, the mountain named by Wilkins was definitely identified as the feature now described. Because of past confusion as to its identity, the UK-APC has renamed it Mount Alibi; ""Alibi"" meaning ""proof of presence elsewhere."" Mount Alibi Mount Alibi () is a conspicuous mountain in eastern Voden Heights on Oscar II Coast in Graham Land, situated 3 nautical miles (6 km) east-southeast of Adit Nunatak on the north side of Leppard Glacier, in Graham Land. The mountain was discovered and photographed from the air by Sir Hubert Wilkins on December"
"Alibi An alibi is a form of defense used in criminal procedure wherein the accused attempts to prove that he or she was in some other place at the time the alleged offense was committed. The ""Criminal Law Deskbook"" of Criminal Procedure states: ""Alibi is different from all of the other defenses; it is based upon the premise that the defendant is truly innocent."" In Latin, """" means ""somewhere else."" In some legal jurisdictions there may be a requirement that the accused disclose an alibi defence prior to the trial. This is an exception to the rule that a criminal"
"1990s Japan, such services appeared in Europe in 2004, where they were condemned as immoral by the Catholic Church in Germany. They are the subject of the 2006 movie ""The Alibi"". Alibi An alibi is a form of defense used in criminal procedure wherein the accused attempts to prove that he or she was in some other place at the time the alleged offense was committed. The ""Criminal Law Deskbook"" of Criminal Procedure states: ""Alibi is different from all of the other defenses; it is based upon the premise that the defendant is truly innocent."" In Latin, """" means ""somewhere"
"Alibi (language game) Alibi is a language game spoken by children in Australia. It is not a true language, instead an obfuscation of English. It is a system of manipulating the syllables of spoken words to render them incomprehensible to the untrained ear. The language can be easily mentally encoded and decoded by a skilled speaker at the rate of normal speech, while those who either don't know the key or aren't practiced in rapid speech are left hearing nothing but gibberish. The word 'Alibi' is most likely in itself a reference to the rules of the language, although not"
"mandatory early disclosure of alibis is unfair, possibly even unconstitutional. The giving of a false alibi, beside resulting in possible subsequent criminal offences (obstruction of justice, perjury, etc.), may, in some jurisdictions, result in negative ramifications for the trial itself. In Canada, the giving of a false alibi may be used by the court as actual evidence of guilt, provided certain requirements are met. Specifically: An alibi agency, also called an alibi network, forges explanations for unexcused absences, e.g. due to an extramarital affair or adultery. In other words, alibi agencies are paid to lie for their customers. Originating in"
"entirely correct. In this scenario the vowel/word 'I' would have been chosen, had the normal rules applied except for replacing the first 'I' with an 'A' to make the word easier to pronounce or sound better. but some children may say alibi is actually a correct language. Language games are primarily used by children, to disguise their speech from others. Alibi is spoken most prominently in Australia, and may be used in other English speaking countries, such as New Zealand, The United States and The United Kingdom. (In the United Kingdom it is also known as 'Uvaguv' and uses 'v'"
"fake documents issued by an alibi-ya were used to illegally obtain bank loans. ""Alibi-ya"" is a combination of the English world ""alibi"" and the Japanese ""ya"", meaning ""shop"" or ""seller"". It is also written in Japanese as , meaning ""alibi "". Alibi-ya An is a kind of business in Japan that creates an identity viewed as socially respectable for peoples involved in occupations viewed as shameful, typically identities for women involved in the sex industry. The fictitious identity is created to conceal the person's actual from her family, and potential spouses. Services provided by alibi-ya range from simply a phone"
"itself, but at the same time may claim that if the defendant had committed the crime, the act was excused for a reason such as insanity or intoxication, or was justified due to provocation or self defense. However, a jury will naturally be suspicious if a defendant claims the benefits of, for example, both alibi and self defense. Alternative pleading Alternative pleading (or pleading in the alternative) is the legal term in the law of the United States for a form of pleading that permits a party in a court action to argue multiple possibilities that may be mutually exclusive"
"Apologue An apologue or apolog (from the Greek ἀπόλογος, a ""statement"" or ""account"") is a brief fable or allegorical story with pointed or exaggerated details, meant to serve as a pleasant vehicle for a moral doctrine or to convey a useful lesson without stating it explicitly. Unlike a fable, the moral is more important than the narrative details. As with the parable, the apologue is a tool of rhetorical argument used to convince or persuade. Among the best known ancient and classical examples are that of Jotham in the Book of Judges (9:7-15); ""The Belly and its Members,"" by the"
"Apologia An apologia (Latin for apology, from Greek ἀπολογία, ""speaking in defense"") is a formal defense of an opinion, position or action. The term's current use, often in the context of religion, theology and philosophy, derives from John Henry Newman's ""Apologia pro Vita Sua"" (English: ""A Defense of One's Own Life"") of 1864, which presented a formal defense of the history of his Christian life, leading to his acceptance by the Catholic Church in 1845. In modern usage, ""apologia"" describes a formal defense and should not be confused with the sense of the word 'apology' as an expression of regret;"
"defendant cannot normally be compelled to furnish information to the prosecution. Since the alibi involves evidence of innocence rather than guilt, the privilege against self-incrimination is not implicated. In Canada, the defence must disclose an alibi defence with sufficient time for the authorities to investigate the alibi, and with sufficient particularization to allow for a meaningful investigation. Failure to comply with the two requirements will result in the court making an adverse inference against the alibi defence (but will not result in the exclusion of the alibi defence). Conversely, some judges in other jurisdictions have held the opinion that the"
"part of this testimony is that the defendant was at a place other than the scene of the crime at the time the crime was committed. On cross examination it is generally relevant to delve into specifics about any alleged alibi such as who was there, what type of meeting it was etc. to ensure the defendant is being truthful. However the relevance of what type of meeting the defendant was attending to weighing the credibility of the story in this example is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice as the majority of Americans would view the defendant's"
"it had been, it would have contradicted the details of his alibi defence.) After making this initial oral statement, the accused refused to make a written statement and only disclosed his alibi defence two years later, when the matter came to trial. The alibi defence was rejected by the trial court, and the accused was convicted. The accused's appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal failed, and the matter then proceeded to the Constitutional Court, where the accused contended that the Supreme Court of Appeal had erred in drawing a negative inference from his failure to disclose his alibi defence"
"seriousness of the transgression. Rather than accepting responsibility for a transgression through the form of an apology, a transgressor who explains why they engaged in a behavior is engaging in excuses or justifications. While excuses and justifications aim to minimize blame on the transgressor, the two address blame minimization from completely opposite perspectives. Excuses attempt to minimize blame by focusing on a transgressor’s inability to control their actions (e.g., “How would I have known my exgirlfriend was going to be at the party.”) or displace blame on a third party (e.g., “I went to lunch with my exgirlfriend because I"
"the handgun, the motive financial (i.e., the money they stole), and the opportunity the fact that it would be unlikely someone else would witness or stop them. For the majority of crimes, means and opportunity are the easiest to prove; however, for some offenses (such as rape or serial killing), the motive can be hard to define. Opportunity is most often disproved by use of an alibi, which can prove the accused was not able to commit the crime as he or she did not have the correct set of circumstances to commit the crime as it occurred. Some crimes"
"Excuse In jurisprudence, an excuse is a defense to criminal charges that is distinct from an ""exculpation"". Justification and excuse are different defenses in a criminal case (See Justification and excuse). Exculpation is a related concept which reduces or extinguishes a person's culpability and therefore a person's liability to pay compensation to the victim of a tort in the civil law. The ""excuse"" provides a mitigating factor for a group of persons sharing a common characteristic. Justification, as in justifiable homicide, vindicates or shows the justice. Thus, society approves of the purpose or motives underpinning some actions or the consequences"
"Alibi-ya An is a kind of business in Japan that creates an identity viewed as socially respectable for peoples involved in occupations viewed as shameful, typically identities for women involved in the sex industry. The fictitious identity is created to conceal the person's actual from her family, and potential spouses. Services provided by alibi-ya range from simply a phone answering services at a non-existent employer to arrangements for a boss to give a speech at the client's wedding praising her work at the non-existent company. Though the business is not illegal of itself, alibi-ya came to attention in 2011 when"
"of the proceedings. If, however, an alibi defence is raised for the first time at trial, then the court, in determining whether the alibi is reasonably possibly true, may take into account, in terms of the common law, that there has been no opportunity for the state to investigate the alibi properly. The constitutionality of the common-law approach to the late disclosure of an alibi was considered by the Constitutional Court in ""S v Thebus"", where the court also applied its mind to the issue of the permissibility of drawing an adverse inference of guilt from pre-trial silence and the"
"in order to establish legitimacy in the mind of the target. Pretext A pretext (adj: pretextual) is an excuse to do something or say something that is not accurate. Pretexts may be based on a half-truth or developed in the context of a misleading fabrication. Pretexts have been used to conceal the true purpose or rationale behind actions and words. In US law, a pretext usually describes false reasons that hide the true intentions or motivations for a legal action. If a party can establish a prima facie case for the proffered evidence, the opposing party must prove that these"
"Allocution An allocution, or allocutus, is a formal statement made to the court by the defendant who has been found guilty prior to being sentenced. It is part of the criminal procedure in some jurisdictions using common law. An allocution allows the defendant to explain why the sentence should be lenient. In plea bargains, an allocution may be required of the defendant. The defendant explicitly admits specifically and in detail the actions and their reasons in exchange for a reduced sentence. In principle, that removes any doubt as to the exact nature of the defendant's guilt in the matter. The"
"was primarily motivated by the unfairness of that sentence: Even if one accepts the President's assertion that a 30-month prison term for Mr. Libby was excessive, it is hard to justify or understand the President's decision to commute Mr. Libby's prison sentence ""in its entirety"". It is particularly difficult to see how, in Tony Snow's words, 'the rule of law' and 'public faith in government' have been served by enabling Mr. Libby to avoid having to serve even one day in prison following his 'serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice.' Indeed, the conclusion to the prosecution's sentencing memorandum"
"what she personally saw must be believable, not inherently contrived"""". For the alibi to be established """"the accused must prove by positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence... that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime"""". The lower courts, the Supreme Court said, held that """"Webb was actually in Parañaque when the Vizconde killings took place"""". However, the court pointed out that while Webb or his parents may be able to """"arrange for the local immigration to put"
"can truly and uprightly say, before God and man, I did it not out of any anger, malice, or ill-will to any person, for I had no such thing against one of them; but what I did was ignorantly, being deluded by Satan. And particularly, as I was a chief instrument of accusing of Goodwife Nurse and her two sisters, I desire to lie in the dust, and to be humbled for it, in that I was a cause, with others, of so sad a calamity to them and their families; for which cause I desire to lie in the"
"Apologizing An apology is an expression of regret or remorse for actions. Apologizing is the act of expressing that regret or remorse. When an apology is effective, the offender has a greater chance of being forgiven. Apologizing is more effective when the apology is delivered shortly after the incident, or after the resulting problems were brought to the attention of the offender. Effective apology statements focus on the harm done to victims while minimizing descriptions of the offender's context, motivation, or justification. They apologize for the offender's own actions, such as ""I'm sorry I said that"", and not for other"
"conveys metaphorically what Matthews and the Wilsons appear to think that Rove literally may have intended: to ""target"" (in Gregory's later terminology) Wilson and, collaterally, to leak the information about his wife's CIA identity in the process. The CIA leak grand jury investigation did not result in charging that anyone leaked her name intentionally while knowing that it was a classified covert identity, in part, Special Counsel Fitzgerald later argued in ""United States v. Libby"", because of Libby's obstruction of justice. The jury convicted Libby on four of the five counts in the indictment: one count of obstruction of justice;"
"the first appellant's failure timeously to disclose his alibi was an unjustifiable infringement of the right to remain silent. In considering the rationale for prohibiting inferences from silence, they rejected the argument that it is unfair to place the accused in a position where he will suffer adverse consequences whatever his election, on the basis that hard choices were unavoidable in the adversarial process. They went no further, though, than suggesting that it is inevitable that there may be adverse consequences from exercising the right to remain silent. They avoided concluding that silence itself is an item of evidence. Goldstone"
"occasion, or one may alternatively claim that a previous lie was not as egregious as it actually was. For example, to claim that a premeditated lie was really ""only"" an emergency lie, or to claim that a self-serving lie was really ""only"" a white lie or noble lie. Not to be confused with confirmation bias in which the deceiver is deceiving themselves. Defamation is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation. To deflect is to avoid the subject that the lie is about, not giving attention"
"Pretext A pretext (adj: pretextual) is an excuse to do something or say something that is not accurate. Pretexts may be based on a half-truth or developed in the context of a misleading fabrication. Pretexts have been used to conceal the true purpose or rationale behind actions and words. In US law, a pretext usually describes false reasons that hide the true intentions or motivations for a legal action. If a party can establish a prima facie case for the proffered evidence, the opposing party must prove that these reasons were ""pretextual"" or false. This can be accomplished by directly"
"propos his ""Persian Letters"" ""There are certain truths of which it is not enough to persuade, but which must be made to be ""felt"". Such are the moral verities. Perhaps a bit of history will be more touching than subtle philosophy."" Apologue An apologue or apolog (from the Greek ἀπόλογος, a ""statement"" or ""account"") is a brief fable or allegorical story with pointed or exaggerated details, meant to serve as a pleasant vehicle for a moral doctrine or to convey a useful lesson without stating it explicitly. Unlike a fable, the moral is more important than the narrative details. As"
"libel. Malice (law) Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either ""expressed"" or ""implied"". Malice is expressed when there is manifested a deliberate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a human being. Malice is implied when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. Malice, in a legal sense, may be inferred from the evidence and imputed to the defendant, depending on the nature of the case. In many kinds of cases, malice must be found to exist"
"being faultless in the reporting of the facts by the defendant. (Under the law prior to this decision any false statement could, if found to be defamatory, be grounds for damages.) Instead it raises the question of whether factual errors were made in good faith. ""Actual malice"" means then that the defendant intentionally made false statements of alleged facts, or recklessly failed to verify alleged facts when any reasonable person would have checked. If it is held that the defendant made intentionally false statements of fact, that will form a powerful argument that any statements of opinion based upon those"
"such as phobias and obsessive–compulsive disorder. Alief (mental state) In philosophy and psychology, an alief is an automatic or habitual belief-like attitude, particularly one that is in tension with a person's explicit beliefs. For example, a person standing on a transparent balcony may ""believe"" that they are safe, but ""alieve"" that they are in danger. A person watching a sad movie may ""believe"" that the characters are completely fictional, but their ""aliefs"" may lead them to cry nonetheless. A person who is hesitant to eat fudge that has been formed into the shape of feces, or who exhibits reluctance in"
"an alibi, if the open material alleges he was at a certain place during a certain period) without having to know the detail or sources of the closed evidence. However, if the evidence revealed to the person consists only of general assertions and the case against him is based solely or to a substantive extent on undisclosed adverse evidence, the fair hearing rule under natural justice will not be satisfied. In such cases, there are strong policy considerations supporting the principle that a trial procedure can never be considered fair if a person is kept in ignorance of the case"