OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Creed of the United States Coast Guardsman

Vice Admiral Hamlet was the seventh Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, serving from 1932 to 1936.
The Creed of the United States Coast Guardsman
I am proud to be a United States Coast Guardsman.
I revere that long line of expert seamen who by their devotion to duty and sacrifice of self have made it possible for me to be a member of a service honored and respected, in peace and war, throughout the world.
I never, by word or deed, will bring reproach upon the fair name of my service, nor permit others to do so unchallenged.
I will cheerfully and willingly obey all lawful orders.
I will always be on time to relieve, and shall endeavor to do more, rather than less, than my share.
I will always be at my station, alert and attending to my duties.
I shall, so far as I am able, bring to my seniors solutions, not problems.
I shall live joyously, but always with due regard for the rights and privileges of others.
I shall endeavor to be a model citizen in the community in which I live.
I shall sell my life dearly to an enemy of my country, but give it freely to rescue those in peril.
With God's help, I shall endeavor to be one of His Noblest Works...
A UNITED STATES COAST GUARDSMAN.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Crooker v. California

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
357 U.S. 433
Crooker v. California
Argued: April 2, 1958. --- Decided: June 30, 1958
See 79 S.Ct. 12.
Mr. Robert W. Armstrong, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
Mr. William E. James, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Crooks v. Harrelson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
282 U.S. 55
Crooks v. Harrelson
Argued: Oct. 31, 1930. --- Decided: Nov 24, 1930
The Attorney General and Mr. Claude R. Branch, of Providence, R. I., Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Messrs. Frank S. Bright, of Washington, D. C., and S. L. Swarts, of St. Louis, Mo., for respondents.
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Crosby Steam-Gage Valve Company v. Consolidated Safety-Valve Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
141 U.S. 441
Crosby Steam-Gage Valve Company v. Consolidated Safety-Valve Company
J. H. Millett and Edmund Wetmore, for appellant.
Thos. Wm. Clarke, for appellee.
BLATCHFORD, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Costello v. United States (350 U.S. 359)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Concurring Opinion

    Burton
United States Supreme Court
350 U.S. 359
Costello v. United States (350 U.S. 359)
Argued: Jan. 16, 17, 1956. --- Decided: March 5, 1956
See 351 U.S. 904, 76 S.Ct. 692.
Messrs. Osmond K. Fraenkel, Morris Shilensky, New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. Marvin E. Frankel, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Costello v. United States (390 U.S. 201)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
390 U.S. 201
Costello v. United States (390 U.S. 201)
Upon the suggestion of mootness by reason of the death of the petitioner, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut for such disposition as law and justice require.
Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Costello v. United States (365 U.S. 265)/Dissent Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
365 U.S. 265
Costello v. United States (365 U.S. 265)
Argued: Dec. 12, 1960. --- Decided: Feb 20, 1961
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK concurs, dissenting.
I do not think 'bootlegging' per se would have been a ground for denying naturalization to an alien in the 1920's. If it were, it would be an act of hypocrisy unparalleled in American life. For the 'bootlegger' in those days came into being because of the demand of the great bulk of people in our communities-including lawyers, prosecutors, and judges-for his products. However, that may be, the forms of naturalization in use at the time did not ask for disclosure of all business activities of an applicant or of all sources of income. If that had been asked and if only one source of income were disclosed, then there would be a concealment relevant to our present problem-whether the nondisclosed income was from bootlegging, playing the races, bridge or poker games, or something else. The 'occupation' of an applicant was the question in the form Costello filed. The form of the petition for naturalization did not ask for more; and unless we can say that 'real estate' was not his 'occupation' then we cannot let this denaturalization order stand. The Koslo Realty Corporation actually existed and petitioner was its president. It actually engaged in real estate transactions. The fact that this real estate business was secondary in petitioner's regime did not make it any the less his 'occupation.' Petitioner answered truthfully when he listed 'real estate' as his 'occupation.' He did not answer truthfully if the answer is taken to embrace all his sources of income. But, as I said, the form did not require that complete disclosure; and I would not resolve any ambiguity in favor of the Government. We could not do so and be true to the strict standard exacted from the Government by Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 122-123, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 1335, 87 L.Ed. 1796.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Costello v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Costello v. United States."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* Costello v. United States (350 U.S. 359)
* Costello v. United States (365 U.S. 265)
* Costello v. United States (390 U.S. 201)
# Costello v. United States (350 U.S. 359)/Concurrence Burton

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Burton
United States Supreme Court
350 U.S. 359
Costello v. United States (350 U.S. 359)
Argued: Jan. 16, 17, 1956. --- Decided: March 5, 1956
Mr. Justice BURTON, concurring.
I agree with the denial of the motion to quash the indictment. In my view, however, this case does not justify the breadth of the declarations made by the Court. I assume that this Court would not preclude an examination of grand-jury action to ascertain the existence of bias or prejudice in an indictment. Likewise, it seems to me that if it is shown that the grand jury had before it no substantial or rationally persuasive evidence upon which to base its indictment, that indictment should be quashed. To hold a person to answer to such an empty indictment for a capital or otherwise infamous federal crime robs the Fifth Amendment of much of its protective value to the private citizen.
Here, as in Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245, 31 S.Ct. 2, 54 L.Ed. 1021, substantial and rationally persuasive evidence apparently was presented to the grand jury. We may fairly assume that the evidence before that jury included much of the testimony later given at the trial by the three government agents who said that they had testified before the grand jury. At the trial, they summarized financial transactions of the accused about which they were not qualified to testify of their own knowledge. To use Justice Holmes' phrase in the Holt case, such testimony, standing alone, was 'incompetent by circumstances', 218 U.S. supra, at page 248, 31 S.Ct. at page 4, supra, and yet it was rationally persuasive of the crime charged and provided a substantial basis for the indictment. At the trial, with preliminary testimony laying the foundation for it, the same testimony constituted an important part of the competent evidence upon which the conviction was obtained.
To sustain this indictment under the above circumstances is well enough, but I agree with Judge Learned Hand that 'if it appeared that no evidence had been offered that rationally established the facts, the indictment ought to be quashed; because then the grand jury would have in substance abdicated.' 2 Cir., 221 F.2d 668, 677. Accordingly, I concur in this judgment, but do so for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals and subject to the limitations there expressed. See also, Notes, 62 Harv.L.Rev. 111; 65 Yale L.J. 390.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Costello v. United States (390 U.S. 201)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
390 U.S. 201
Costello v. United States
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
No. 3. Argued: N/A --- Decided: March 4, 1968
352 F. 2d 848, vacated and remanded.
Ira B. Grudberg and Jacob D. Zeldes for petitioner.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Francis X. Beytagh, Jr., Beatrice Rosenberg and Theodore George Gilinsky for the United States.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Costello v. United States (365 U.S. 265)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
365 U.S. 265
Costello v. United States (365 U.S. 265)
Argued: Dec. 12, 1960. --- Decided: Feb 20, 1961
Mr. Edward Bennett Williams, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Messrs. Ralph S. Spritzer and Wayne G. Barnett, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN, delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# China Vanuatu Communique Establishing Diplomatic Relations

* related portals: Historical documents.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
The Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of Vanuatu have decided to establish diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level and to exchange ambassadors.
The Government of the Republic of Vanuatu recognizes that the Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of China, and supports the efforts of the Government and people of the People's Republic of China to safeguard their national independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The Government of the People's Republic of China supports the Government and people of the Republic of Vanuatu in their efforts to safeguard national independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to develop national economy.
The two Governments agree to develop relations of friendship and cooperation between the two countries on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, and equality and mutual benefit.
The two Governments have agreed to mutually provide, after the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries, all necessary assistance for the performance of the functions of diplomatic representatives in accordance with international practice.
Shen Zhiwei Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, People's Republic of China
Walter Hayde Lini, CBE Prime Mimister,Government of the Republic of Vanuatu
Port Vila, March 26th, 1982
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# China Yemen Communique Establishing Diplomatic Relations

* related portals: China, Yemen.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
The following joint communiqué on the establishment of diplomatic relations and exchange of diplomatic envoys between China and Yemen was issued on September 24, 1956 by the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Kingdom of Yemen.
Considering the mutual desire of both countries, the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Kingdom of Yemen have decided to establish diplomatic relations and to exchange diplomatic representatives with the rank of minister.
# China and UK joint communiqué concerning upgraded diplomatic relations 1972

* related portals: China, United Kingdom.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
The following is the text of the "Communiqué of the Governments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of the People's Republic of China on an exchange of Ambassadors". It was signed on March 13, 1972 in Beijing and related to the upgrading of their diplomatic relations. (Source:The Times’ edition of 14 March 1972, reporting on the proceedings of the House of Commons the previous day where the communiqué was discussed.)
Both confirming the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-interference in each other's internal affairs and equality and mutual benefit, the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the United Kingdom have decided to raise the level of their respective diplomatic representatives in each other's capitals from charges d'affaires to ambassadors as from March 13, 1972.
The Government of the United Kingdom, acknowledging the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China, have decided to remove their official representation in Taiwan on March 13, 1972.
The Government of the United Kingdom recognize the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China.
The Government of the People's Republic of China appreciates the above stand of the Government of the United Kingdom.
# China and the Manchus

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Commons category, Wikidata item.
published in 1912
CHINA AND THE MANCHUS
BY
HERBERT A. GILES
Professor of Chinese in the University of Cambridge, and sometime H.B.M Consul at Ningpo
Cambridge: at the University Press 1912
With the exception of the coat of arms at the foot, the design on the title page is a reproduction of one used by the earliest known Cambridge printer, John Siberch, 1521
CONTENTS
ILLUSTRATIONS AND MAP
NOTE
It is impossible to give here a complete key to the pronunciation of Chinese words. For those who wish to pronounce with approximate correctness the proper names in this volume, the following may be a rough guide:—
| a | as | in alms. |
| ê | " | u in fun. |
| i | " | ie in thief. |
| o | " | aw in saw. |
| u | " | oo in soon. |
| ü | " | u in French, or ü in German. |
| ŭ | " | e in her. |
| ai | " | aye (yes). |
| ao | " | ow in cow. |
| ei | " | ey in prey. |
| ow | " | o (not as ow in cow). |
| ch | " | ch in church. |
| chih | " | chu in church. |
| hs | " | sh (hsiu = sheeoo). |
| j | " | in French. |
| ua and uo | " | wa and wo. |
The insertion of a rough breathing ʽ calls for a strong aspirate.
A NÜ-CHÊN TARTAR
(14th Century)
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1935, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 88 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996/2006-03-01/Chapter 7

Chapter 7
Local Government
Status of municipalities
151.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Objects of local government
152.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2)
Developmental duties of municipalities
153.
(a)
(b)
Municipalities in co-operative government
154.
(1)
capacity of municipalities to manage their own affairs, to exercise their powers and to perform their functions.
(2)
Establishment of municipalities
155.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(a)
(b)
(6A)
(7)
Powers and functions of municipalities
156.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(a)
(b)
(5)
Composition and election of Municipal Councils
157.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(3)
(4)
(a)
(b)
(5)
(6)
Membership of Municipal Councils
158.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2)
Terms of Municipal Councils
159.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Internal procedures
160.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(4)
(a)
(b)
(5)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(6)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(7)
(8)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Privilege
161.
Publication of municipal by-laws
162.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Organised local government
163.
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Other matters
164.
# Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996/2006-03-01/Chapter 9

Chapter 9
State Institutions Supporting Constitutional Democracy
Establishment and governing principles
181.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Public Protector
Functions of Public Protector
182.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Tenure
183.
South African Human Rights Commission
Functions of South African Human Rights Commission
184.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(3)
(4)
Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities
Functions of Commission
185.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Composition of Commission
186.
(1)
(2)
(a)
(b)
Commission for Gender Equality
Functions of Commission for Gender Equality
187.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Auditor-General
Functions of Auditor-General
188.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(3)
(4)
Tenure
189.
Electoral Commission
Functions of Electoral Commission
190.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
Composition of Electoral Commission
191.
Independent Authority to Regulate Broadcasting
Broadcasting Authority
192.
General Provisions
Appointments
193.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(5)
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(6)
Removal from office
194.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(3)
(a)
(b)
# Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996/2006-03-01/Schedule 1

Schedule 1
National Flag
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
# Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996/2006-03-01/Chapter 2

Chapter 2
Bill of Rights
Rights
7.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Application
8.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(4)
Equality
9.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Human dignity
10.
Life
11.
Freedom and security of the person
12.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Slavery, servitude and forced labour
13.
Privacy
14.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
​Freedom of religion, belief and opinion
15.
(1)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(3)
(a)
(i)
(ii)
(b)
Freedom of expression
16.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Assembly, demonstration, picket and petition
17.
Freedom of association
18.
Political rights
19.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(b)
Citizenship
20.
Freedom of movement and residence
21.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Freedom of trade, occupation and profession
22.
Labour relations
23.
(1)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(4)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(5)
(6)
Environment
24.
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Property
25.
(1)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(4)
(a)
(b)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Housing
26.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Health care, food, water and social security
27.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(3)
Children
28.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(i)
(ii)
(g)
(i)
(ii)
(h)
(i)
(2)
(3)
Education
29.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(4)
Language and culture
30.
​Cultural, religious and linguistic communities
31.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(2)
Access to information
32.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(2)
Just administrative action
33.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Access to courts
34.
Arrested, detained and accused persons
35.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(c)
(d)
(i)
(ii)
(e)
(f)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(4)
(5)
Limitation of rights
36.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2)
States of emergency
37.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(4)
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(5)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Table of Non-Derogable Rights
(6)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(7)
(8)
Enforcement of rights
38.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Interpretation of Bill of Rights
39.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(3)
# Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996/2006-03-01/Chapter 14

Chapter 14
General Provisions
International Law
International agreements
231.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Customary international law
232.
Application of international law
233.
Other matters
Charters of Rights
234.
Self-determination
235.
Funding for political parties
236.
Diligent performance of obligations
237.
Agency and delegation
238.
(a)
(b)
Definitions
239.
“national legislation” includes —
(a)
(b)
“organ of state” means —
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
but does not include a court or a judicial officer;
​“provincial legislation” includes —
(a)
(b)
Inconsistencies between different texts
240.
Transitional arrangements
241.
Repeal of laws
242.
Short title and commencement
243.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
# Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996/2006-03-01/Chapter 8

Chapter 8
Courts and Administration of Justice
Judicial authority
165.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Judicial system
166.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Constitutional Court
167.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(4)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(5)
(6)
(a)
(b)
(7)
Supreme Court of Appeal
168.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(c)
High Courts
169.
(a)
(i)
(ii)
(b)
Magistrates’ Courts and other courts
170.
Court procedures
171.
Powers of courts in constitutional matters
172.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Inherent power
173.
to develop the common law, taking into account the interests of justice.
Appointment of judicial officers
174.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Acting judges
175.
(1)
(2)
Terms of office and remuneration
176.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Removal
177.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
Judicial Service Commission
178.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Prosecuting authority
179.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(4)
(5)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(6)
(7)
Other matters concerning administration of justice
180.
(a)
(b)
(c)