In later years Josephus Daniels was to claim that World War 1, was the first in American history in which there was great concern for both the health and morals of our soldiers.

He claims that he was denied due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment, because ( 1 ) at a hearing before a hearing officer of the Department of Justice, he was not permitted to rebut statements attributed to him by the local board, and ( 2 ) at the trial, he was denied the right to have the hearing officer's report and the original report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as to his claim.

He says that he was not permitted to rebut before the hearing officer statements attributed to him by the local board, and, further, that he was denied at trial the right to have the Department of Justice hearing officer's report and the original report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as to his claim -- all in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

His claim was therefore `` so highly exaggerated '', the Department concluded, that it `` cast doubt upon his veracity and, consequently, upon his sincerity and good faith ''.

In his answer thereto, he advised the Board that he had made no such statement in 1956, and asserted that his only claim to `` pioneering '' was in 1952.

But the statement of the local board attributing this claim to petitioner was in his file.

Having had every opportunity to rebut the finding of the local board before both the hearing officer and the appeal board, petitioner cannot now claim that he was denied due process because he did not succeed.

While there are now allegations of the withholding of `` favorable evidence developed at the hearing '' and a denial of a `` full and fair hearing '', no such claim was made by petitioner at any stage of the administrative process.

He did receive a resume of it -- the same that was furnished the appeal board -- and he made no claim of its inaccuracy.

The Court said the purpose of the section was principally to spare the Government the embarrassment and trouble of dealing with several parties, one of them a stranger to the claim, and to prevent traffic in claims, particularly tenuous claims, against the Government.

A recent case in point is Mitchell Canneries v. United States, in which a claim against the Government was transferred first from a corporation to a partnership, whose partners were former stockholders, and then to another corporation formed by the partners.

Revenue Ruling 54-17 provides that if the corporation against which a tax was assessed has since been liquidated by merger with a successor corporation, a claim for refund should be filed by the successor in the name and on behalf of the corporation which paid the tax, followed by the name of the successor corporation.

In rejecting any claim to the value of the slave property, Palfrey was giving up close to $7,000.

He was also pleased with the wide distribution because he thought it proved again his argument that Dallas investment men can do just as good a job as the big New York investment bankers claim only they can do.

The Revenue Service disallowed the claim, invoking a law provision that generally bars deductions for expenses incurred in connection with what it said was tax-exempt income.

Because constitutional claims are of great magnitude, appellate courts might be more lenient to review the claim even if it was not preserved.

At the time, in the 1890s, the issue of land ownership in Ireland was politically charged, and after the events at the Valley House in 1894 Lynchehaun was to claim that his actions were motivated by politics.

It has been maintained that the right to wear mitres was sometimes granted by the popes to abbots before the 11th century, but the documents on which this claim is based are not genuine ( J. Braun, Liturgische Gewandung, p. 453 ).

Other sources, such as Iphigenia at Aulis, claim that Agamemnon was prepared to kill his daughter, but that Artemis accepted a deer in her place, and whisked her away to Taurus in Crimea.

In particular, we cannot in general claim that " P or not P " is true ( the law of Excluded Middle ), since in some cases we may not be able to prove the statement " P " nor prove the statement " not P ".

* The case n = 1 can be illustrated by the claim that there always exist a pair of opposite points on the earth's equator with the same temperature, this can be shown to be true much more easily using the intermediate value theorem.

David Kusche pointed out a common problem with many of the Bermuda Triangle stories and theories: " Say I claim that a parrot has been kidnapped to teach aliens human language and I challenge you to prove that is not true.

To illustrate, consider the claim " John went to a ballgame "; if true, then we must ontologically account for every entity in the sentence.

For example, he refutes the claim made by Latsis that only 22 executions were carried out in the first six months of the Cheka's existence by providing evidence that the true number was 884 executions.

Some of them claim to be the one true Catholic Church from which, in their view, other Christians, including those in communion with the Pope, have fallen away.

However, in reality this also would not be true, because of the aforementioned standard of which the claim can be made, making every Vice President an Acting President.

The same is true for Thomas Aquinas, Christian Wolff and Immanuel Kant, who claim that there are duties to ourselves as Aristotle did, although it has been argued that, for Aristotle, the duty to one's self is primary.

A possible defeater or overriding proposition for such a claim could be a true proposition like, " Tom Grabit's identical twin Sam is currently in the same town as Tom.

Non-cognitivism is the claim that when we judge something as right or wrong, this is neither true nor false.

* To claim that a thing remains another is to assert that a relationship exists in the present that was also true in the past, without reference to the future at all — it can be disproved by reference to history or memory.

A controversial claim of the frequentist approach is that in the " long run ," as the number of trials approaches infinity, the relative frequency will converge exactly to the true probability:

Gérard has not produced the manuscript supporting this claim which, even if true, is unrelated to the later history of the French fry, as the potato did not arrive in the region until around 1735 ; also, given the economic conditions of the 18th century: " it is absolutely unthinkable that a peasant could have consecrated large quantities of fat for cooking potatoes.

A disclaimer before the 1996 film Fargo makes the claim that it is based on a true story, but this was repudiated by its creators, the Coen brothers, saying that people would more readily believe something outlandish if told that it actually happened, per the " truth is stranger than fiction " idiom.

However, BBC books such as The Infinity Doctors and Unnatural History imply that the Doctor's origin is complex and that every version is somehow " true " ( such as Susan's claim in the original version of An Unearthly Child that she was born in the 49th century ).

Some authorities claim he was the inspiration for Johnston McCulley's Zorro, though the extent to which this may be true is disputed.

However, their claim may or may not be true.

Isaiah Berlin considers Marx the true founder of modern sociology, " in so far as anyone can claim the title.

This response to the paradox is, in effect, the rejection of the claim that every statement has to be either true or false, also known as the principle of bivalence, a concept related to the law of the excluded middle.

The Lollards stated that the Catholic Church had been corrupted by temporal matters and that its claim to be the true church was not justified by its heredity.

The second premise is that P, the antecedent of the conditional claim, is true.

From these two premises it can be logically concluded that Q, the consequent of the conditional claim, must be true as well.

A noncognitivist denies the cognitivist claim that " moral judgments are capable of being objectively true, because they describe some feature of the world.

Emotivists claim that this is all she does, that " Killing is wrong " is not a truth-apt declaration, and that the burden of evidence is on the cognitivists who want to show that in addition to expressing disapproval, the claim " Killing is wrong " is also true.