Answer:
SUMMARY The two great Bible teachings are the law, which tells us what we should and should not do, and the gospel, which tells us what God has done for us.
Explanation:
A accuracy is the answer ( ´ ▽ ` )
Answer Explanation:
Attorneys finds it more convenient to advocate for prosecutors or the police whom are believed to be upholding law and order in the society but may find it difficult to defend a guilty person against serious charges. But it is worthy to note that the failure of these attorneys to advocate for both parties can permit the law enforcement to trample on the liberty of anyone and everyone, even those that may be innocent.
The best explanation for Donald's experience is Paris French is a kind of cultural capital that helps open doors to opportunity.
<h3>What is a cultural capital?</h3>
This is a term that is used to describe the social assets that a person has. The cultural capital of a person has to do with all of the following
- Their education
- Their intellect
- How they speak
- How they dress
Donald does not have the ability to speak the same way with these people yet due to difference in his kind of French.
Read more on cultural capital here:
brainly.com/question/5923187
Answer: Ultramares corporation v. Touche established Ultramares doctrine. Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that scienter is required before CPAs can be held liable.
Explanation:
All the options except the above are true. Ultramares corporation v. Touche did establish the Ultramares doctrine.
United States v. Natelli sentenced two CPAs to prison for a year, in addition to fines, for violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Bily v. Arthur Young did not uphold the restatement doctrine. The restatement doctrine restatement doctrine makes an auditor liable to people who rely on the quality of his work be they his clients or third parties. Two high courts ruled that auditors are not liable to third parties who use their work but only to the party that contracted their work.
However, Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that an allegation of scienter (an intention to deceive) is not required before CPAs can be held liable as long as the actions constitute actual deception.
While rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act states the presence of scienter as a requirement to commit an offense, the court ruled against the statute by eliminating the Scienter clause from criminal statute and ruled against Ernst & Ernst.
