OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Executive Order 909

more info.
Signed by President Theodore Roosevelt Thursday, July 2, 1908
It is hereby ordered that on and after July 1, 1908, the land within the boundary shown on the attached diagram, heretofore set apart, reserved, and proclaimed as a part of the Grand Canyon National Forest, shall be known as the Kaibab National Forest. The remaining portion of the Grand Canyon National Forest, with the exception of the area indicated as eliminated on Part Two of the diagram of the Coconino National Forest, shall remain reserved and constitute a part of the Coconino National Forest. It is not intended by this order to modify the proclamations hertofore issued establishing the Grand Canyon National Game Preserve and the Grand Canyon National Monument, both of which include land embraced in the boundaries of such Kaibab National Forest. It is not intended by this order to release any land from reservation or to reserve any land not heretofore embraced in a National Forest.
The White House,
       July 2, 1908.

## Notes
### Amends (in part)

* Proclamation 349, February 20, 1893 (27 Stat. L., 1064)

### Amended by

* Proclamation 1079, August 23, 1910 (36 Stat. L., 2737)
* Proclamation 1238, May 19, 1913 (38 Stat. L., 1941)
* Executive Order 3972, March 18, 1924
* Executive Order 6806, August 4, 1934

### See related

* Proclamation 818, July 1, 1908 (35 Stat. L., 2196)
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
# Executive Order 910

more info.
Signed by President Theodore Roosevelt Thursday, July 2, 1908
1908 CSR 134
Mr. Joe M. Johnson may be reinstated in the Government Printing Office without regard to the length of his separation therefrom.
The White House,
    July 2, 1908.
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
# Executive Order 9075

more info.
See the Notes section for a list of Executive Orders affected by or related to the issuance of this Executive Order.
Signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt Thursday, February 26, 1942
Federal Register page & date: 7 FR 1587, Saturday, February 28, 1942
By virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, it is ordered as follows:
* The Secretary of War is hereby authorized and directed to issue a citation in the name of the President of the United States, as public evidence of deserved honor and distinction, to any organization, unit, detachment, or installation of the Army of the United States or the Army of the Philippine Commonwealth for outstanding performance of duty in action on or after December 7, 1941.
* An appropriate streamer, emblem, or guidon band, of such form and design as may be determined by the Secretary of War, may be displayed by the organization, unit, detachment, or installation described above, to which such citation is issued.
* After any organization, unit, detachment, or installation of the Army of the United States or the Army of the Philippine Commonwealth is so cited on two or more separate occasions for outstanding performance of duty in action occurring on or after December 7, 1941, a suitable device identifying such citations shall be issued to all officers and enlisted men who are assigned or attached as members of such organization, the device to become a part of the uniform of that organization; and any individual who was assigned or attached as member of such organization on one of the two or more occasions for which citations were issued as provided herein, shall be entitled to wear the individual device, as a part of the uniform, at all times and wherever serving.

## Notes
### Superseded by

* Executive Order 9396, November 22, 1943

### See Related

* Executive Order 10694, January 10, 1957
* Transfer Order 30 of the Secretary of Defense dated December 10, 1948 (13 FR 8163)
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
# Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego/end matter

Layout 2
THE INTERNATIONAL PSYCHO-ANALYTICAL LIBRARY Edited by ERNEST JONES :
| No. 1. | ADDRESSES ON PSYCHO-ANALYSIS. ByJ. J. Putnam, M.D. Emeritus Professor of Neurology, Harvard University. With a Preface by Sigm. Freud, M.D., LL.D. |
| No. 2. | PSYCHO-ANALYSIS AND THE WAR NEUROSES. By Drs. S. Ferenczi (Budapest), Karl Abraham (Berlin), Ernst Simmel (Berlin) and Ernest Jones (London). Introduction by Prof. Sigm. Freud (Vienna). |
| No. 3. | THE PSYCHO-ANALYTIC STUDY OF THE FAMILY. By J. C. Flügel, B.A. |
| No. 4. | BEYOND THE PLEASURE PRINCIPLE. By Sigm. Freud M.D., LL.D. Authorized Translation from the second German Edition by C. J. M. Hubback. |
| No. 5. | ESSAYS IN APPLIED PSYCHO-ANALYSIS. By Ernest Jones M.D. President of the International Psycho -Analytical Association. |
| No. 6. | GROUP PSYCHOLOGY AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE EGO. By Sigm. Freud M.D., LL.D. Authorized Translation by James Strachey. |
| THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHO-ANALYSIS Directed by Sigm. Freud Official Organ of the INTERNATIONAL PSYCHO -ANALYTICAL ASSOCIATION Edited by Ernest Jones President of the Association With the Assistance of DOUGLAS BRYAN, J. C. FLÜGEL (London) A. A. BRILL, H. W. FRINK, C. P. OBERNDORF (New York) Issued Quarterly Subscription 30s. per Volume of Four Parts (c. 500 pp.) the parts not being sold separately. ||
| THE INTERNATIONAL PSYCHO -ANALYTICAL PRESS ||
# Grove Press, Inc. v. Gerstein

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
378 U.S. 577
Grove Press, Inc. v. Gerstein
Edward de Grazia and Richard Yale Feder, for petitioner.
James W. Kynes, Atty. Gen. of Florida, Leonard R. Mellon, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Glenn C. Mincer, for respondents.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida.
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
# Grove Press, Inc. v. Maryland State Board of Censors

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
401 U.S. 480
Grove Press, Inc., et al. v. Maryland State Board of Censors
Appeal from the Court of Appeals of Maryland
No. 63. Argued: November 10, 1970 --- Decided: March 8, 1971
255 Md. 297, 258 A. 2d 140, affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Edward de Grazia argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were Nathan Lewin, Arnold M. Weiner, and Alan M. Dershowitz.
Francis B. Burch, Attorney General of Maryland, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief was Thomas N. Biddison, Jr., Assistant Attorney General.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Felix J. Bilgrey for the International Film Importers & Distributors of America, Inc.; by Louis Nizer for the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.; by Leon Friedman and Lester Pollack for the National Association of Theater Owners, Inc., and by Stanley Fleishman and Sam Rosenwein for the Adult Film Association of America, Inc.
Francis J. Rudolph filed a brief for Morality in Media, Inc., as amicus curiae, urging affirmance.
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
# Grove Press, Inc. v. Gerstein/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
378 U.S. 577
Grove Press, Inc. v. Gerstein
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment is reversed. Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice DOUGLAS would reverse for the reasons stated in the opinion of MR. JUSTICE BLACK in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 196, 84 S.Ct. 1682. Mr. Justice BRENNAN and Mr. Justice GOLDBERG would reverse for the reasons stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan in Jacobellis, 378 U.S. 184, 84 S.Ct. 1677. Mr. Justice STEWART would reverse for the reasons stated in his opinion in Jacobellis, 378 U.S. 197, 84 S.Ct. 1683. THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice CLARK, Mr. Justice HARLAN, and Mr. Justice WHITE are of the opinion that certiorari should be denied.

## 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
# Group of Institutional Investors v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, & Pacific Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
318 U.S. 523
Group of Institutional Investors v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, & Pacific Railroad Company
Argued: Oct. 14, 15, 1942. --- Decided: March 15, 1943
See Group of Institutional Investors v. Abrams,
318 U.S. 802, 63 S.Ct. 980, 87 L.Ed. --.
[Syllabus from pages 523-527 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Kenneth F. Burgess, of Chicago, Ill., for Group of Institutional Investors.
Mr. A. N. Whitlock, of Chicago, Ill., for Henry A. Scandrett, et al., Trustees for Chicago, M., St. P. and P.R. Co.
Mr. Fred N. Oliver, of New York City, for Mutual Sav. Bank Group.
Mr. Russell L. Snodgrass, of Washington, D.C., for Reconstruction Finance Corporation.
Mr. John L. Hall, of Boston, Mass., for Chicago, M., St. P. and P.R. Co., debtor.
Mr. Albert K. Orschel, of Chicago, Ill., for Protective Committee of Holders of Preferred Stock of Chicago, M., St. P. and P.R. Co.
Mr. McCready Sykes, of New York City, for United States Trust Co. of New York, trustee.
Mr. Frederick J. Moses, of New York City, for University Group of General Mortgage Bondholders.
Mr. Edwin S. S. Sunderland, of New York City, for Fifty Year Mortgage Trustees.
Mr. C. Frank Reavis, of New York City, for Protective Committee of Fifty Year Mortgage Bonds.
Mr. Meyer Abrams, of Chicago, Ill., for Adjustment Mortgage Bondholders.
Mr. Thomas S. McPheeters, of St. Louis, Mo., for Gary First Mortgage Group.
Mr. Reese D. Alsop, of New York City, for Chicago, Terre Haute and Southeastern Ry. Co., First Lien Bondholders Committee.
Mr. Ernest S. Ballard, of Chicago, Ill., for Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. et al.
[Argument of Counsel from Page 528 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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
# First Security National Bank Trust Company v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
382 U.S. 34
First Security National Bank Trust Company v. United States
In United States v. First National Bank, 376 U.S. 665, 84 S.Ct. 1033, 12 L.Ed.2d 1, this Court held that the merger of First National Bank and Trust Co. of Lexington, Kentucky, with Security Trust Co. of Lexington to form First Security National Bank and Trust Co. violated § 1 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. § 1. The Court's judgment remanded the case to the District Court 'for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of this Court.' Thereafter, on July 1, 1964, the District Court ordered the parties 'to report to the court the progress made in complying with the judgment' of the Supreme Court. On application of the parties, the reporting date was thrice postponed to permit negotiations between First Security and the Government concerning an appropriate plan of divestiture. When, on the final date for reporting, February 16, 1965, the parties jointly presented only a proposed interlocutory decree providing that the detailed plan for divestiture would be submitted within six months, the District Court held First Security, its executive officers and directors in contempt. Although there is some indication that the District Court was dissatisfied with the compliance of the bank with the District Court's order of July 1, 1964, the contempt judgment itself was entered because the delay in submitting a final plan of divestiture was a failure 'to comply with the mandate of the Supreme Court * * *.' The court imposed a fine of $100 per day until the contempt had been purged by 'full compliance with the mandate of the Supreme Court.'
The District Judge's interpretation of this Court's judgment was erroneous. We remanded the case for further proceedings in the District Court consistent with this Court's opinion. Neither the opinion nor the judgment of this Court expressly dealt with the matter of remedy and neither ordered divestiture within any particular period of time. Compare United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 376 U.S. 651, 662, 84 S.Ct. 1044, 1050, 12 L.Ed.2d 12 (decided the same day as the prior appeal in this case and directing the District Court to order divestiture without delay). No order of divestiture was entered in the District Court until March 18, 1965, a month after the bank had been held in contempt. The District Court has the authority to require obedience and to punish disobedience of its lawful orders and decrees, 18 U.S.C. § 401, but this record reveals nothing the bank did or failed to do which violated the judgment of this Court. The judgment holding the bank, its executive officers and directors in contempt is reversed.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice FORTAS 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
# First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. County of Los Angeles

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Burton

## Dissenting Opinion

    Clark
United States Supreme Court
357 U.S. 545
First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. County of Los Angeles
Argued: April 8, 1958. --- Decided: June 30, 1958
Mr. A. L. Wirin, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners.
Mr. Gordon Boller, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondents.
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
# First Security National Bank Trust Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
382 U.S. 34
First Security National Bank Trust Company v. United States
Paul A. Porter and Victor H. Kramer, for appellants.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Turner and Lionel Kestenbaum, 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
# Hannibal St. v. Missouri River Packet

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
125 U.S. 260
Hannibal St. v. Missouri River Packet
Wirt Dexter and John J. Herrick, for plaintiff in error.
John C. Gage and Sanford B. Ladd, for defendant in error.
LAMAR, 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
# Hannibal Bridge Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
221 U.S. 194
Hannibal Bridge Company v. United States
Argued: April 17, 1911. --- Decided: May 15, 1911
Messrs. Wells H. Blodgett, R. Burnham Moffat, James L. Minnis, and George A. Mahan for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 195-197 intentionally omitted]
Assistant Attorney General Harr for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 197-199 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Harlan 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
# Hannibal v. Fauntleroy

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
105 U.S. 408
Hannibal v. Fauntleroy
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Chester H. Krum, with whom was Mr. J. M. Krum, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. James Grant for the defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS 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
# Foreign Economic Espionage in Cyberspace/Software Supply Chain Operations
## Software Supply Chain OperationsSoftware Supply Chain Operations

Last year represented a watershed in the reporting of software supply chain operations. In 2017, seven significant events were reported in the public domain compared to only four between 2014 and 2016. As the number of events grows, so too are the potential impacts. Hackers are clearly targeting software supply chains to achieve a range of potential effects to include cyber espionage, organizational disruption, or demonstrable financial impact:
* Floxif infected 2.2 million worldwide CCleaner customers with a backdoor. The hackers specifically targeted 18 companies and infected 40 computers to conduct espionage to gain access to Samsung, Sony, Asus, Intel, VMWare, O2, Singtel, Gauselmann, Dyn, Chunghwa and Fujitsu.
* Hackers corrupted software distributed by the South Korea-based firm Netsarang, which sells enterprise and network management tools. The backdoor enabled downloading of further malware or theft of information from hundreds of companies in energy, financial services, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, and transportation industries.
* A tweaked version of M.E. Doc was infected with a backdoor to permit the delivery of software from the Ukrainian accounting firm a destructive payload disguised as ransomware. This attack, which was attributed to Russia, paralyzed networks worldwide, shutting down or affecting operations of banks, companies, transportation, and utilities. The cost of this attack to FedEx and Maersk was approximately $300 million each.
* A malware operation dubbed Kingslayer, targeted system administrator accounts associated with U.S. firms to steal credentials in order to breach the system and replace the legitimate application and updates with a malware version containing an embedded backdoor. Although it is not known which and how many firms were ultimately infected, at least one U.S. defense contractor was targeted and compromised.
# III. Emerging ThreatsIII. Emerging Threats

A range of other potentially disruptive threats warrant attention. Software supply chain infiltration has already threatened the critical infrastructure sector and could threaten other sectors as well. Meanwhile, new foreign laws and increased risks posed by foreign technology companies due to their ties to host governments, may present U.S. companies with previously unforeseen threats.
Cyber threats will continue to evolve with technological advances in the global information environment. The following are emerging areas of concern that are likely to disrupt security procedures and expand the opportunities for collection of sensitive U.S. economic and technology information.
# Foreign Economic Espionage in Cyberspace/Targeted Technologies
## Targeted TechnologiesTargeted Technologies

Although many aspects of U.S. economic activity and technology are of potential interest to foreign intelligence collectors, we judge that the highest interest is in the following areas:
| Industry | Priority Sectors / Technologies |
| Energy / Alternative Energy | Advanced pressurized water reactor and high-temperature, gas-cooled nuclear power stations Biofuels Energy-efficient industries Oil, gas, and coalbed methane development, including fracking Smart grids Solar energy technology Wind turbines |
| Biotechnology | Advanced medical devices Biomanufacturing and chemical manufacturing Biomaterials Biopharmaceuticals Genetically modified organisms Infectious disease treatment New vaccines and drugs |
| Defense Technology | Aerospace & Aeronautic Systems Armaments Marine Systems Radar Optics |
| Environmental Protection | Batteries Energy-efficient appliances Green building materials Hybrid and electric cars Waste management Water/air pollution control |
| High-End Manufacturing | 3D printing Advanced robotics Aircraft engines Aviation maintenance and service sectors Civilian aircraft Electric motors Foundational manufacturing equipment High-end computer numerically controlled machines High-performance composite materials High-performance sealing materials Integrated circuit manufacturing equipment and assembly technology Space infrastructure and exploration technology Synthetic rubber |
| Information and Communications Technology | Artificial intelligence Big data analysis Core electronics industries E-commerce services Foundational software products High-end computer chips Internet of Things Network equipment Next-generation broadband wireless communications networks Quantum computing and communications Rare-earth materials |
# II. Threats from Foreign CountriesII. Threats from Foreign Countries

Foreign intelligence services—and threat actors working on their behalf—continue to represent the most persistent and pervasive cyber intelligence threat. China, Russia, and Iran stand out as three of the most capable and active cyber actors tied to economic espionage and the potential theft of U.S. trade secrets and proprietary information. Countries with closer ties to the United States have also conducted cyber espionage to obtain U.S. technology. Despite advances in cybersecurity, cyber espionage continues to offer threat actors a relatively low-cost, high-yield avenue of approach to a wide spectrum of intellectual property.
We anticipate that China, Russia, and Iran will remain aggressive and capable collectors of sensitive U.S. economic information and technologies, particularly in cyberspace. All will almost certainly continue to deploy significant resources and a wide array of tactics to acquire intellectual property and proprietary information.
Countries with closer ties to the United States have conducted cyber espionage and other forms of intelligence collection to obtain U.S. technology, intellectual property, trade secrets, and proprietary information. U.S. allies or partners often take advantage of the access they enjoy to collect sensitive military and civilian technologies and to acquire know-how in priority sectors.
# Harmonium (Stevens)/Of the Manner of Addressing Clouds

Of the Manner of Addressing Clouds
# Harmonium (Stevens)/Of the Surface of Things

Of the Surface of Things
# Harmonium (Stevens)/Nomad Exquisite

Nomad Exquisite
# Harmonium (Stevens)/Of Heaven Considered as a Tomb

Of Heaven Considered as a Tomb
# Harmonium (Stevens)/Life is Motion

Life Is Motion
In Oklahoma,
Bonnie and Josie,
Dressed in calico,
Danced around a stump.
They cried,
"Ohoyaho,
Ohoo" . . . Celebrating the marriage
Of flesh and air.
# Harmonium (Stevens)/Nuances of a Theme by Williams

Nuances of a Theme by Williams
# Harmonium (Stevens)/Metaphors of a Magnifico

Metaphors of a Magnifico
# Harmonium (Stevens)/O, Florida, Venereal Soil

O, Florida, Venereal Soil