OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Sozomen/Book III/Chapter 22

Chapter XXII.—Epistle written by the Synod of Jerusalem in Favor of Athanasius.
“The holy Synod assembled at Jerusalem, to the presbyters, deacons, and people of Egypt, Libya, and Alexandria, our beloved and most cherished brethren, greeting in the Lord.
“We can never, O beloved, return adequate thanks to God, the Creator of all things, for the wonderful works he has now accomplished, particularly for the blessings He has conferred on your churches by the restoration of Athanasius, your shepherd and lord, and our fellow-minister. Who could have hoped to have ever seen this with his eyes, which now you are realizing in deed? But truly your prayers have been heard by the God of the universe who is concerned for His Church, and who has regarded your tears and complaint, and on this account has heard your requests. For you were scattered abroad and rent like sheep without a pastor. Therefore, the true Shepherd, who from heaven watched over you, and who is concerned for His own sheep, has restored to you him whom you desired. Behold, we do all things for the peace of the Church, and are influenced by love like yours. Therefore we received and embraced your pastor, and, having held communion with you through him, we dispatch this address and our eucharistic prayers that you may know how we are united by the bond of love to him and you. It is right that you should pray for the piety of the emperors most beloved of God, who having recognized your desire about him and his purity determined to restore him to you with every honor. Receive him, then, with uplifted hands, and be zealous to send aloft the requisite eucharistic prayers in his behalf to the God who has conferred these benefits upon you; and may you ever rejoice with God, and glorify the Lord in Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom be glory to the Father throughout all ages. Amen.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ From Athan. Apol. cont. Arian. 57, where also the names of the subscribers are given.
# Norton to Participate in Hearing Featuring Woman Who Was Barred from Testifying at Last Week's Contraception Hearing

Source: Norton to Participate in Hearing Featuring Woman Who Was Barred from Testifying at Last Week's Contraception Hearing. February 22, 2012. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. norton.house.gov
Norton to Participate in Hearing Featuring Woman Who Was Barred from Testifying at Last Week's Contraception Hearing
HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON
OF WASHINGTON, D.C. MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 22, 2012
Norton to Participate in Hearing Featuring Woman Who Was Barred from Testifying at Last Week's Contraception Hearing
WASHINGTON, DC – Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), who last week cited committee rules in an attempt to hear testimony from the proposed Democratic witness at a contraceptive hearing, will get to hear that witness tomorrow. She will participate in a House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee hearing to give Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student who was barred from testifying at last week’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on President Barack Obama’s compromise on contraception coverage, a chance to give the testimony she had prepared for that hearing. The hearing will take place tomorrow, February 23, 2012 at 10 a.m. in 234 Cannon House Office Building, and will be attended by Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and other members of the House Democratic Caucus.
“Sandra was ready to go last week as the Democrats’ only witness in what was going to be a lopsided hearing anyway, but the committee would not let her tell her compelling story,” Norton said. “It is a story the country needs to hear.”
Published: February 22, 2012
____________________
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
# Norton Company v. Department of Revenue of Illinois

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Reed

## Dissenting Opinions

    Reed
    Clark
United States Supreme Court
340 U.S. 534
Norton Company v. Department of Revenue of Illinois
Argued: Dec. 6, 1950. --- Decided: Feb 26, 1951
See 99 N.E.2d 346.
Mr. Joseph B. Brennan, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. William C. Wines, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Mr. Justice JACKSON 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
# Northwestern Union Packet Company v. Home Insurance Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
154 U.S. 588
Northwestern Union Packet Company v. Home Insurance Company
On looking at the record we find no allowance of a writ of error, either by a justice of this court or by a judge of the state court. We have repeatedly decided that such an allowance was necessary, upon a writ of error addressed to the highest court of the state, by which the judgment or decree could be rendered. Callan v. May, 2 Black, 541, 543; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321; Gleason v. Florida, 9 Wall. 779. The case of Davidson v. Lanier, 4 Wall. 447, 453, referred to by counsel for the plaintiff in error, was a writ of error addressed to an inferior court of the United States, and is therefore inapplicable.
The writ before us must be dismissed.

## 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
# Norton/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
108 U.S. 237
Norton
casion at the present term, in Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 1 SUP. CT. REP. 15; Grant v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. Id. 414; and St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Southern Exp. Co., ante, 6, to state the rule applicable to the determination of the question here involved, and we there say: 'A decree is final for the purpose of an appeal * * * when it terminates the litigation between the parties, and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined.' Under this rule, we think, this appeal was well taken. The decree settled every question in dispute between the parties, and left nothing to be done but to complete the sale under the proceedings in the state court for foreclosure, and hand over to Norton any surplus of the proceeds there might be after satisfying the debt due Frellsen, as stated in the process under which the sale was made. The case stands precisely as it would if Frellsen were proceeding in the district court for the foreclosure of his mortgage, and a decree had been entered establishing his rights, ascertaining the amount due to him, and ordering a sale of the property and the payment to Norton of the surplus after discharging the mortgage debt. Here the bill was filed by Norton to set aside the proceedings for foreclosure and obtain a conveyance of the mortgaged property. The court refused to set aside the proceedings or to order a conveyance, but did order the sale to go on, and that the proceeds, after the mortgage was satisfied, be paid to Norton. It adjudged the case on the merits in favor of Frellsen as against Norton, and in favor of Norton as against Hood. The bill was not dismissed in form because it asked relief both as against Frellsen and Hood, and relief was granted as against Hood. It was in legal effect dismissed as to Frellsen when the decree was entered in his favor on all the questions in which he was interested.
The writ of mandamus asked for is granted, but without costs.

## 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
# Norton Company v. Department of Revenue of Illinois/Dissent Clark

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Reed
* Dissenting Opinions Reed Clark
United States Supreme Court
340 U.S. 534
Norton Company v. Department of Revenue of Illinois
Argued: Dec. 6, 1950. --- Decided: Feb 26, 1951
Mr. Justice CLARK, dissenting in part.
I believe the respondent reasonably attributed all of the proceeds of petitioner's sales in Illinois to the company's local activities. I therefore agree with the Illinois Supreme Court that under the circumstances shipments sent directly to Illinois customers on orders sent directly to Worcester were subject to the tax.
As the Court points out, petitioner can avoid taxation on its direct sales only 'by showing that * * * (they) are dissociated from the local business and (are) interstate in nature. The general rule, applicable here, is that a taxpayer claiming immunity from a tax has the burden of establishing his exemption.' Petitioner has failed to meet this burden. In fact Illinois has shown that petitioner's Chicago office is its only source of customer relationship in Illinois; that the Chicago office provides the sole means through which petitioner can be reached with process by Illinois courts in the event a customer is aggrieved; that the local office affords service to machines after sale, as well as replacement of machines which are defective; that it stands ready to receive complaints and to offer engineering and technical advice; and that these multitudinous activities give to petitioner a local character which is most helpful in all its Illinois operations. Surely the Court's conclusion, that 'Petitioner has not established that such services as were rendered by the Chicago office were not decisive factors in establishing and holding this market', applies with equal validity to the direct sales.
In maintaining a local establishment of such magnitude, petitioner has adopted the label of home-town merchant. After it has received the manifold advantages of that label, we should not give our sanction to its claim made at taxpaying time that with respect to direct sales it is only an itinerant drummer. For the foregoing and other reasons which need not be stated, I would affirm in its entirety the judgment below.
Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice DOUGLAS join in this opinion.

## 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
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Fourth Ecumenical Council/Extracts from the Acts 6

Extracts from the Acts.
Session IV.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 469.)
The most magnificent and glorious judges and the great Senate said:
Let the reverend council now declare what seems good concerning the faith, since those things which have already been disposed of have been made manifest. Paschasinus and Lucentius, the most reverend bishops, and Boniface the most reverend presbyter, legates of the Apostolic See through that most reverend man, bishop Paschasinus said: As the holy and blessed and Ecumenical Synod holds fast and follows the rule of faith (fidei regulam in the Latin Acts) which was set forth by the fathers at Nice, it also confirms the faith set forth by the Synod of 150 fathers gathered at Constantinople at the bidding of the great Theodosius of blessed memory. Moreover the exposition of their faith, of the illustrious Cyril of blessed memory set forth at the Council of Ephesus (in which Nestorius was condemned) is received. And in the third place the writings of that blessed man, Leo, Archbishop of all the churches, who condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, shew what the true faith is. Likewise the holy Synod holds this faith, this it follows—nothing further can it add nor can it take aught away.
When this had been translated into Greek by Beronician, the devout secretary of the divine consistory, the most reverend bishops cried out: So we all believe, so we were baptized, so we baptize, so we have believed, so we now believe.
The most glorious judges and the great senate said: Since we see that the Holy Gospels have been placed alongside of your holiness, let each one of the bishops here assembled declare whether the epistle of most blessed archbishop Leo is in accordance with the exposition of the 318 fathers assembled at Nice and with the decrees of the 150 fathers afterwards assembled in the royal city.
[To this question the bishops answered one by one, until 161 separate opinions had been given, when the rest of the bishops were asked by the imperial judges to give their votes in a body (col. 508).]
All the most reverend bishops cried out: We all acquiesce, we all believe thus; we are all of the same mind. So are we minded, so we believe, etc., etc.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Fourth Ecumenical Council/Extracts from the Acts 7

Session V.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 555.)
Paschasinus and Lucentius the most reverend bishops and Boniface a presbyter, vicars of the Apostolic See of Rome, said:  If they do not agree to the letter of that apostolic and blessed man, Pope Leo, give directions that we be given our letters of dismission, and let a synod be held there [i.e. in the West].
[A long debate then followed as to whether the decree drawn up and presented should be accepted. This seems to have been the mind of most of the bishops. At last the commissioners proposed a committee of twenty-two to meet with them and report to the council, and the Emperor imposed this with the threat that otherwise they all should be sent home and a new council called in the West. Even this did not make them yield (col. 560.)]
The most reverend bishops cried out: Many years to the Emperor! Either let the definition [i.e. the one presented at this session] stand or we go. Many years to the Emperor!
Cecropius, the most reverend bishop of Sebastopol, said: We ask that the definition be read again and that those who dissent from it, and will not sign, may go about their business; for we give our consent to these things which have been so beautifully drafted, and make no criticisms.
The most blessed bishops of Illyria said: Let those who contradict be made manifest. Those who contradict are Nestorians. Those who contradict, let them go to Rome.
The most magnificent and most glorious judges said: Dioscorus acknowledged that he accepted the expression “of two natures,” but not that there were two natures. But the most holy archbishop Leo says that there are two natures in Christ unchangeably, inseparably, unconfusedly united in the one only-begotten Son our Saviour. Which would you follow, the most holy Leo or Dioscorus?
The most reverend bishops cried out: We believe as Leo. Those who contradict are Eutychians. Leo hath rightly expounded the faith.
The most magnificent and glorious judges said: Add then to the definition, according to the judgment of our most holy father Leo, that there are two natures in Christ united unchangeably, inseparably, unconfusedly.
[The Committee then sat in the oratory of the most holy martyr Euphemis and afterwards reported a definition of faith which while teaching the same doctrine was not the Tome of Leo (col. 562).]
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Fourth Ecumenical Council/Extracts from the Acts 8

Extracts from the Acts.
Session VI.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 611.)
[The Emperor was present in person and addressed the Council and afterwards suggested legislation under three heads, the drafts for which were read.]
After this reading, the capitulas were handed by our most sacred and pious prince to the most beloved of God Anatolius, archbishop of royal Constantinople, which is New Rome, and all the most God-beloved bishops cried out: Many years to our Emperor and Empress, the pious, the Christian. May Christ whom thou servest keep thee. These things are worthy of the faith. To the Priest, the Emperor. Thou hast straightened out the churches, victor of thine enemies, teacher of the faith. Many years to the pious Empress, the lover of Christ. Many years to her that is orthodox. May God save your kingdom. Ye have put down the heretics, ye have kept the faith. May hatred be far removed from your empire, and may your kingdom endure for ever!
Our most sacred and pious prince said to the holy synod: To the honour of the holy martyr Euphemia, and of your holiness, we decree that the city of Chalcedon, in which the synod of the holy faith has been held, shall have the honours of a metropolis, in name only giving it this honour, the proper dignity of the city of Nicomedia being preserved.
All cried out, etc., etc.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Fourth Ecumenical Council/The Decree with Regard to the Bishop of Ephesus

The Decree with Regard to the Bishop of Ephesus.
Session XII.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 706.)
The most glorious judges said: Since the proposition of the God-beloved archbishop of royal Constantinople, Anatolius, and of the most reverend bishop Paschasinus, holding the place of Leo, the most God-beloved archbishop of old Rome, which orders that because both of them [i.e., Bassianus and Stephen] acted uncanonically, neither of them should rule, nor be called bishop of the most holy church of Ephesus, and since the whole holy synod taught that uncanonically they had performed these ordinations, and had agreed with the speeches of the most reverend bishops; the most reverend Bassianus and the most reverend Stephen will be removed from the holy church of Ephesus; but they shall enjoy the episcopal dignity, and from the revenues of the before-mentioned most holy church, for their nourishment and consolation, they shall receive each year two hundred gold pieces; and another bishop shall be ordained according to the canons for the most holy church.
And the whole holy synod cried out: This is a just sentence. This is a pious scheme. These things are fair to look upon.
The most reverend bishop Bassianus said: Pray give order that what was stolen from me be restored.
The most glorious judges said: If anything belonging to the most reverend bishop Bassianus personally has been taken from him, either by the most reverend bishop Stephen, or by any other persons whatsoever, this shall be restored, after judicial proof, by them who took it away or caused it to be taken.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The English translation of Hefele asserts twice (Hist. of the Councils, Vol. III., pp. 173 and 376), that Bassianus was “deposed.”  This is entirely a mistake, he was deprived of his diocese, but retained his episcopal rank.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Fourth Ecumenical Council/The Condemnation Sent to Dioscorus

The Condemnation Sent by the Holy and Ecumenical Synod to Dioscorus.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 459.)
The holy and great and ecumenical Synod, which by the grace of God according to the constitution of our most pious and beloved of God emperors assembled together at Chalcedon the city of Bithynia, in the martyry of the most holy and victorious Martyr Euphemia to Dioscorus.
We do you to wit that on the thirteenth day of the month of October you were deposed from the episcopate and made a stranger to all ecclesiastical order (θεσμοῦ ) by the holy and ecumenical synod, on account of your disregard of the divine canons, and of your disobedience to this holy and ecumenical synod and on account of the other crimes of which you have been found guilty, for even when called to answer your accusers three times by this holy and great synod according to the divine canons you did not come.
# Not George Washington/Part Two
## James Orlebar Cloyster's Narrative

* Chapter 1. The Invasion of Bohemia
* Chapter 2. I Evacuate Bohemia
* Chapter 3. The Orb
* Chapter 4. Julian Eversleigh
* Chapter 5. The Column
* Chapter 6. New Year's Eve
* Chapter 7. I Meet Mr. Thomas Blake
* Chapter 8. I Meet the Rev. John Hatton
* Chapter 9. Julian Learns My Secret
* Chapter 10. Tom Blake Again
* Chapter 11. Julian's Idea
* Chapter 12. The First Ghost
* Chapter 13. The Second Ghost
* Chapter 14. The Third Ghost
* Chapter 15. Eva Eversleigh
* Chapter 16. I Tell Julian

## Sidney Price's Narrative

* Chapter 17. A Ghostly Gathering
* Chapter 18. One in the Eye
* Chapter 19. In the Soup
* Chapter 20. Norah Wins Home

## Julian Eversleigh's Narrative

* Chapter 21. The Transposition of Sentiment
* Chapter 22. A Chat with James
* Chapter 23. In a Hansom

## Narrative Resumed by James Orlebar Cloyster

* Chapter 24. A Rift in the Clouds
* Chapter 25. Briggs to the Rescue
* Chapter 26. My Triumph
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/The Twelve Books/Book XII/Chapter 23

Chapter XXIII.
How perfection can only be attained through the virtue of humility.
And so it is clearly shown that none can attain the end of perfection and purity, except through true humility, which he displays in the first instance to the brethren, and shows also to God in his inmost heart, believing that without His protection and aid extended to him at every instant, he cannot possibly obtain the perfection which he desires and to which he hastens so eagerly.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/The Twelve Books/Book XII/Chapter 24

Chapter XXIV.
Who are attacked by spiritual and who by carnal pride.
Thus much let it suffice to have spoken, as far as, by God’s help, our slender ability was able, concerning spiritual pride of which we have said that it attacks advanced Christians. And this kind of pride is not familiar to or experienced by most men, because the majority do not aim at attaining perfect purity of heart, so as to arrive at the stage of these conflicts; nor have they secured any purification from the preceding faults of which we have here explained both the character and the remedies in separate books. But it generally attacks those only who have conquered the former faults and have already almost arrived at the top of the tree in respect of the virtues. And because our most crafty enemy has not been able to destroy them through a carnal fall, he endeavours to cast them down and overthrow them by a spiritual catastrophe, trying by this to rob them of the prizes of their ancient rewards secured as they were with great labour. But as for us, who are still entangled in earthly passions, he never deigns to tempt us in this fashion, but overthrows us by a coarser and what I called a carnal pride. And therefore I think it well, as I promised, to say a few things about this kind of pride by which we and men of our stamp are usually affected, and the minds especially of younger men and beginners are endangered.