OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Mother of Mercy (Faber)

First published in St. Wilfrid's Hymns, 1849.
* "Mother of Mercy" in Catholic Hymns (1st ed.), 1853.
* "Mother of Mercy" in Catholic Hymns (2nd ed.), 1860.
# Mother of Mine, I Still Have You

* "Mother of Mine, I Still Have You" (1927), a performance by Al Jolson in the part-talkie musical film The Jazz Singer
* Mother of Mine, I Still Have You by Irving Kaufman (1928)—Copyrighted in the United States until 2029
# Mother of Mercy

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Mother of Mercy."
* 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.
* "Mother of Mercy" (1849), hymn by Frederick W. Faber.
* "Mother of Mercy" (1946), address by John Hugh O'Donnell.
# Micas v. Williams

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
104 U.S. 556
Micas v. Williams
MOTION to dismiss a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, with which is united a motion to affirm under Rule 6, par. 5.
Mr. Joseph P. Hornor in support of the motion.
Mr. Thomas J. Durant, contra.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE 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
# Micas v. Williams/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
104 U.S. 556
Micas v. Williams
The affidavits which have been filed by the plaintiff in error, in opposition to these motions, are probably sufficient to establish the fact that the value of the matter in dispute exceeds $5,000. The motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied; but on looking into the record we are entirely satisfied the writ was taken for delay only. No assignment of errors has been annexed to or returned with the writ, as required by sect. 997 of the Revised Statutes; and every question presented by the bill of exceptions or suggested upon the argument appears to us so frivolous as to make it improper to keep the case here for any further consideration. There was on the record, as it stood when these motions were made, at least sufficient color of right to a dismissal to justify us in entertaining with it a motion to affirm in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6, par. 5.
Motion to affirm granted.

## 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
# Nattie Nesmith

* related portals: Child Life Series.
* sister projects: Commons category, Wikidata item.
Nattie Nesmith; Or, The Bad Girl.
By Sophia Homespun.
Boston: Published by D. Lothrop & Co. Dover N H: G. T. Day & Co. 1870.
Contents.
CHAPTER I.
CHAPTER II.
CHAPTER III.
CHAPTER IV.
CHAPTER V.
CHAPTER VI.
CHAPTER VII.
CHAPTER VIII.
CHAPTER IX.
CHAPTER X.
CHAPTER XI.
CHAPTER XII.
CHAPTER XIII.
CHAPTER XIV.
CHAPTER XV.
CHAPTER XVI.
CHAPTER XVII.
CHAPTER XVIII.
CHAPTER XIX.
CHAPTER XX.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
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
# Moving the U.S. Government Towards Zero Trust Cybersecurity Principles - Draft for Public Comment/Purpose

​II.Purpose
In the current threat environment, the Federal Government can no longer depend on perimeter-based defenses to protect critical systems and data. Meeting this challenge will require a major paradigm shift in how Federal agencies approach cybersecurity.
As described in the Department of Defense Zero Trust Reference Architecture, “The foundational tenet of the Zero Trust Model is that no actor, system, network, or service operating outside or within the security perimeter is trusted. Instead, we must verify anything and everything attempting to establish access. It is a dramatic paradigm shift in philosophy of how we secure our infrastructure, networks, and data, from verify once at the perimeter to continual verification of each user, device, application, and transaction.”
This strategy envisions a Federal zero trust architecture that:
* Bolsters strong identity practices across Federal agencies;
* Relies on encryption and application testing instead of perimeter security;
* Recognizes every device and resource the Government has;
* Supports intelligent automation of security actions; and
* Enables safe and robust use of cloud services.
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
# Movius v. Arthur

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
95 U.S. 144
Movius v. Arthur
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
This is an action by Joseph Movius, surviving partner of the firm of F. Wigand & Co., to recover $172.39 being the amount of certain import duties alleged to have been unlawfully demanded and collected from them by the defendant in error, as the collector of the port of New York.
Between Aug. 1 and Dec. 31, 1872, Wigand & Co. imported from foreign countries into the port of New York, and duly entered at that custom-house, several invoices of 'varnished calf-skins,' and a further invoice of goods, designated therein as 'varnished cow-skins.'
The collector of customs, under the classification of 'patent, japanned, or enamelled leather or skins of all kinds,' in the acts of March 2, 1861, sect. 22, and July 14, 1862, sect. 13, imposed and collected on all the said goods a duty at thirty-five per cent, granting thereon the reduction of ten per cent, provided by sect. 2 of the act of June 6, 1872, for 'leather not otherwise herein provided for.' Wigand & Co., claiming that the goods were dutiable at twenty per cent only under the provisions of sect. 1 of the act of June 6, 1872, for 'upper leather of all other kinds, and dressed and furnished skins of all kinds not herein otherwise provided for,' duly protested, and appealed to the Secretary of the Treasury, who sustained the decision of the collector. This action was then brought.
The court below found for the collector, whereupon the case was removed here.
Mr. Edward Hartley for the plaintiff in error.
The Solicitor-General, contra.
MR. JUSTICE HUNT 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
# Moxley v. Hertz

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
216 U.S. 344
Moxley v. Hertz
Argued: December 13 and 14, 1909. --- Decided: February 21, 1910
Mr. John Maynard Harlan for Wm. J. Moxley.
[Argument of Counsel from page 345 intentionally omitted]
Solicitor General Bowers for the Collector.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 346-347 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McKenna 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
# Moving the U.S. Government Towards Zero Trust Cybersecurity Principles - Draft for Public Comment/Overview

​I.Overview
The United States Government faces increasingly sophisticated and persistent cyber threat campaigns that target its technology infrastructure, threatening public safety and privacy, damaging the American economy, and weakening trust in Government.
Every day, the Federal Government executes unique and deeply challenging missions: agencies safeguard our nation’s critical infrastructure, conduct scientific research, engage in diplomacy, and provide benefits and services for the American people, among many other public functions. To deliver on these missions effectively, our nation must make intelligent and vigorous use of modern technology and security practices, while avoiding disruption by malicious cyber campaigns.
Successfully modernizing the Federal Government’s approach to security requires a Government-wide endeavor. In May of 2021, the President issued Executive Order (EO) 14028, Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity, initiating a sweeping government-wide effort to ensure that baseline security practices are in place, to migrate the Federal Government to a zero trust architecture, and to realize the security benefits of cloud-based infrastructure while mitigating associated risks.
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
# Mower v. Fletcher

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
116 U.S. 380
Mower v. Fletcher
Argued: January 4, 1886. ---
W. J. Johnston and U. J. Baxter, for plaintiffs in error.
M. D. Brainard and J. K. Redington, for defendants in error.
WAITE, C. 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
# NSC-68/I. Background of the Present World Crisis

ANALYSIS
I. Background of the Present Crisis
Within the past thirty-five years the world has experienced two global wars of tremendous violence. It has witnessed two revolutions--the Russian and the Chinese--of extreme scope and intensity. It has also seen the collapse of five empires--the Ottoman, the Austro-Hungarian, German, Italian, and Japanese--and the drastic decline of two major imperial systems, the British and the French. During the span of one generation, the international distribution of power has been fundamentally altered. For several centuries it had proved impossible for any one nation to gain such preponderant strength that a coalition of other nations could not in time face it with greater strength. The international scene was marked by recurring periods of violence and war, but a system of sovereign and independent states was maintained, over which no state was able to achieve hegemony.
Two complex sets of factors have now basically altered this historic distribution of power. First, the defeat of Germany and Japan and the decline of the British and French Empires have interacted with the development of the United States and the Soviet Union in such a way that power increasingly gravitated to these two centers. Second, the Soviet Union, unlike previous aspirants to hegemony, is animated by a new fanatic faith, anti-thetical to our own, and seeks to impose its absolute authority over the rest of the world. Conflict has, therefore, become endemic and is waged, on the part of the Soviet Union, by violent or non-violent methods in accordance with the dictates of expediency. With the development of increasingly terrifying weapons of mass destruction, every individual faces the ever-present possibility of annihilation should the conflict enter the phase of total war.
On the one hand, the people of the world yearn for relief from the anxiety arising from the risk of atomic war. On the other hand, any substantial further extension of the area under the domination of the Kremlin would raise the possibility that no coalition adequate to confront the Kremlin with greater strength could be assembled. It is in this context that this Republic and its citizens in the ascendancy of their strength stand in their deepest peril.
The issues that face us are momentous, involving the fulfillment or destruction not only of this Republic but of civilization itself. They are issues which will not await our deliberations. With conscience and resolution this Government and the people it represents must now take new and fateful decisions.
# NSC-68/III. The Fundamental Design of the Kremlin

III. Fundamental Design of the Kremlin
The fundamental design of those who control the Soviet Union and the international communist movement is to retain and solidify their absolute power, first in the Soviet Union and second in the areas now under their control. In the minds of the Soviet leaders, however, achievement of this design requires the dynamic extension of their authority and the ultimate elimination of any effective opposition to their authority.
The design, therefore, calls for the complete subversion or forcible destruction of the machinery of government and structure of society in the countries of the non-Soviet world and their replacement by an apparatus and structure subservient to and controlled from the Kremlin. To that end Soviet efforts are now directed toward the domination of the Eurasian land mass. The United States, as the principal center of power in the non-Soviet world and the bulwark of opposition to Soviet expansion, is the principal enemy whose integrity and vitality must be subverted or destroyed by one means or another if the Kremlin is to achieve its fundamental design.
# NSC-68

* related portals: United States National Security Council, Cold War.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Sources: Naval War College Review, Vol. XXVII (May-June, 1975), pp. 51-108. Also in U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: 1950, Volume I.
Drafted under the guidance of Paul Nitze, Director of Policy Planning for the United States Department of State, 1950-1953, NSC-68 was a memorandum approved by President Harry S. Truman which provided the strategic outline for increased U.S. expenditures to counter the perceived threat from growing Soviet military strength.

   ### NSC 68: United States Objectives and Programs for National Security
   #### (April 14, 1950)

   A Report to the President
   Pursuant to the President's Directive
   of January 31, 1950
   TOP SECRET
   [Washington,] April 7, 1950
   Contents
   Terms of Reference
   Analysis
   I. Background of the Present World Crisis
   II. The Fundamental Purpose of the United States
   III. The Fundamental Design of the Kremlin
   IV. The Underlying Conflict in the Realm of Ideas and Values Between the U.S. Purpose and the Kremlin Design
   V. Soviet Intentions and Capabilities--Actual and Potential
   VI. U.S. Intentions and Capabilities--Actual and Potential
   VII. Present Risks
   VIII. Atomic Armaments
   IX. Possible Courses of Action
   Conclusions and Recommendations
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
# NSC-68/II. The Fundamental Purpose of the United States

II. Fundamental Purpose of the United States
The fundamental purpose of the United States is laid down in the Preamble to the Constitution: ". . . to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." In essence, the fundamental purpose is to assure the integrity and vitality of our free society, which is founded upon the dignity and worth of the individual.
Three realities emerge as a consequence of this purpose: Our determination to maintain the essential elements of individual freedom, as set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights; our determination to create conditions under which our free and democratic system can live and prosper; and our determination to fight if necessary to defend our way of life, for which as in the Declaration of Independence, "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
# New York Central Company v. Ambrose

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
280 U.S. 486
New York Central Company v. Ambrose
Argued: Jan. 10, 1930. --- Decided: Feb 24, 1930
Messrs. William H. Carey, Albert C. Wall, and John A. Hartpence, all of Jersey City, N. J., for petitioner.
Messrs. A. O. Stanley, of Washington, D. C., and Alexander Simpson, of Jersey City, N. J., for respondent.
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
# New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company v. Beaham

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
242 U.S. 148
New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company v. Beaham
Argued: November 16, 1916. --- Decided: December 4, 1916
Messrs. Albert S. Marley, John S. Marley, and Robert J. Cary for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Justin D. Bowersock and Robert B. Fizzell for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice McReynolds 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
# New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company v. Tonsellito

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
244 U.S. 360
New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company v. Tonsellito
Argued: April 30, 1917. --- Decided: June 4, 1917
Messrs. Albert C. Wall and John A. Hartpence for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Alexander Simpson for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice McReynolds 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
# New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Hudson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
227 U.S. 248
New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Hudson
Argued: November 13, 1912. --- Decided: February 24, 1913
Messrs. Frank Bergen, Albert C. Wall, Thomas Emery, and James B. Vredenburgh for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 249-251 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. E. Parmalee Prentice, John Griffin, and George Welwood Murray for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 251-256 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Henry E. Bodman, Alexis C. Angell, and Herbert E. Boynton as amici curioe.
Mr. Chief Justice White 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
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Moral Treatises of St. Augustin/On Care to Be Had for the Dead/Section 19

19. Hence too is solved that question, how is it that the Martyrs, by the very benefits which are given to them that pray, indicate that they take an interest in the affairs of men, if the dead know not what the quick are doing. For not only by effects of benefits, but in the very beholding of men, it is certain, that the Confessor Felix (whose denizenship among you thou piously lovest) appeared when the barbarians were attacking Nola, as we have heard not by uncertain rumors, but by sure witnesses. But such things are of God exhibited, far otherwise than as the usual order hath itself, unto each kind of creatures apportioned. For it does not follow because water was, when it pleased the Lord, in a moment changed into wine, that we are not to regard the worth and efficacy of water in the proper order of the elements, as distinct from the rarity, or rather singularity, of that divine work: nor because Lazarus rose again, therefore that every dead man rises when he will; or that a lifeless man is raised up by a living, in the same way as a sleeping man by one who is awake. Other be the limits of human things, other the signs of divine virtues: other they be that are naturally, other that be miraculously done: albeit both unto nature God is present that it may be, and unto miracles nature is not lacking. We are not to think then, that to be interested in the affairs of the living is in the power of any departed who please, only because to some men’s healing or help the Martyrs be present: but rather we are to understand that it must needs be by a Divine power that the Martyrs are interested in affairs of the living, from the very fact that for the departed to be by their proper nature interested in affairs of the living is impossible.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Inquilinatum
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Moral Treatises of St. Augustin/On Care to Be Had for the Dead/Section 2

2. But this being the case, how to this opinion that should not be contrary which the Apostle says, “For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, that each may receive according to the things he hath done by the body, whether good or bad;” this, thou signifiest, thou dost not well see. For this apostolic sentence doth before death admonish to be done, that which may profit after death; not then, first, when there is to be now a receiving of that which a person shall have done before death. True, but this question is thus solved, namely, that there is a certain kind of life by which is acquired, while one lives in this body, that it should be possible for these things to be of some help to the departed; and, consequently, it is “according to the things done by the body,” that they are aided by the things which shall, after they have left the body, be religiously done on their behalf. For there are whom these things aid nothing at all, namely, when they are done either for persons whose merits are so evil, that neither by such things are they worthy to be aided; or for persons whose merits are so good, that of such things they have no need as aids. Of the kind of life, therefore, which each hath led by the body, doth it come, that these things profit or profit not, whatever are piously done on his behalf when he has left the body. For touching merit whereby these things profit, if none have been gotten in this life, it is in vain sought after this life. So it comes to pass as well that not unmeaningly doth the Church, or care of friends, bestow upon the departed whatever of religion it shall be able; as also that, nevertheless, each receiveth “according to the things which he hath done by the body, whether it be good or bad,” the Lord rendering unto each according to his works. For, that this which is bestowed should be capable of profiting him after the body, this was acquired in that life which he hath led in the body.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Per corpus
* ↑ 2 Cor. v. 10
* ↑ Inaniter