OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Flashback - Hillary Clinton's Email Problems Reminiscent of 'Richard Windsor'

* related authors: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons gallery, quotes, news.
Flashback - Hillary Clinton's Email Problems Reminiscent of 'Richard Windsor'. David Vitter. March 3, 2015. senate.gov
Flashback - Hillary Clinton's Email Problems Reminiscent of 'Richard Windsor'
United States Senate
March 3, 2015
FLASHBACK: Hillary Clinton’s Email Problems Reminiscent of “Richard Windsor”
“Richard Windsor” was former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s secret email alias
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
(Washington, DC) – Today, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) made the following statement regarding recent reports alleging that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a private email account to conduct official business during her tenure with the State Department, which would violate the Federal Records Act. Vitter was the driving force behind the investigation that helped uncover the extent to which former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson’s utilized a secret email account under the alias “Richard Windsor.”
“At this point, President Obama’s claim of leading ‘the most transparent Administration in history’ is certainly laughable – especially now that we know two previous members of his Cabinet – EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – went out of their way to hide their emails from federal records laws and the American public,” said Vitter. “It should go without saying that the President’s very top officials should not be leading efforts to avoid transparency laws in order to avoid oversight and accountability – including Freedom of Information Act requests.”
As the immediate past top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Vitter investigated inappropriate record-keeping practices within the Obama Administration, stemming from concerns over former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s email alias “Richard Windsor.” During the nomination process for Gina McCarthy to become EPA Administrator, Vitter and the EPW Republicans made five transparency requests, one of which was for the EPA to issue a new guidance to ensure that all official business is conducted solely on official government email accounts and that the Agency would respond in full to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and Congressional inquiries. Click here to read more.
In September 2013, EPW Republicans released a comprehensive report entitled, "A Call for Sunshine: EPA's FOIA and Federal Records Failures Uncovered," which provides a detailed accounting of EPA's inappropriate email practices. Click here to read more.
Earlier this week, a federal judge said the EPA does not "respect" requests made under FOIA, and the Agency has been "offensively unapologetic" particularly pursuant to the “Richard Windsor” emails. Click here to read more.
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
# Faust v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
163 U.S. 452
Faust v. United States
In the district court of the United States for the the Northern district of Texas the defendant, plaintiff in error, was indicted, December 21, 1893, and subsequently tried, for feloniously embezzling certain money-order funds of the United States. On April 18, 1895, he was found guilty under the second count of the indictment, which alleged that on April 6, 1893, he was assis ant postmaster at Thornton, in the county of Limestone, within the district aforesaid, and as such assistant postmaster had in his possession and control money-order funds to the amount of $400, and did unlawfully and feloniously embezzle and convert the same to his own use. He was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary, and thereupon he applied for and obtained a writ of error from this court.
On the trial the defendant entered a plea of misnomer, as follows:
'And now comes W. J. Foust, in his proper person, who is indicted by the name of W. J. Faust, and having heard the said indictment read, says that he was baptized in the name of W. J. Foust, and by that name always since his baptism hereto has been called and known, and by no other name has he ever been known or called, and this he, the said W. J. Foust, is ready to verify. Wherefore he prays judgment of the said indictment, and that the same may be quashed.'
The court overruled this plea, and the defendant took an exception. At the suggestion of the attorney for the United States the defendant was requested to suggest his true and proper name, in order that it might be inserted in the indictment, and entered on the docket. This the defendant declined to do.
Exceptions were also taken by the defendant to the rejection of certain evidence offered on his behalf, and to the admission of certain evidence introduced by the government, and to the court's refusal to charge the jury as the defendant requested, and to certain portions of the charge which were given.
A. H. Garland and R. C. Garland, for plaintiff in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Whitney, for the United States.
Mr. Justice SHIRAS, aster stating the facts in the foregoing language, 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
# Faust (Goethe)/Scene 1

Part I Night
In a narrow, high-vaulted Gothic room, FAUST, seated restlessly in an armchair at his desk.
FAUST:
I've studied, alas, philosophy,
Law and medicine, recto and verso And how I regret it, theology also Oh, God, how hard I've slaved away,
With what result? Poor fool that I am,
I'm no whit wiser than when I began! I've got a Master of Arts degree On top of that a P.h.D., For ten long years, around and about,
Upstairs, downstairs, in and out,
I've led my students by the nose To what conclusion? That nobody knows,
Or can ever know, the tiniest crumb! Which is why I feel completely undone.
Of course I'm cleverer than these stuffed shirts,
These Doctors, Masters, Jurists, Priests I'm not bothered by a doubt or a scruple I'm not afraid of Hell or the Devil — But the consequence is, my mirth's all gone;
No longer can I fool myself
I'm able to teach men How to be better, love true worth;
I've got no money or property,
Worldly honors or celebrity A dog wouldn't put up with this life! Which is why I've turned to magic Seeking to know, by ways occult,
From ghostly mouths, many a secret;
So I no longer need to sweat Painfully explaining what I don't know anything about;
So I may penetrate the power That holds the universe together,
Behold the source whence all proceeds And deal no more in words, words, words.
O full moon, melancholy-bright,
Friend I've watched for, many a night Till your quiet-shining face Appeared above my high-piled desk — If this were only the last time You looked down on my pain! If only I might stray at will Beneath your light, high on the hill Haunt with spirits upland hollows,
Fade with you in dim-light meadows And soul no longer gasping in The stink of learning's midnight lamp,
Bathe in your dews till well again!
# Forsythe v. Kimball

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
91 U.S. 291
Forsythe v. Kimball
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Submitted on printed arguments by Mr. W. C. Goudy for the appellant, and by Mr. John L. Thompson for the appellee.
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE 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
# Fort Leavenworth Company v. Lowe

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
114 U.S. 525
Fort Leavenworth Company v. Lowe
Thos. F. Withrow, M. A. Low, and E. E. Cook, for plaintiff in error.
W. Hallett Phillips, for defendant in error.
FIELD, 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
# Fort Smith Company v. Mills

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
253 U.S. 206
Fort Smith Company v. Mills
Argued: December 13, 1917. --- Decided: June 1, 1920
Messrs. A. C. Dustin and C. M. Horn, both of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellants.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, for appellees.
Mr. Justice HOLMES 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
# Forsyth v. Woods

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
78 U.S. 484
Forsyth v. Woods
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the District of Missouri; the case being thus:
Woods, assignee in bankruptcy of the firm of E. P. Tesson & Co. (which was composed of E. P. & E. M. Tesson) sued Forsyth in assumpsit to recover from him a balance in account.
Forsyth pleaded a special plea in bar. The plea averred a joint request made by the individuals who composed the firm of E. P. Tesson & Co. to him, soliciting him to become a surety of one of those individuals in an administration bond. It also averred a joint representation made to him by them, that they intended to make the administration a matter of partnership business, to take into the possession of the partnership all the assets of the intestate, and to share as partners the gains and losses resulting from the administration, so that in signing the bond he would in effect become the surety of the firm, and not merely a surety of the partner to whom the grant of letters of administration might be made. The plea further averred that, moved by the joint request, and relying upon the joint representations aforesaid, he did become a surety in the administration bond, and that afterwards (the partnership having taken possession of all the assets of the deceased intestate, and having become bankrupt), he was compelled to pay to the legal representatives and next of kin of such intestate a large sum of money, in consequence of the default of the administrator. It still further averred, that under similar circumstances, after like request and representations, the defendant became a surety in an administration bond of the other partner, to whom administration of another estate was committed by the probate court, and that he was compelled to pay money for that administrator's default. The plaintiff demurred generally, and the court below sustained the demurrer. The defendant, Forsyth, now brought the case here. Whether the facts pleaded showed a legal liability of the partnership, as such, to repay what the defendant had been compelled to pay in consequence of his suretyship, was the question presented by the record. If they did, the defendant had a setoff to the plaintiff's demand; if they did not, the demurrer to the plea was rightly sustained.
The Bankrupt Act, whose provisions were a good deal discussed in the argument, provides that 'the net proceeds of the joint stock shall be appropriated to pay the creditors of the partnership, and the net proceeds of the separate estate of each partner shall be appropriated to pay his separate creditors.' The joint stock does not go to pay the separate creditors, except when there is a balance of such stock after payment of the joint debtors.
Messrs. T. T. Gantt, J. M. Carlisle, and J. D. McPherson, for the plaintiff in error, argued:

## 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
# Garfielde v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
93 U.S. 242
Garfielde v. United States
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
In addition to the facts set forth in the opinion of the court, the court below found that the appellant's proposal was as follows:--
'The undersigned, Selucius Garfielde, whose post-office address is Port Townsend, County of Jefferson, Territory of Washington, proposes to convey the mails of the United States from July 1, 1874, to June 30, 1878, on route No. 43,132, between Port Townsend, and Sitka, Alaska, under the advertisement of the Postmaster-General, dated Oct. 1, 1873, in safe and suitable steamboats, 'with celerity, certainty, and security' (law of June 8, 1872), for the annual sum of $26,000.
'This proposal is made with full knowledge of the distance of the route, the weight of the mail to be carried, and all other particulars in reference to the route and service; and also after careful examination of the laws and instructions attached to advertisement of mail service.
'Dated, Port Townsend, W. T., Jan. 8, 1874.
'SELUCIUS GARFIELDE, Bidder.'
He made no proposal under the first part of the advertisement for carrying the mail between Portland, Oregon, by Port Townsend, W. T., and San Juan to Sitka, Alaska.
In March, 1874, the following notice of acceptance was sent to said Garfielde:--
'U.S. POST-OFFICE DEPARTMENT,
'OFFICE OF THE SECOND ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL,
'WASHINGTON, D. C., March 2, 1874.
'SIR,-The Postmaster-General has accepted your proposal, under advertisement of Oct. 1, 1873, for conveying the United States mail, from July 1, 1874, to June 30, 1878, on (Washington Territory) route No. 43,132, between Port Townsend and Sitka, Alaska, at $26,000 a year, 'with celerity, certainty, and security.'
'Contracts will be sent in due time to the postmaster at your place of residence, which you must execute and return to the department by the first day of June; otherwise you will be considered a failing bidder, and the service will be relet at your expense.
'You will request the postmaster at the beginning and end of the route to inform this office when you make the first trip.
'Respectfully, &c.,
J. L. ROUTT,
'Second Assistant Postmaster-General.
'MR. SELUCIUS GARFIELDE,
'PORT TOWNSEND, JEFFERSON CO., W. T.
'Recorded and sent March __, 1874.'
And on the eighteenth day of April, 1874, Garfield was informed by telegram that his 'proposal' was suspended; and on the 30th of May, 1874, a contract was entered into between the Post-Office Department and one Otis for carrying the mails from Portland by Port Townsend and San Juan, to Sitka and back, at $34,800 per annum.
The Court of Claims dismissed the petition, whereupon Garfielde appealed here.
Mr. Ebon C. Ingersoll and Mr. B. F. Rice for the appellant.
Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith, 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
# Garfield v. United States ex rel Goldsby

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
211 U.S. 249
Garfield v. United States ex rel Goldsby
Argued: October 15, 16, 1908. --- Decided: November 30, 1908
Assistant Attorney General Fowler, Attorney General Bonaparte, and Mr. William R. Harr for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 250-251 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Charlcs H. Merillat, Charles J. Kappler, and James K. Jones for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 252-254 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Day 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
# Gargantua/Chapter IV

CHAPTER IV.
How Gargamelle, being great with Gargantua, did eat a huge deal of tripes.
THE occasion and manner how Gargamelle was brought to bed, and delivered of her child, was thus: and, if you do not believe it, I wish your bum-gut fall out and make an escapade. Her bum-gut, indeed, or fundament escaped her in an afternoon, on the third day of February, with having eaten at dinner too many godebillios. Godebillios are the fat tripes of coiros. Coiros are beeves fattened at the cratch in ox-stalls, or in the fresh guimo meadows. Guimo meadows are those that for their fruitfulness may be mowed twice a year. Of those fat beeves they had killed three hundred sixty-seven thousand and fourteen, to be salted at Shrovetide, that in the entering of the spring they might have plenty of powdered beef, wherewith to season their mouths at the beginning of their meals, and to taste their wine the better.
They had abundance of tripes, as you have heard, and they were so delicious, that everyone licked his fingers. But the mischief was this, that, for all men could do, there was no possibility to keep them long in that relish; for in a very short while they would have stunk, which had been an undecent thing. It was therefore concluded, that they should be all of them gulched up, without losing anything. To this effect they invited all the burghers of Sainais, of Suille, of the Roche-Clermaud, of Vaugaudry, without omitting the Coudray, Monpensier, the Gue de Vede, and other their neighbours, all stiff drinkers, brave fellows, and good players at the kyles. The good man Grangousier took great pleasure in their company, and commanded there should be no want nor pinching for anything. Nevertheless he bade his wife eat sparingly, because she ​ was near her time, and that these tripes were no very commendable meat. They would fain, said he, be at the chewing of ordure, that would eat the case wherein it was. Notwithstanding these admonitions, she did eat sixteen quarters, two bushels, three pecks and a pipkin full. O the fair fecality wherewith she swelled, by the ingrediency of such shitten stuff!
After dinner they all went out in a hurl to the grove of the willows, where, on the green grass, to the sound of the merry flutes and pleasant bagpipes, they danced so gallantly, that it was a sweet and heavenly sport to see them so frolic.
# Garland v. Washington

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
232 U.S. 642
Garland v. Washington
Argued: January 29, 1914. --- Decided: March 16, 1914
Messrs. William H. Gorham, O. L. Willett, and Frank Oleson for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Hugh M. Caldwell, John F. Murphy, and H. B. Butler for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Day 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
# Garland's Heirs v. Choctaw Nation (272 U.S. 728)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
272 U.S. 728
Garland's Heirs v. Choctaw Nation (272 U.S. 728)
Argued: Dec. 1 and 2, 1926. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1927
Mr. Harry Peyton, of Washington, D. C., for appellants Garland heirs.
Messrs. Harry Peyton, T. P. Gore, and W. W. Scott, all of Washington, D. C., for appellants Pitchlynn.
The Attorney General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Galloway, for appellee.
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
# Garland v. Davis

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
45 U.S. 131
Garland v. Davis

## 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
# Fletcher v. Baltimore & P. Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
168 U.S. 135
Fletcher v. Baltimore & P. Railroad Company
Franklin H. Mackey, for plaintiff in error.
Enoch Totten and William Henry Dennis, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice PECKHAM 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
# Fletcher v. Bryan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 126
Fletcher v. Bryan
Edmond C. Fletcher, pro se.
Solicitor General Rankin, for respondent.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
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
# Fletcher v. Bryan/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 126
Fletcher v. Bryan
In light of the suggestion of mootness due to the death of the petitioner, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court with directions to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot.

## 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
# Fletcher v. Fuller

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
120 U.S. 534
Fletcher v. Fuller
Wm. H. Greene and Jas. Tillinghast, for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 535-536 intentionally omitted]
Livingston Scott and Elisha C. Mowry, for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 536 intentionally omitted]
FIELD, 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
# Fletcher v. Hamlet

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
116 U.S. 408
Fletcher v. Hamlet
Argued: January 18, 1886. ---
E. H. Farrar and E. B. Kruttschnitt, for plaintiffs in error.
B. R. Forman, 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
# Fox v. Cincinnati

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
104 U.S. 783
Fox v. Cincinnati
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Submitted by Mr. Timothy D. Lincoln and Mr. Charles Fox for the plaintiff.
There was no opposing counsel.
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