OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 1465

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted unanimously by the Security Council at its 4706th meeting, on 13 February 2003
The Security Council,
Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and its relevant resolutions, in particular resolution 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001,
Reaffirming the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,
1. Condemns in the strongest terms the bomb attack in Bogota, Colombia, on 7 February 2003 in which many lives were claimed and people injured, and regards such act, like any act of terrorism, as a threat to peace and security;
2. Expresses its deepest sympathy and condolences to the people and the Government of Colombia and to the victims of the bomb attack and their families;
3. Urges all States, in accordance with their obligations under resolution 1373 (2001), to work together urgently and to cooperate with and provide support and assistance, as appropriate, to the Colombian authorities in their efforts to find and bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of this terrorist attack;
4. Expresses its reinforced determination to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Trust Company of New York v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
296 U.S. 481
United States Trust Company of New York v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Argued: Dec. 17, 1935. --- Decided: Jan 6, 1936
Mr. Clay Judson, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
The Attorney General and Mr. J. Louis Monarch, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES 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
# United States Trust Company of New York v. Helvering

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
307 U.S. 57
United States Trust Company of New York v. Helvering
Argued: March 3, 1939. --- Decided: April 17, 1939
Mr. Wilder Goodwin, of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. J. Louis Monarch, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK 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
# United States Trust Company of New York v. Miller

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
262 U.S. 58
United States Trust Company of New York v. Miller
Argued: April 10, 1923. --- Decided: April 23, 1923
Mr. Selden Bacon, of New York City, for appellant.
Mr. James A. Fowler, of Knoxville, Tenn., for appellee.
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
# United States of America v. Mohammed Abdullah Warsame

* related portals: American case law.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.

## Count 1

(Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization)
From a date unknown but no later than March 2000 and continuing through at least December 8, 2003 in the State and District of Minnesota and elsewhere, the defendant,
Mohammed Abdullah Warsame a/k/a/ "Abu Maryam" a/k/a "Abu Zaynab"
did knowingly conspire, combine, confederate and agree together with other persons both known and unknown to the Grand Jury, within the jurisdiction of the United States, to provide material support and resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization, name al Qaeda, which was designated by the United States Secretary of State as a foreign terrorist organization on October 5 1999, and redesignated on October 5 2001, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 23398.
A TRUE BILL
# United States of America v. Omar Ahmed Khadr (2007)/Motion to Waive Specific Requirements in Rule 8(A) for Foreign Attorneys

July 11, 2007
TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW
COMES NOW the Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions, and respectfully requests that this Court waive Rule 8(a) with respect to Dennis Edney, Esq., and Nathan Whitling, Esq., whom appellee has moved be allowed to appear as counsel for appellee pro hac vice.
Rule 8(f) of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Military Commission Review, dated 27 June 2007, provides in part, "The Chief Defense Counsel may, by motion, ask the CMCR to waive specific requirements in Rule 8(a) for a foreign attorney lacking a security clearance, or being otherwise unqualified. Such waiver will not authorize access to classified information." I hereby make such a request in order to allow Mr. Edney and Mr. Whitling - who are not members of a U.S. bar and who are not U.S. citizens - to appear on behalf of appellee in association with appellee's detailed appellate defense counsel, LCDR William C. Kuebla, JAGC, USN, if this Court grants appellee's motion to allow them to appear pro hac vice. Both Mr. Edney and Mr. Whitling have NATO security clearances at the secret level.

## Original footnotes

* ↑ Mr. Khadr has yet to be arraigned.
# United States of America v. Omar Ahmed Khadr (2007)/Motion to Attach

July 11, 2007
TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW

## Relief Sought

COMES NOW Mr. Omar Khadr and respectfully quests that this Court attach the following documents to Mr. Khadr's motion for emergency relief filed concurrently:
    A) Foreman mail of 9 Jul07
    B) Foreman email of 6 Jun 07
    C) Order No. DFTD70728 for Kuebler
    D) Kuebler mail of 13 Jun 07 and mail of 14 Jun 07
    E) email of 28 Jun 07
    F) email of 28 Jun 07
    G) Order No. DFTD70704 for Kuebler
These documents are necessary to support the factual basis for Mr. Khadr's motion for emergency relief. Therefore, this Court should grant Mr. Khadr's motion.
# United States of America v. Omar Ahmed Khadr (2007)/Motion to Admit Foreign Attorneys

July 11, 2007
TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW
Appellee respectfully moves that this Court allow Dennis Edney, Esq., and Nathan Whitling, Esq., members of the bar of Alberta, Canada, to appear as Appellee's counsel before this Court pro hac vice.
Rule 8(f) of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Military Commission Review, dated 27 June 2007, provides in part, "An attorney qualified to practice in the courts of a foreign state may be permitted to argue pro hac vice. Counsel of record for the party on whose behalf leave is requested to argue pro hac vice must file a motion seeking permission of the CMCR. Counsel for the appellant pro hac vice must be detailed by the Chief Defense Counsel, and must be qualified under Rule 8(a)."
The undersigned is counsel of record in this case. He has expressly been detailed as Appellate Defense Counsel by the Chief Defense Counsel in accordance with paragraph 24-2.a.2 of the Regulation for Trial by Military Commissions (27 April 2007). (The undersigned was also detailed defense counsel at Appellee's underlying military commission proceeding.) The undersigned, is a member in good standing in the California Supreme Court's bar and is certified and qualified in accordance with Article 27(b)(l) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The undersigned meets all of the requirements of 10 U.S.C. § 948k(c) and 950h. Accordingly, the undersigned counsel qualifies for automatic admission to this Court's bar under Rule 8(d). The undersigned has been sworn by the Chief Defense Counsel.
The undersigned moves that the following foreign attorneys be permitted to appear on Appellee's behalf before this Court pro hac vice:
   Dennis Edney 234 Wolf Ridge Close Edmonton, Alberta, T5T 5M6 Canada Phone: (780) 489-0835 Email: dedney@shaw.ca Law Society of Alberta (ID: 7997)
   Nathan Whitling Parlee McLaws LLP #1500, 10180 -101 Street Edmonton, Alberta, T5J 4K1 Canada Phone: (780) 423-8658 Facsimile: (780) 423-2870 Email: nwhitling@parlee.com Law Society of Alberta (ID: 1 132 1)
Mr. Edney holds an LL.B. with honors from the University of Northumberland, Newcastle upon Tyne (England) (1986). He has been a member of the bar in Canada since 1988. Mr. Whitling holds a bachelor's degree fiom the University of Alberta (1993), an LL.B. degree from the University of Alberta (1997), and an LL.M. degree fiom the Harvard Law School (1998). He has been a member of the bar in Canada since 1999.
Appellee specifically requests to be represented before this Court by Mr. Edney and Mr. Whitling, acting as pro hac vice counsel in association with the undersigned.

## Original footnotes

* ↑ Mr. Khadr has yet to be arraigned.
# United States v. Erie Railroad Company (235 U.S. 513)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
235 U.S. 513
United States v. Erie Railroad Company
Argued: December 14, 1914. --- Decided: January 5, 1915
Assistant Attorney General Wallace and Solicitor General Davis for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 513-515 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Rush Taggart for defendant in error.
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
# United States v. Engard

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
196 U.S. 511
United States v. Engard
Argued: January 18, 1905. --- Decided: February 20, 1905
Somewhat condensing the facts below found, they are as follows: In February, 1897, Chief Engineer Albert C. Engard was performing duty as the chief engineer of the United States receiving ship Richmond, at League Island, Pennsylvania. On the 11th of February he received the following order from the Navy Department:
Navy Department,
Washington, February 11, 1897.
Sir:--
Report by letter, to the president of the steel inspection board, Navy Yard, Washington, D. C., for temporary duty in connection with the inspection of steel tubes for the boilers of torpedo boat No. 11, at Findlay, Ohio, and at Shelby, Ohio.
You are authorized to perform such travel between League Island, Pa., and Findlay, Ohio, and between League Island, Pa., and Shelby, Ohio, as may be necessary in the performance of this duty.
Keep a memorandum of the travel so performed by you, certifying to its necessity, and submit the same to the Department, from time to time, for its approval.
This duty is in addition to your present duties.
Very respectfully,
W. McAdoo, Acting Secretary.
Chief Engineer Albert C. Engard, U.S. Navy, U.S. R. S. Richmond, Navy Yard, League Island, Pa.
Complying with this order, Chief Engineer Engard made two round trips between League Island and Ohio, in order to discharge the additional duty referred to in the order. The total number of days in which he was engaged in this work between February 24, 1897, and August 14, 1897, was 122. On the application to be allowed mileage for the trips amounting to $172.80, the auditor of the Navy Department deducted from the claim $133.70, and allowed only $39.10. The sum disallowed was deducted on the theory that the chief engineer was only entitled to be paid for shore duty instead of for sea service during the time referred to. This suit was brought to recover the amount of the deduction, and the right to so recover was sustained by the court of claims. 38 Ct. Cl. 712.
John Q. Thompson and assistant Attorney General Pradt for appellant.
Messrs. William B. King, George A. King, and Joseph C. Stebbins for appellee.
Mr. Justice White, after making the foregoing statement, 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
# United States v. Erie Railroad Company (220 U.S. 275)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
220 U.S. 275
United States v. Erie Railroad Company
Argued: January 5, 1911. --- Decided: April 3, 1911
Messrs. Wade H. Ellis, Edwin P. Grosvenor, and Attorney General Wickersham for appellant.
Messrs. John G. Johnson, Adelbert Moot, and George F. Brownell for appellees.
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
# United States v. Equitable Trust Company of New York

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
283 U.S. 738
United States v. Equitable Trust Company of New York
Argued: Dec. 1, 2, 1930. --- Decided: June 1, 1931
The Attorney General and Mr. Seth W. Richardson Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Messrs. John W. Davis, and Carroll G. Walter, both of New York City, and Almond D. Cochran, of Okmulgee, Okl., for respondents.
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER 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
# United States v. Erie Railroad Company

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Erie Railroad Company."
* 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.
* United States v. Erie Railroad Company (220 U.S. 275)
* United States v. Erie Railroad Company (235 U.S. 513)
* United States v. Erie Railroad Company (236 U.S. 259)
* United States v. Erie Railroad Company (237 U.S. 402)
* United States v. Erie Railroad Company (280 U.S. 98)
# United States v. Erie Railroad Company (220 U.S. 275)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
220 U.S. 275
United States v. Erie Railroad Company
Argued: January 5, 1911. --- Decided: April 3, 1911
These three cases were embraced in the commodities cases previously before this court, and, like the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company Case, No. 536, just decided [[[220 U.S. 257]], 55 L. ed. --, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 387], they are but sequels of the controversy pointed out in the opinion in that case as having been formerly passed upon in the opinion reported in 213 U.S. 366, 53 L. ed. 836, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 527. These cases, however, differ from the Lehigh Valley Case in this respect: Upon the filing in the circuit court of the mandate of this court, the United States in each case, upon the same record on which the reversed decree was based, without offering to show any further facts, or withdrawing the stipulation to submit the cause on bill and answer, referred to in the opinion in the Lehigh Valley case, moved that the decree to be entered be 'that the bill be dismissed without prejudice.' This motion was denied, whereupon the court was informed that the government did not intend to proceed further with the cause, and in each case a decree was entered dismissing the cause absolutely.
The error alleged is, in substance, that the circuit court erred in each case in dismissing the bill of complaint absolutely. But leave to amend was not asked, and as, upon the facts appearing and admitted on each record, no violation of the commodities clause was shown, the decree entered may properly be held to have been in strict 'conformity with the opinion of this court.' Whatever, therefore, in view of the stipulation made below, may be the scope and effect of the decree as res judicata, we see no reason for concluding that error was committed by the circuit court in refusing to qualify its decree. The decree in each case is therefore affirmed.

## 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
# United States v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 323
United States v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
Argued: April 21, 1966. --- Decided: June 6, 1966
Robert S. Rifkind, New York City, for petitioner.
Frank W. Hoak, Newark, N.J., for respondent.
Mr. Justice CLARK 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
# United States Reports/Volume 456

* 456 U.S. 1 (1982) United States v. MacDonald
* 456 U.S. 25 (1982) Weinberger v. Rossi
* 456 U.S. 37 (1982) Upham v. Seamon
* 456 U.S. 45 (1982) Brown v. Hartlage
* 456 U.S. 63 (1982) American Tobacco Company v. Patterson
* 456 U.S. 91 (1982) Mills v. Habluetzel
* 456 U.S. 107 (1982) Engle v. Isaac
* 456 U.S. 152 (1982) United States v. Frady
* 456 U.S. 188 (1982) Schweiker v. McClure
* 456 U.S. 201 (1982) United States v. Erika, Inc.
* 456 U.S. 212 (1982) International Longshoremen's Association v. Allied International, Inc.
* 456 U.S. 228 (1982) Larson v. Valente
* 456 U.S. 273 (1982) Pullman-Standard v. Swint
* 456 U.S. 305 (1982) Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo
* 456 U.S. 336 (1982) Southern Pacific Transportation Company v. Commercial Metals Company
* 456 U.S. 353 (1982) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran
* 456 U.S. 410 (1982) Zant v. Stephens
* 456 U.S. 430 (1982) O'Dell v. Espinoza
* 456 U.S. 431 (1982) Finnegan v. Leu
* 456 U.S. 444 (1982) Greene v. Lindsey
* 456 U.S. 461 (1982) Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corporation
* 456 U.S. 512 (1982) North Haven Board of Education v. Bell
* 456 U.S. 556 (1982) American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corporation
* 456 U.S. 595 (1982) United States Department of State v. Washington Post Company
* 456 U.S. 604 (1982) Finley v. Murray
* 456 U.S. 605 (1982) Hopper v. Evans
* 456 U.S. 615 (1982) Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Abramson
* 456 U.S. 645 (1982) Woelke Romero Framing, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
* 456 U.S. 667 (1982) Oregon v. Kennedy
* 456 U.S. 694 (1982) Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie Bauxites Guinee
* 456 U.S. 717 (1982) Summit Valley Industries, Inc. v. Local 112, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America
* 456 U.S. 728 (1982) Army and Air Force Exchange Service v. Sheehan
* 456 U.S. 742 (1982) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Mississippi
* 456 U.S. 798 (1982) United States v. Ross (456 U.S. 798)
* 456 U.S. 844 (1982) Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.
* 456 U.S. 865 (1982) United States v. Louisiana (456 U.S. 865)
* 456 U.S. 867 (1982) California v. Nevada
* 456 U.S. 953 (1982) Bergman v. Burton
* 456 U.S. 955 (1982) Grant v. Washington Public Employment Relations Commission
* 456 U.S. 955 (1982) International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Terrell
* 456 U.S. 995 (1982) Watt v. Holmes Limestone Company
* 456 U.S. 997 (1982) Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
* 456 U.S. 999 (1982) Brooks v. Oklahoma
# United States Reports/Volume 457

* 457 U.S. 1 (1982) Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party
* 457 U.S. 15 (1982) Jackson Transit Authority v. Local Division 1285, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO-CLC
* 457 U.S. 31 (1982) Tibbs v. Florida
* 457 U.S. 52 (1982) Johnson v. Board of Education of City of Chicago
* 457 U.S. 55 (1982) Zobel v. Williams
* 457 U.S. 85 (1982) Cory v. White
* 457 U.S. 102 (1982) United Steelworkers of America v. Sadlowski
* 457 U.S. 132 (1982) Blum v. Bacon
* 457 U.S. 147 (1982) General Telephone Company of Southwest v. Falcon
* 457 U.S. 164 (1982) California v. Texas
* 457 U.S. 172 (1982) Texas v. Oklahoma
* 457 U.S. 176 (1982) Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano
* 457 U.S. 191 (1982) Diedrich v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
* 457 U.S. 202 (1982) Plyler v. Doe
* 457 U.S. 255 (1982) Hathorn v. Lovorn
* 457 U.S. 273 (1982) California State Lands Commission v. United States
* 457 U.S. 291 (1982) Mills v. Rogers
* 457 U.S. 307 (1982) Youngberg v. Romeo
* 457 U.S. 332 (1982) Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society
* 457 U.S. 368 (1982) United States v. Goodwin
* 457 U.S. 393 (1982) California v. Grace Brethren Church
* 457 U.S. 423 (1982) Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Association
* 457 U.S. 440 (1982) Connecticut v. Teal
* 457 U.S. 465 (1982) Blue Shield of Virginia v. McCready
* 457 U.S. 496 (1982) Patsy v. Board of Regents of State of Florida
* 457 U.S. 537 (1982) United States v. Johnson (457 U.S. 537)
* 457 U.S. 569 (1982) Schweiker v. Hogan
* 457 U.S. 594 (1982) Schmidt v. Oakland Unified School District
* 457 U.S. 596 (1982) Globe Newspaper Company v. Superior Court for County of Norfolk
* 457 U.S. 624 (1982) Edgar v. Mite Corporation
* 457 U.S. 668 (1982) Foremost Insurance Company v. Richardson
* 457 U.S. 687 (1982) Taylor v. Alabama (457 U.S. 687)
* 457 U.S. 702 (1982) Jacksonville Bulk Terminals, Inc. v. International Longshoremen's Association
* 457 U.S. 731 (1982) Nixon v. Fitzgerald
* 457 U.S. 800 (1982) Harlow v. Fitzgerald
* 457 U.S. 830 (1982) Rendell-Baker v. Kohn
* 457 U.S. 853 (1982) Board of Education v. Pico
* 457 U.S. 922 (1982) Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Company, Inc.
* 457 U.S. 957 (1982) Clements v. Fashing
* 457 U.S. 991 (1982) Blum v. Yaretsky
* 457 U.S. 1141 (1982) Engle v. Isaac