OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 522

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted unanimously by the Security Council at its 2399th meeting held on 4 October 1982
The Security Council,
Having considered again the question entitled "The situation between Iran and Iraq",
Deploring the prolongation and the escalation of the conflict between the two countries, resulting in heavy losses of human lives and considerable material damage, and endangering peace and security,
Reaffirming that the restoration of peace and security in the region requires all member States strictly to comply with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations,
Recalling its resolution 479 (1980), adopted unanimously on 28 September 1980, as well as the statement of the President of the Council of 5 November 1980,
Further recalling its resolution 514 (1982) adopted unanimously on 12 July 1982, as well as the statement of the President of the Council of 15 July 1982,
Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of 15 July 1982,
* Urgently calls again for an immediate cease-fire and an end to all military operations;
* Reaffirms its call for a withdrawal of forces to internationally recognized boundaries;
* Welcomes the fact that one of the parties has already expressed its readiness to co-operate in the implementation of resolution 514 (1982) and calls upon the other to do likewise;
* Affirms the necessity of implementing without further delay its decision to dispatch United Nations observers to verify, confirm and supervise the cease-fire and withdrawal;
* Reaffirms the urgency of the continuation of the current mediation efforts;
* Reaffirms its request to all other States to abstain from all actions which could contribute to the continuation of the conflict and to facilitate the implementation of the present resolution;
* Further requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council on the implementation of this resolution within 72 hours.
* ↑ See Resolutions and Decisions of the Security Council, 1980, p. 23.
* ↑ S/15296
* ↑ See Official Records of the Security Council, Thirty-seventh Year, Supplement for July, August, and September 1982, document S/15293.
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 v. Holte

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
236 U.S. 140
United States v. Holte
Argued: January 8, 1915. --- Decided: February 1, 1915
Assistant Attorney General Wallace for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 141-143 intentionally omitted]
No appearance for defendant in error.
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
# United States v. Home Title Insurance Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
285 U.S. 191
United States v. Home Title Insurance Company
Argued: Jan. 19, 1932. --- Decided: March 14, 1932
The Attorney General and Mr. Claude R. Branch, of Providence, R. I., for the United States.
Mr. Hugh Satterlee, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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. Holt State Bank

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
270 U.S. 49
United States v. Holt State Bank
Argued: February 1, 1926. ---
The Attorney General and Mr. W. W. Dyar, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 50 intentionally omitted]
Mr. A. N. Eckstrom, of Warren, Minn., for appellees.
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
# Crito

is a dialogue that was written by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It depicts a conversation between Socrates and his wealthy friend Crito of Alopece regarding justice (δικαιοσύνη), injustice (ἀδικία), and the appropriate response to injustice after Socrates' imprisonment, which is chronicled in the Apology.
English-language translations of Crito include:
* Crito, trans. by Unknown (1895, c. 1777) (transcription project)
* Crito, trans. by Thomas Taylor (1804) (transcription project)
* Crito, trans. by C. S. Stanford (1835) (transcription project)
* Crito, trans. by Henry Cary (1854) (transcription project)
* Crito, trans. by Georgiana Chatterton (1862) (transcription project)
* Crito, trans. by William Whewell (1859) (transcription project)
* Crito, trans. by William Whewell (2nd ed.) (1860) (transcription project)
* Crito, trans. by F. J. Church (1st ed.) (1880) (transcription project)
* Crito, trans. by F. J. Church (2nd ed.) (1920) (transcription project)
* Crito, trans. by Ellen Francis Mason (1887) (transcription project)
* Crito, trans. by George Stock (1891) (transcription project)
* Crito, trans. by Thomas Taylor & Floyer Sydenham, and revised by Thomas W. Rolleston (1892) (transcription project)
* Crito, trans. by Benjamin Jowett (1892)
* Crito, trans. by Charles Haines Keene (1895) (transcription project)
* Crito, trans. by Paul Elmer More (1899) (transcription project)
* Crito, trans. by F. M. Stawell (1910) (transcription project)
* Crito, trans. by H. N. Fowler (1913) (transcription project)
# Critique of the Gotha Programme/Part III

"The German Workers' party, in order to pave the way to the solution of the social question, demands the establishment of producers' co-operative societies with state aid under the democratic control of the toiling people. The producers' co-operative societies are to be called into being for industry and agriculture on such a scale that the socialist organization of the total labor will arise from them.''"
After the Lassallean "iron law of wages", the physic of the prophet. The way to it is "paved" in worthy fashion. In place of the existing class struggle appears a newspaper scribbler's phrase: "the social question", to the "solution" of which one "paves the way".
Instead of arising from the revolutionary process of transformation of society, the "socialist organization of the total labor" "arises" from the "state aid" that the state gives to the producers' co-operative societies and which the state, not the workers, "calls into being". It is worthy of Lassalle's imagination that with state loans one can build a new society just as well as a new railway!
From the remnants of a sense of shame, "state aid" has been put -- under the democratic control of the "toiling people".
In the first place, the majority of the "toiling people" in Germany consists of peasants, not proletarians.
Second, "democratic" means in German "Volksherrschaftlich" [by the rule of the people]. But what does "control by the rule of the people of the toiling people" mean? And particularly in the case of a toiling people which, through these demands that it puts to the state, expresses its full consciousness that it neither rules nor is ripe for ruling!
It would be superfluous to deal here with the criticism of the recipe prescribed by Buchez in the reign of Louis Philippe, in opposition to the French socialists and accepted by the reactionary workers, of the Atelier. The chief offense does not lie in having inscribed this specific nostrum in the program, but in taking, in general, a retrograde step from the standpoint of a class movement to that of a sectarian movement.
That the workers desire to establish the conditions for co-operative production on a social scale, and first of all on a national scale, in their own country, only means that they are working to revolutionize the present conditions of production, and it has nothing in common with the foundation of co-operative societies with state aid. But as far as the present co-operative societies are concerned, they are of value only insofar as they are the independent creations of the workers and not protégés either of the governments or of the bourgeois.
# United States v. Green (350 U.S. 415)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
350 U.S. 415
United States v. Green (350 U.S. 415)
Argued: Feb. 27, 1956. --- Decided: March 26, 1956
Mr. Oscar H. Davis, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. A. M. Fitzgerald, Springfield, Ill., for appellees.
Mr. Justice REED 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. Griffin

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
303 U.S. 226
United States v. Griffin
Argued: Jan. 3, 1938. --- Decided: Feb 28, 1938
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia.
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Edward M. Reidy, of Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Mr. Moultrie Hitt, of Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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. Green (350 U.S. 415)/Dissent Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
350 U.S. 415
United States v. Green (350 U.S. 415)
Argued: Feb. 27, 1956. --- Decided: March 26, 1956
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice BLACK concur, dissenting.
The Government has no right to a direct appeal to this Court under 18 U.S.C. § 3731, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3731, if the District Court judgment 'was not placed solely upon the invalidity or construction of the statute'. United States v. Wayne Pump Co., 317 U.S. 200, 208, 63 S.Ct. 191, 196, 87 L.Ed. 184. (Italics added.) The presence of any additional and independent ground for the District Court's order is fatal to direct review here. I am convinced that there is such an independent ground for the District Court's judgment in this case. It is evident from the district judge's memorandum opinion, 135 F.Supp. 162, that his order granting the motions in arrest of judgment rested at least in part upon the insufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. He considered facts not alleged in the indictment, e.g., that contractors in the community had customarily agreed to the employment of labor which allegedly was demanded by appellees, and that the trouble on the particular job was caused by a disagreement between the contractor and labor, not by an attempt to extort. I would therefore dismiss the Government's appeal.

## 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. Griffin (1978)

In United States v. Griffin, 462 F. Supp. 928 (E.D. Ark. 1978), Eisele, C.J., explains why he refuses to accept plea agreements in criminal cases.
United States District Court, E. D. Arkansas, W. D.
462 F. Supp. 928
United States of America v. Charles Thomas GRIFFIN, Joe Henry Chambers and Charles Yielding
No. LR-CR-77-9. --- Delivered: Dec. 28, 1978.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
[p929] W. H. Dillahunty, U. S. Atty., Samuel A. Perroni, Asst. U. S. Atty., Little Rock, Ark., for plaintiff.
William R. Wilson, Jr., Little Rock, Ark., for Yielding.
John Forster, Jr., North Little Rock, Ark., for Chambers.
Leon Catlett, Little Rock, Ark., for Griffin.
[Opinion of the court by Chief Judge G. THOMAS EISELE.]
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. Griffith

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, news, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
334 U.S. 100
United States v. Griffith
Argued: Dec. 15, 1947. --- Decided: May 3, 1948
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma.
Mr. Robert L. Wright, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Charles B. Cochran, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellees.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 588

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted unanimously by the Security Council at its 2713th meeting on 8 October 1986
The Security Council,
Having considered the question entitled "The situation between Iran and Iraq",
Noting that the Council has been seized with this question for over six years and that decisions have been taken thereon,
Deeply alarmed about the prolongation and intensification of the conflict resulting in heavy losses of human lives and considerable material damage and endangering international peace and security,
Noting the obligations of Member States to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,
Recalling the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and in particular the obligation of all Members to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered,
Recalling further that under the Charter, Member States have conferred on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and to this end have agreed to accept the role of the Security Council in the settlement of disputes,
Commending the efforts of the Secretary-General in the search for a peaceful settlement of the conflict,
* Calls upon Iran and Iraq to implement fully and without delay resolution 582 (1986) adopted unanimously on 24 February 1986;
* Requests the Secretary-General to intensify his efforts with the parties to give effect to the above-mentioned resolution and to report to the Council no later than 30 November 1986;
* Decides to meet again to consider the report of the Secretary-General and the conditions for the establishment of a durable peace between the two countries in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of justice and international law.
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 Nations Security Council Resolution 6

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
6 (1946). Resolution of 17 May 1946$^1$
The Security Council,
Taking into account the fact that under Article 4 of the Charter, membership in the United Nations is open to all peace-loving States which accept the obligations contained in the Charter and, in the judgement of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations, and
Taking into account the fact that the General Assembly which acts to admit applicant States to membership on the recommendation of the Security Council, will meet for the second part of its first session on 3 September 1946,
Resolves:
1. That applications for membership which have been or may be received by the Secretary-General shall be considered by the Security Council at a meeting or meetings to be held in August 1946, for this specific purpose;
2. That applications for membership received by the Secretary General before 15 July 1946 shall be referred to a committee composed of a representative of each of the members of the Security Council for examination and report to the Council not later than 1 August 1946.
* Adopted unanimously at the 42nd meeting.
$^1$ Modified by the Council at its 51st meeting (see below).
Decision
At its 51st meeting, on 24 July 1946, the Council decided, because of the postponement of the opening date of the second part of the first session of the General Assembly, that all the dates in its resolution 6 (1946) of 17 May 1946 would "... be put back as many days as the interval between the day on which the Assembly was originally to be converned and the day on which it actually will be converned".
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 Nations Security Council Resolution 607

The Security Council,
Recalling its resolution 605 (1987) of 22 December 1987,
Expressing grave concern over the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories,
Having been apprised of the decision of Israel, the occupying Power, to "continue the deportation" of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories,
Recalling the Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, of 12 August 1949, and in particular articles 47 and 49 of same,
1. Reaffirms once again that the Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to Palestinian and other Arab territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
2. Calls upon Israel to refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories;
3. Strongly requests Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by its obligation arising from the Convention;
4. Decides to keep the situation in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, under review.
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 Nations Security Council Resolution 611

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, quotes, Wikidata item.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2810th meeting on 25 april 1988
The Security Council,
Having considered the letter dated 19 April 1988 (S/19798), in which Tunisia made a complaint against Israel following the new act of aggression committed by the latter against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Tunisia,
Having heard the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Tunisia,
Having noted with concern that the aggression perpetrated on 16 April 1988 in the locality of Sidi Bou Said has caused loss of human life, particularly the assassination of Mr. Khalil El Wazir,
Recalling that in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations, all Member States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or acting in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,
Considering that in its resolution 573 (1985), adopted following the act of aggression committed on I October 1985 by Israel against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Tunisia, it has condemned Israel and has demanded that Israel refrain from perpetrating such acts of aggression or from threatening to do so,
Gravely concerned by the act of aggression which constitutes a serious and renewed threat to peace, security and stability in the Mediterranean region,
* Condemns vigorously the aggression perpetrated on 16 April 1988 against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Tunisia in flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and norms of conduct;
* Urges Member States to take measures to prevent such acts against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States;
* Expresses its determination to take the appropriate steps to ensure the implementation of the present resolution;
* Requests the Secretary-General to report urgently to the Security Council any new elements available to him and relating to this aggression;
* Decides to remain seized of the matter.
(Resolution S/RES/611 (1988))
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