alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Shelter
Properties VI 1999 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000730013
<NAME> SHELTER PROPERTIES VI
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,372
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          54,376
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,238
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,647
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         25,618
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,634
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,647
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,943
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,615
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,754
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       574
<EPS-BASIC>                                    13.42<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### The People ex rel. Julia Stern, Relator, *v.*The New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and the Five Points House of Industry, Respondents.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

May, 1899.)

Infants — Commitment to a house of industry, how reviewed — Code Grim. Tro., § 749.

While the court has power, in a direct proceeding instituted by petition and in the interests of an infant, to go behind its commitment to the custody of a House of Industry, the court cannot review a commitment, made by a competent criminal tribunal, upon returns to writs of *habeas corpus*and *certiorari,*the remedy being by an appeal taken under section 749 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The nature of the proceedings and the material facts are stated in the opinion.

Benjamin Reass, for relator.

De Lancey Nicoll, for respondents.

*458Giegerich, J.

Upon return of writs of habeas corpus and cértiorári, it is not disputed that the infant, whose custody is the subject of- dispute, was committed to the charge of the respondent, the Five-Points House of Industry, by final judgment of a competent tribunal of criminal jurisdiction, and is now temporarily in the-custody of the respondent, The Hew York Society for, the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, because of the breaking out of a . contagious disease in the house of reception of the former; but the moving party, contends that upon affidavits, showing the inadvisability of the commitment, as a matter of fact, the general powers of the court, as the "guardian of the interests of all infants, should be exercised favorably to the application;

While it is to be conceded that the court has power to go behind a commitment of this character in the interests of the infant committed, where a direct proceeding is instituted by petition addressed solely to the equitable discretion (Matter of Knowack, 158 N. Y. 482); the power cannot be exercised at the instance of the present applicant, in view of the form of the application.

Here, the proceeding is not such as was instituted in the case cited, and the rules governing applications based upon writs-of certiorari and habeas corpus are. precise. As the proceedings, which terminated 'in the commitment of the child, can be adequately reviewed upon an appeal, as prescribed by section 149* of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a writ of certiorari cannot be issued to review such determination. ■ Code Civ. Pro., § 2122. Moreover, such writ was not intended to enable a justice to review the evidence upon which the commitment is based. People ex rel. Perkerson v. Sisters of St. Dominick, 34 Hun, 463; 2 N. Y. Crim Rep. 528; People ex rel. Eck v. American Female Guardian Society, 2 N. Y. Crim. 538, n.

The commitment having been made by -a . court of competent jurisdiction, the writs cannot be sustained (Code Civ. Pro., § 2016; People ex rel. Perkerson v. Sisters of St. Dominick, *supra;*People ex rel. Lazarus v. House of Mercy,-23 App. Div. 383), and, since tiie return is not assailed upon jurisdictional grounds, there is noth-' ing before the court., . • '

Writs dismissed.
#### Timothy J. Phelan, Plaintiff, *v.*Charles E. Rycroft, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

March, 1899.)

1. Slander — Amendment of complaint refused where the new words are barred by the statute of limitations.

A complaint in slander cannot be amended by. inserting a slanderous utterance made under circumstances different from those disclosed in the original complaint, and which could not be met by the defense of privilege alleged in the answer, where the cause of. action for the said slanderous utterance would be barred by the statute of limitations.

8. 'Motions.^- Affidavit should be made by party.

Unless the facts upon which a motion is- founded aré peculiarly within the knowledge of the attorney, the affidavit must be made by the party.

"Motion by plaintiff for leave to amend-complaint..

John T. Fenlon, for motion.

Vanderpoel, Cuming & Goodwin (Henry Thompson, of counsel), opposed.

Giegerich, J.

By amendment of the complaint the plaintiff seeks to set up a slanderous utterance by the defendant, made under circumstances different from- those' disclosed in the original complaint, and which could not be met by the defense of privilege alleged in the answer. A cause of action for these Words would be barred by the Statute of Limitations, and-1; therefore, conclude that .'the motion; should be denied upon, the- authority of Williams v. Cooper, 1 Hill, 638. If the words are to be viewed merely as; a repetition, and are sought, to he proven' in. further proof - of malice; then they need not be specifically pleaded.. Enos v. Enos, 135 N. Y. 609. There is still another- ground upon- which- the:. *49motion should he denied. The affidavit upon which it is based was made by the plaintiff’s attorney, and no reason is given why it was not made by the plaintiff himself. It is the well-settled practice that unless the facts upon which a motion is founded are peculiarly within the knowledge of the attorney, the affidavit should be made by the party. Rhodes v. Lewin, 33 App. Div. 369, 370. It appears from the affidavit in question that the matters therein set forth were peculiarly within the knowledge of the plaintiff,, and are founded solely upon information received from him. The affidavit is, therefore, defective, and it follows from these views that the motion should be denied, with $10 costs.

Motion denied, with $10 costs.
- Office Home
- About Us
- Key Topics
- Remarks and Releases
- Resource Documents
- Events
- JUST Report Restitution
- Contact Us
- 2017-2021 Archive

HomeOffice of the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues...Remarks and Releases – Holocaust Issues

# 						Remarks and Releases – Holocaust Issues					

							Releases related to Holocaust issues.						

65 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year2024202320222021

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a SpeakerAaron KeyakAntony J. BlinkenCherrie DanielsDeborah LipstadtEllen GermainJoe BidenKaren DonfriedPhilip T. ReekerStuart EizenstatWendy R. Sherman

Select a LocationAustriaBangladeshBurmaCzech RepublicFranceGermanyGreeceItalyLibyaLuxembourgNetherlandsPolandRussiaSwedenUkraine

Select a Release TypeDipNoteDipNote: Human Rights and DemocracyFact SheetInterviewMedia NoteOther ReleasePress StatementReadoutRemarksSpecial BriefingVideo RemarksWhite House Release

Select a Bureau/OfficeBureau of Conflict and Stabilization OperationsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of Educational and Cultural AffairsBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsBureau of Global Public AffairsBureau of Near Eastern AffairsBureau of South and Central Asian AffairsDeputy Secretary of StateOffice of the Special Envoy To Monitor and Combat AntisemitismOffice of the Special Envoy for Holocaust IssuesOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

          -    White House Release  		Statement from President Joe Biden on International Holocaust Remembrance Day	  Joe BidenJanuary 26, 2023 
          -    Media Note  		Follow-Up to Terezin Declaration Conference on Holocaust Era Issues 	  December 15, 2022 
          -    Remarks  		20 Years after the Washington Agreement	  Stuart EizenstatNovember 14, 2022General Settlement Fund and Diplomatic Academy EventVienna, Austria 
          -    Remarks  		Looking to the Future: Holocaust Property Restitution, Commemoration and Education	  Ellen GermainNovember 3, 2022Terezin Declaration ConferencePRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC 
          -    Video Remarks  		Terezin Declaration Conference	  Antony J. BlinkenNovember 3, 2022Prague, Czechia 
          -    Remarks  		Taking Action to Combat Antisemitism: An Eight-Point Strategy for Advancing the Fight Against Antisemitism Globally	  Aaron KeyakOctober 27, 2022Swedish Mission to the UN/WJC/UNAOC Co-Sponsored EventVirtual 
          -    Media Note  		On the Anniversary of the Massacre at Babyn Yar: Joint Statement from Special Envoys for Holocaust Issues Condemning Russian Actions in Ukraine	  September 29, 2022 
          -    Other Release  		State Department, Holocaust Museum Recognize Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum	  July 14, 2022 
          -    Remarks  		Auschwitz-Birkenau: Ensuring the Historical Fact of the Holocaust for New Generations	  Karen DonfriedJuly 13, 2022Washington, DC 
          -    Video Remarks  		75th Anniversary of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum: A Commemoration	  Ellen GermainJuly 13, 2022Washington, DC 

previous page12345…7next page

Back to Top
EXHIBIT 32
 COMM BANCORP, INC.
 CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO  SECTION 1350
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
covered by the Report.
 Date: August 12, 2008
    /s/ William F. Farber, Sr.William F. Farber, Sr.President and Chief Executive Officer  
 54




---



##### 



COMM BANCORP, INC.
 CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO  SECTION 1350
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
covered by the Report.
 Date: August 12, 2008
    /s/ Scott A. SeasockScott A. SeasockExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer  
 55
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Stephen B. Waters, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Shelter Properties VI;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 8, 2007

/s/Stephen B. Waters

Stephen B. Waters

Vice President of Shelter Realty VI Corporation, equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership
#### Samuel Symons, Respondent, *v.*The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

May, 1899.)

Negligence — Proof of average earnings of injured person.

Where a person 'seeks to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the alleged violence of an employee of a corporation, he may prove the amount of his average earnings during the year be- ' fore and the year after the assault.

*503Appeal from a judgment of the City Court, affirming a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Henry A. Robinson (John T. Little, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.

Julius- Lehmann (Alexander Rosenthal, of counsel), for respondent.

Freedman, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the City Court, affirming a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury awarding the plaintiff the sum of $650, as damages for a violent and brutal attack made upon him in August, 1896, by an employee of the defendant. The only substantial question involved in the appeal relates to the admission of testimony at the trial as to plaintiff’s earnings during the years 1895-1896 and 1897.. The case shows that there was evidence as to plaintiff’s condition in life, and as to his business, which was that of a commercial traveller, in the wholesale line, and that in consequence of the injuries inflicted upon him he. had missed the first fall trip in his business in the year 1896, as a commercial traveller, and that he suffered pain from the injuries received for about one year. : Hpon the whole a proper foundation was laid for the introduction of evidence as to the earnings, referred to, and such evidence was properly admitted under the decision of. the Court of Appeals in Ehrgott v. Mayor, 96 N. Y. 264. True, the decision was made with reference to average earnings . before the injury, but upon the same principle evidence is admissible as to average earnings for a reasonable subsequent period. . Moreover, the evidence as to subsequent average earnings was neither sufficiently objected to, nor did it prejudice the defendant, but was beneficial to it, for it showed that during the last six months of 1897 the plaintiff earned more than he had earned before the injury. The judgment should be affirmed.

MaoLeae, J., concurs; Leveetbitt, J., taking no part.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 32(ii)

                               COMM BANCORP, INC.

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Scott A. Seasock, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Comm Bancorp, Inc., (the "Company"), hereby certifies that to the best of his
knowledge:

1.    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, of
      the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section
      13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
      U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company
      at the dates and for the periods indicated.

The foregoing certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section.
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.

Date:  May 12, 2005                           /s/ Scott A. Seasock
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Scott A. Seasock
                                              Executive Vice President and Chief
                                              Financial Officer

A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

                                       66
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 42.101 Who may petition for *inter partes* review.

A person who is not the owner of a patent may file with the Office a petition to institute an *inter partes* review of the patent unless:

(a) Before the date on which the petition for review is filed, the petitioner or real party-in-interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent;

(b) The petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than one year after the date on which the petitioner, the petitioner's real party-in-interest, or a privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent; or

(c) The petitioner, the petitioner's real party-in-interest, or a privy of the petitioner is estopped from challenging the claims on the grounds identified in the petition.
#### GILMORE *v.*BOLIO.

Brokers — Commissions—Sale of Real Property.

No commission is recoverable by a broker who listed property under an arrangement to have as his commission all he could obtain for it above $1,400, and who introduced to the owner a prospective buyer who refused to take the house at the price named by the broker, but afterwards bought the property for $1,300 directly from the owner.

Error to Wayne; Murphy, J.

Submitted April *12,*1911.

(Docket No. 86.)

Decided May 8, 1911.

Assumpsit in justice’s court by William G. Gilmore against John Bolio for broker’s commissions on a sale of real property. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant removed the cause to the circuit court by certiorari, where *634judgment was entered for defendant. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

*James H. Bayne,*for appellant.

*A. B. Hall,*for appellee.

Hooker, J.

The plaintiff recovered a judgment in the court of justice of the peace, which was reversed on certiorari by the circuit court. The cause is before us on writ of error taken out by plaintiff.

The substance of the error assigned, in the affidavit, is that the testimony did not warrant the judgment, and that is the only question before us. The return of the justice states that the affidavit for certiorari correctly states all of the testimony taken upon the trial. The testimony shows without dispute that defendant owned certain premises, which he desired to sell; that he stated to the plaintiff that he would allow him to sell it, if he could get $1,400 net for plaintiff. Through his agent, Stroh, plaintiff subsequently introduced Wiegel to defendant as a prospective purchaser. Wiegel refused to buy the house on the terms stipulated by defendant. Nothing more was done about the matter by any of the parties for six weeks. Subsequently Wiegel purchased the property for $1,300. The plaintiff claims that he is entitled to a commission for finding and introducing the person to whom defendant finally sold the place, while defendant insists that what plaintiff did was under a special contract, and that it is conclusively shown that he is not entitled to a commission.

We think defendant is correct. Plaintiff’s right to compensation depended upon his ability to obtain a greater sum than $1,400 for the place, in which he failed. The fact that defendant sold it for $100 less than that sum to a person who had refused plaintiff’s offer of the place at $1,450 does not entitle plaintiff to compensation. *McDonald*v. *Boeing,*43 Mich. 394 (5 N. W. 439, 38 Am. Rep. 199); *Williams*v. *McGraw,*52 Mich. 480 (18 N. *635W. 227); *Antisdel*v. Canfield, 119 Mich. 229 (77 N. W. 944). See, also, *Wood*v. Smith, 162 Mich. 334 (127 N. W. 277), where Mr. Justice Stone has discussed this question at length.

The judgment is affirmed.

Ostrander, C. J., and Bird, Blair, and Stone, JJ., concurred.