alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Henry Fuehrer, as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of John Schlegel, Deceased.

(Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

February, 1912.)

Executors and administrators —Accounting and settlement — Distribution and disposal of personal estate — Taxes, interest and repairs.

An executor’s disbursements for taxes, insurance and such repairs as are not shown to be in the nature of permanent improvements, are chargeable solely upon income.

Proceedings upon the judicial settlement of the account of an" executor.

John 0. Kinkel, for executor.

W. E. Hoysradt, for Caroline M. G-oepfert, a legatee.

John F. Ward, for Katharina Schlegel, life tenant.

Ketcham, S.

The account should be settled as made. It is correct in charging upon the income the disbursements for taxes, insurance , and such repairs as are not shown to be in the nature of permanent improvements. Matter of Albertson, 113 N. Y. 434; Stevens v. Melcher, 152 id. 551, and cases cited; Matter of Very, 24 Misc. Rep. 139.

The case of Kirchner v. Kirchner, 71 Misc. Rep. 61, while it correctly reproduces the effect of these authorities with re*597spect to permanent improvements, is arrayed against the authorities in its declaration that the expenditures for insurance are to be apportioned between principal and income.

Decreed accordingly.
Hillsborough, )

June 28, 1912.

#### Hurlburt *v.*Nashua Manufacturing Co.

In an action for personal injuries against an employer, certain evidence deemed sufficient to warrant a submission of the question whether the plaintiff appreciated the danger to which he was exposed and was guilty of contributory negligence barring a recovery.

Case, for negligence. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. Transferred from the September term, 1911, of the superior court by *Chamberlin,*J., on the defendant’s exception to the denial of a motion for a nonsuit. The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Doyle & Lucier (Mr. Lucier*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Burnham, Brown, Jones & Warren (Robert L. Manning*orally), for the defendant.

Peaslee, J.

The evidence tended to show that the plaintiff, a boy fifteen years old, was injured while riding upon a freight elevator in the defendant’s mill. The plaintiff was inexperienced and of less than average intelligence. The elevator well was dark, and at the place where his arm was caught a timber projected into the well a foot beyond the wall. The plaintiff was told by the man he had orders to obey to get upon the elevator, and crouch down to hide behind a box of bobbins so that the overseer on the floor above would not see him. While doing this, his arm got beyond the side of the elevator and was caught by the protruding beam. He testified that he was wholly ignorant of the situation and did not know how his arm got beyond the line of the elevator. Upon cross-examination, he said that he knew it “would not be right” to place his arm in that position.

The defendant relies upon *Cronin*v. *Company, 75*N. H. 319, but that case is distinguishable from this. There the boy was of average intelligence, accustomed to ride on the elevator, familiar with the exact danger he encountered, and with ample opportunity to use his judgment. Hero the boy was of low mentality, the place he entered was strange to him, there was no opportunity to observe, and he was acting under the natural excitement of the occasion. It does not require extended argument to show that expressions used in the Cronin case are not applicable here. Whatever theoretical knowledge this plaintiff had of the propriety of keeping within *470the plane of the moving side of the elevator, it is evident that it could have been found that he had no such practical knowledge of the situation as to appreciate the care necessary to be exercised to avoid the danger. There was no error in the ruling that the defence of contributory negligence was not conclusively established by the evidence.

*Exception overruled.*

All concurred.
#### Kittie Waterman, Respondent, v. Stanton Waterman, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Follett, J', not sitting.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                              UNITED BANCORP, INC
                                    EXHIBITS

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of United Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Randall M.
Greenwood, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Randall M. Greenwood

Randall M. Greenwood
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
March 15, 2003
No. 157, Misc.

#### Kirby *v.*Illinois.

Circuit Court of Fayette County, Illinois. Certiorari denied.
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 4:11:27 AM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I'd simply like to point out how much money birth control access saved insurers in my case. I had a

tubal ligation at age 26 by choice. Cost to insurance: about $2000. If I hadn't chosen sterilization, I

probably would have eventually had one or two children. Cost for childbirth at about the time I had the

tubal ligation done: about $5000. Cost of health care for child (assuming nothing drastic happened):

about $1000 per year for 20 years (guessing at cost), or $20,000. That means insurers saved about

$23,000 in health care costs, more than recouping the original investment.

Given that close to half of all births in the United States are unplanned, the savings potential for

insurers is tremendous. Even if birth control costs an insurer $100 a month (I'm sure it's less, but

thought I'd err on the high side), if even half of all women who use birth control have one less child, a

woman could use birth control for close to 10 years and the insurance companies would still break even.

As for the religious objections, this isn't a theocracy. Those who object on the basis of religion can just

go pound sand.

Sincerely,

L. Miller
From: Donella Held

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 10:00:33 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Donella Held

125 N 10 str

Brooklyn, ny 11249
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (4.68 MB)
 
 455th AEW 455 Air Expeditionary Wing 455 aew U.S. AIr Forces Central Freedom's sentinel U.S. Air Force USAF AFCENT Centcom 455th Air Expeditionary Wing United States Air Force Resolute Support Bagram Airfield Bagram U.S. Central Command Afghanistan
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
From: Jeannie Park

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 9:30:11 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Jeannie Park

63 Downing St., #4C

New York, NY 10014
From: Roy Heidinger

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive services

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:19:15 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as they pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to

thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.
#### ByWarren I. Finch

---

---
Petraeus discusses differences in Afghanistan, Iraq strategies
 By Donna Miles , American Forces Press Service
  WASHINGTON (April 22, 2009) – Predicting some “tough months ahead” as more U.S. troops deploy into Afghanistan, the commander of U.S. central Command said he believes success there is achievable, but not using the exact strategies that sparked a turnaround in Iraq. “We do believe that we can achieve progress, but it’s going to get worse before it gets better,” Army Gen. David H. Petraeus said at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Mass. Petraeus noted that violence initially spiked in Iraq during the early days of the troop surge there before dropping to the lowest numbers since the start of the war in 2003. Similarly, he said, coalition troops are likely to encounter strong opposition from extremists in Afghanistan. “When you go into an enemy’s sanctuaries, areas where he has been able to base and to plan and to build car bombs and all the rest of it, they will fight you for it,” he warned. “So there will be tough months ahead, without question.” Petraeus was quick to note the “enormous difference between Iraq and Afghanistan.” Afghanistan, for example, lacks Iraq’s huge oil revenues and its “muscle memory” of strong central government institutions. These, as well as culture differences between the two countries, require a different approach to conducting counterinsurgency operations, he said. “You have to apply [them] in a way that is culturally appropriate for Afghanistan,” he said. For example, a key strategy shift that accompanied the troop surge in Iraq – in which U.S. troops lived within the Iraqi communities they helped to secure – won’t necessarily work in Afghanistan, Petraeus said. “You don’t move into a village in Afghanistan the way that we were able to move into neighborhoods in Iraq,” he said. “You have to move on the edge of it, or just near it, but you still have to have a persistent security presence.” Petraeus expressed confidence that the operations under way in Afghanistan ultimately will succeed, but he tempered expectations. “It will be very difficult, and you won’t see the dramatic turnaround that we have seen in Iraq,” he said. One big difference between the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is that there’s a nearly universal understanding of why the United States is fighting in Afghanistan, Petraeus said. “There is absolutely no debate about the fact that that is where the 9/11 attacks came from,” he said. Similarly, there’s general agreement about the need to keep extremists from reclaiming Afghanistan as a safe haven to plan and launch future attacks, he said. The American people need to recognize that “this represents a vital interest to our country,” Petraeus said. While at Harvard, Petraeus paid tribute to hundreds of student veterans studying at the Kennedy School, Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School. Calling them the “new greatest generation,” he said, “I am simply here to say to each of you, ‘Thank you.’”
IRGCN Interaction with U.S. Naval Vessels in the North Arabian Gulf
 
  By From U.S. 5th Fleet Public Affairs
   At approximately 8 p.m. on April 26, three Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) fast inshore attack craft (FIAC) failed to exercise due regard for the safety of other vessels as required under international law as they came into close proximity to U.S. naval vessels in international waters of the north Arabian Gulf.  The IRGCN armed speed boats rapidly approached U.S. Navy patrol coastal ship USS Firebolt (PC 10) and U.S. Coast Guard patrol boat USCGC Baranof (WPB 1318) to an unnecessarily close range with unknown intent, including a closest point of approach (CPA) of 68 yards to both U.S. ships.  Firebolt and Baranof were conducting routine maritime security operations in international waters during the time of the incident.  The U.S. crews issued multiple warnings via bridge-to-bridge radio and loud-hailer devices, but the IRGCN vessels continued their close range maneuvers.  The crew of Firebolt then fired warning shots, and the IRGCN vessels moved away to a safe distance from the U.S. vessels.  Throughout the interaction, U.S. forces proactively communicated with the IRGCN vessels and executed pre-planned responses to reduce the risk of miscalculation, avoid a collision, and to de-escalate the situation.  The IRGCN’s actions increased the risk of miscalculation and/or collision, were not in accordance with the internationally recognized Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) “rules of the road” or internationally recognized maritime customs. In addition, the IRGCN actions were not in accordance with the obligation under international law to act with due regard for the safety of other vessels in the area.  U.S. naval forces continue to remain vigilant and are trained to act in a professional manner, while our commanding officers retain the inherent right to act in self-defense.  The Firebolt and Baranof crews operated with distinct professionalism, superior seamanship and dispassionate yet firm resolve.  As professional mariners, we expect the IRGCN to operate with due regard for the safety of all vessels as required by international law.  The U.S. is not an aggressor; our naval forces remain postured in a non-provocative manner that exemplifies professionalism, incentivizes adherence to international law and customs, and persuades others to emulate our actions.  Our forces are trained, however, to conduct effective defensive measures when necessary.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.49


May 26, 2003


Elizabeth Triana


Dear Elizabeth,

RE:      EMPLOYEE SHARE INCENTIVE PLAN AND EMPLOYEE SHARE OPTION PLAN

In accordance with the Employee Share Incentive Plan ("the Preference Share
Plan"), you are hereby advised that the Grant Date is June 4, 2003 for benefits
you have accrued during the year ended 31 December 2002.

Accordingly you are granted 197 Preference Shares in the Company. You have the
option to purchase an equal number of Preference Shares at a price of CI$7.46
each, which has been calculated in accordance to the terms of the Preference
Share Plan. If you intend to exercise this option, then payment must be received
in full no later than the close of business on July 4, 2003.

As a member of the Employee Share Option Plan ("the Option Plan"), you will also
be granted, as of June 30, 2003, the option to purchase 985 Ordinary Shares in
the Company. These options are exercisable in accordance to the terms of the
Option Plan. You furthermore have the opportunity to obtain an equal amount of
options to purchase Ordinary Shares of the Company, in accordance to the terms
of the Option Plan, if you exercise your right to purchase the above additional
Preference Shares before June 30, 2003.

Your continued dedication and hard work have contributed to another successful
year for Consolidated Water, and I look forward to a very bright future.

Yours sincerely,



/s/ Frederick McTaggart
Frederick W. McTaggart
President and COO
Jan. 24: Military Airstrikes Continue Against ISIL in Syria and Iraq
 By CJTF - Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
  January 24, 2015 Release # 2015024FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE **SOUTHWEST ASIA -**
 On Jan. 23, U.S. and Coalition military forces continued to attack ISIL
 terrorists in Syria, using attack, bomber, fighter, and remotely 
piloted aircraft to conduct 13 airstrikes. Separately, U.S. and 
Coalition military forces conducted 13 airstrikes in Iraq, using attack,
 bomber, fighter, and remotely piloted aircraft against ISIL terrorists.
 All strikes took place between 8 a.m., Jan. 23, and 8 a.m., Jan. 24, 
local time. The following is a summary of the strikes conducted since the last press release: **Syria***
  Near Kobani, 12 airstrikes struck eight ISIL tactical units and a 
large ISIL unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle, an ISIL building, and 
eight ISIL fighting positions.*  Near Al Hasakah, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL mobile oil drilling rig. **Iraq***  Near Al Qaim, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL weapons production facility.*
  Near Mosul, five airstrikes struck two large ISIL units, an ISIL choke
 point, an ISIL culvert, and four ISIL roads, and destroyed an ISIL 
culvert and an ISIL vehicle.*  Near Ramadi, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL vehicle.*
  Near Tal Afar, five airstrikes struck a large ISIL unit, two ISIL 
tactical units, an ISIL cantonment area, and an ISIL vehicle, and 
destroyed an ISIL building, six ISIL vehicles, an ISIL bunker, two ISIL 
shipping containers, and two ISIL checkpoints.*  Near Erbil, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL shipping container, two ISIL vehicles, and three ISIL earth moving vehicles. Airstrike assessments are based on initial reports. All aircraft returned to base safely. The
 strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the 
operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose
 to Iraq, Syria, the region, and the wider international community. The 
destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the 
terrorist group's ability to project terror and conduct operations. 
Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the U.S., 
Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Netherlands, and the United
 Kingdom. Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the 
U.S., Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.
#### Orlin Holcomb, Respondent, v. The Town of Wilna and others, Appellants.

Order of ihe Special Term reversed, with ten dollars coats and disbursements, and motion to dissolve the injunction granted, with ten dollars costs. Opinion by

Boardman, J.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. C. Stewart Cavanagh, Appellant, *v.*Rhinelander Waldo, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

*People ex rel. Cavanagh*v. *Waldo,*149 App. Div. 937, affirmed.

(Argued April 29, 1912;

decided May 14, 1912.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered February 23, 1912, which affirmed an order of Special Term dismissing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding the relator to custody.

*590
      *George W. Wingate*for appellant.

■ *Archibald JR. Watson, Corporation Counsel {James D. Bell*of counsel), and *James C. Cropsey, District Attorney {JHersey Egginton*of counsel), for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hisoooic and Collin, JJ.
From: Peggy Haring

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: health care for women no exemptions please!

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:42:56 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new

health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a

critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health

care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to contraceptive

services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the

government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to

apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from

the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this

larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.