alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: doodlebg@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:12:32 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Donnie Brandt

Ringgold, GA 30736
From: pastor@grcpca.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:10:53 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the mandate that all

"contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance with no co-pay to

patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for any organizations

that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections.

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially when some of these

drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No American citizen should be forced by the federal

government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest way

possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

David Atkisson

Elizabethtown, KY 42701
From: Albright, Shellie [mailto:Shellie.Albright@vta.org] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 2:55 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: Annuities

I work for a local public employer. We offer a defined benefit and a defined contribution plan.

The defined benefit plan is paid in the form of an annuity and the defined contribution

(employee contribution only, no employer contributions) does not offer an annuity form of

payout. A while ago, I rolled over money from my defined contribution plan into the defined

benefit plan to purchase additional years of service to increase the amount of my annuity.

I did this because I believe it is imperative for retirees to have a substantial annuity to rely upon

that will have no longevity risk. Unfortunately, with an annuity, there is always issuer risk. I

thought I had avoided this because I was buying into a large pool, which would be more stable

than a private insurer. Unfortunately, it didn’t really occur to me then that I was at risk of my

employer going bankrupt and ceasing contributions needed to pay benefits for the long haul.

I think it is the risk that the issuer will go bankrupt that is the major concern about purchasing

an annuity. If this were not a concern, many more folks would buy annuities. If annuity

payments were insured and guaranteed like FDIC insurance, more people would buy them.  

At least requiring that plans advise you of how much of a monthly income you could expect at

three conservative rates of return will let folks see clearly that they have not saved enough to

retire.

Almost 10 years ago now, I purchased the Schwab Yield Plus Fund when I got concerned about

market risk shortly after Sept. 11, 2001. I bought it because it was supposed to be a low risk

money market equivalent fund. Schwab invested heavily in mortgage backed securities and lost

50% of my money. They claim it is my fault, I should have sold once I saw the fund starting to

drop. Unfortunately, due to the illness and death of several family members, I did not even

notice the drop till it was too late.  People need a risk free way to guarantee their retirement

savings and insure that they will not out live them. Annuities are best for this purpose but, as

indicated, there needs to be a way to remove the risk of loss. (I’m old enough to remember the

Executive Life mess.)
From: Lisa Black

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:01:28 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.

Lisa Black
RICHARD DEAN

BONAVENTURA

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 5650

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 17, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Michael C. Overstreet , Judge

.

Richard Dean Bonaventura, pro se

, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFI RMED.

LEWIS, C. J., MARSTILLER, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
No. 372, Misc.

#### Hampton *v.*Illinois.

Supreme Court of Illinois. Certiorari denied.
#### JOHN J. CASALE, INC., *v.*UNITED STATES et al.

No. 483.

Decided December 17, 1962.

*Herbert Burstein*for appellant.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Loevinger, Lionel Kestenbaum*and *Robert W. Ginnane*for the United States et al.

Per Curiam.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Peak International Limited (the Company) for the quarter ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, John Supan, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------
|Date: June 13, 2006 |  | /s/ John Supan                 
|                    |  | John Supan                     
|                    |  | Interim Chief Financial Officer

This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.

A signed original 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.
From: dgeiger197@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:38:34 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Debbie Geiger

Dothan, AL 36301
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of ALCO, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Yip Kam Ming, Chief Financial Officer and director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

> 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/ Yip Kam Ming



Yip Kam Ming,

 Chief Financial Officer and director

April 12, 2006
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 (2.89 MB)
 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
Docket: EBSA-2010-0018 

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of 

Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0018-0002 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services 

under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment 

Document: EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0072 

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684 

Submitter Information 

General Comment 

Dear Department of Health and Human Services, 

As a family from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, we are deeply concerned about the new 

guidelines related to the Obama administration’s implementation of the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act (PPACA) that were unveiled on Monday, August 1 by the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS). 

We are very disturbed that the new guidelines require most health insurance plans in the United 

States—including those offered by private employers—to provide full access to birth control, as 

well as abortion-inducing drugs such as “Ella” and “the morning after pill.” “Ella” and the 

“morning after pill” have been shown to harm women, and actually kill the developing baby by 

starving it of nutrients. 

Although the Obama administration also issued a regulation establishing a religious exemption to 

this new requirement, the proposed Religious Exemption (which violates the Religious Freedom 

Restoration Act) is extremely narrow, and will force most religious employers to decide whether 

to end their insurance programs—which will hurt millions of employees across the nation—or 

violate their conscience by including birth control and abortion-inducing drugs in their insurance 

programs. 

In conclusion, we urge HHS to withdraw the Interim Final Rule that created this illegally narrow 

religious exemption. In its place, we urge the HHS to adopt a broader religious exemption that 

will allow all employers who have religious and conscientious objections to providing birth 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: August 31, 2011 

Received: August 30, 2011 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80f0bd36 

Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 2

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=090... 8/31/2011
control drugs or abortion-inducing drugs to their employees to opt out of the new HRSA 

guidelines. 

If HHS adopts these reasonable suggestions for a new religious exemption, it will demonstrate 

that the Department and the Obama Administration want to protect the religious freedom of all 

employers in the United States. 

Sincerely, 

A family of concerned citizens 

Page 2 of 2

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=090... 8/31/2011
From: john tighe

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Monday, August 15, 2011 5:54:20 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

john tighe
levittown, New York
[No. 2428.]

#### Titus v. Bernard, as Administrator of Morrison's Estate.

Practice in Civil Actions — Evidence—Directing Verdict.

In an action against an estate, where various witnesses testified to admissions of deceased, which, if credited, tended to prove that plaintiff, at the request of deceased, performed valuable services for him, for which deceased promised to pay-plaintiff a certain sum, it was error to direct the jury to return a verdict for defendant. The unreliability of admissions, the credibility of witnesses and the conflicts in the testimony, if any, were questions for the jury.

*105
      *Appeal from the District Court of Boulder County.*

Mr. T. M. Robinson, for appellant.

Mr. Sylvester S. Downer, for appellee.

G-unter, J.

Appellant filed a claim in the county court against the estate of Morrison, deceased, for $2,-500.00, for services rendered by appellant in discovering ore on a mining property. The claim was tried on appeal in the district court to a jury. At the conclusion of the evidence for appellant, the jury by direction rendered a verdict for the estate, From the judgment on the verdict the case is here.

The only question in the case is, was the evidence sufficient to justify submitting the issues to a jury? If it was, the ease should go bach.

The evidence of the claim consisted largely of the admissions of deceased testified to by the various witnesses. This evidence, if credited, tended to prove that appellant, at the request of deceased, performed valuable services for him in discovering ore on a mining claim, and that deceased promised to pay him therefor the sum of $2,500.00. The testimony of Lindenmeyer and Johnson alone was sufficient proof of the claim to justify submitting the case to the jury. The unreliability of admissions, the credibility of Johnson on account of relationship to appellant, the conflicts, if any, between the witnesses, the facts that the circumstances suggested that more satisfactory evidence must exist if the claim was valid, were all for the jury.

We think the evidence in the case justified submitting it to a jury, and that the court erred in directing a verdict for the estate.

Judgment reversed.

*Reversed.*