alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Joseph Bogdanowicz

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 8:58:18 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,

Joseph Bogdanowicz
Ann Arbor, Michigan
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 62572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19613]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[FR ID 170186]


Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission published a document in 
the Federal Register of August 29, 2023, concerning a new Matching 
Program. The document provided an incorrect effective date and ending 
date of a new matching agreement between the Federal Communications 
Commission and the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Alexiou, (202) 418-2001, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9dedeff4ebfcfee4ddfbfefeb3faf2eb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3c4c4e554a5d5f457c5a5f5f125b534a">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 29, 2023, in FR Doc. 88-59523, on 
page 59523, in the third column, correct the DATES caption to read:

DATES: Written comments are due on or before September 28, 2023. This 
computer matching program will commence on October 15, 2023, and will 
conclude on April 14, 2025.

    Dated: September 6, 2023.

Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19613 Filed 9-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
From: moureau@sbcglobal.net

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,

Myra Moureau

Salem, IL 62881
#### Anna R. Gilman, Respondent, v. Aaron Healy, Appellant

Order affirmed, with ten dollars

costs and disbursements.
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF BAKBONE SOFTWARE INCORPORATED



|                          |  |                              |  |                 |  
|------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | --------------- | -
|Subsidiary                |  | Jurisdiction ofIncorporation |  | PercentageOwned |  
|BakBone Software, Inc.    |  | U.S.                         |  | 100             | %
|BakBone Acquisition Corp. |  | U.S.                         |  | 100             | %
|BakBone Software Limited  |  | U.K.                         |  | 100             | %
|BakBone Software K.K.     |  | Japan                        |  | 100             | %
|ColdSpark, Inc.           |  | U.S.                         |  | 100             | %
| **CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY (Parenthetical) - $ / shares** | 9 Months Ended |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| **Statement of Stockholders' Equity [Abstract]**                                        |           |   |
| Dividends declared per common share (in dollars per share)                              | $ 1.73         | $ 1.70 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Aggregate dividends declared during the period for each share of common stock outstanding.
+ References
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 505 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.3-04) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480008/505-10-S99-1
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_CommonStockDividendsPerShareDeclared**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**dtr-types:perShareItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_StatementOfStockholdersEquityAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF TREASURER**

 

I, Robert F. Aufenanger, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Excelsior Private Equity Fund II, Inc.; 

 

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 tomake 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 financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, 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 registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness 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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

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

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 16, 2005
From: jameskornmann@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:14:17 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,

Lynette Kornmann

Minneapolis, MN 55422
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 23, 2016

t1123

Order 

Clerk

November 23, 2016

154048

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154048

COA: 331755 

Oakland CC: 2013-248687-FH

SAMUEL JAMIL SESI,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 10, 2016 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### EGBERT FOSTER and ELIZABETH FOSTER, his Wife, Respondents, *v.*SARAH E. FOSTER and Another, Appellants.

*Practice*— *a tenant in common may join his wife as a co-plaintiff in an action for*• pan'tition— *Code of Civil Procedure, sec.*1538.

In this action, brought to procure a partition of real estate among the owners thereof, the plaintiff, a tenant in common, joined with himself as a co-plaintiff his wife, who had an inchoate right of dower in his share.

*Meld,*that in so doing he did not violate the provisions of section 1538 of the Code of Civil Procedure, providing that in actions for partition *“*no person other than a joint tenant or a tenant in common of the property, shall he a plaintiff,” and that a demurrer interposed upon the ground of a misjoinder of parties plaintiff should be overruled.

*366Appeal from an order adjudging the demurrer of Antoinette Booth and Harriet J. Burns, two of the defendants herein, to be frivolous.

The action was for partition, and it appears upon the face of the complaint that the plaintiff Elizabeth Foster, who is the wife of the plaintiff Egbert Foster, has an inchoate right of dower in that portion of the premises whereof her husband is seized in fee; it also appears that the said plaintiff Elizabeth Foster is neither a joint tenant nor a tenant in common of the premises in question.

The defendants Antoinette Booth and Harriet J. Burns demurred to the complaint, setting up a misjoinder of parties plaintiff, and a defect of parties *defendant;*and the demurrer points out specifically the particular misjoinder and defect relied upon.

*Close <&*Robertson, for Antoinette Booth and Harriet J. Burns, appellants.

*Wadsworth dk Gott,*for the respondents.

Barnard, F. J.:

The point taken by this demurrer has been the subject of much discussion since section 1588 of the Code was passed. The words of that section so far as material to the question are as follows: *“*But no person other than a joint tenant or a tenant in common of the property shall be a plaintiff in the action.”

The plaintiff Egbert Foster is the owner of the fee, and his wife has an inchoate right of dower therein.

The husband and wife together make only one interest in the share. The words of apparent exclusion have no reference to her. There are classes named in this section who cannot be plaintiffs in partition. The wife in this case could not be, but when her husband is within the class who can maintain the action, his wife, who has a contingent interest in his share, may be joined with him. She is a necessary party, and it was not intended by this section to compel a husband to put his wife in a hostile position to himself, unless she refused to join with him and thus cut off her possible estate.

The order should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Dvkman, J., concurred.

Order striking out demurrer affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1120 CA 13-01692**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS MANN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (LEAH R. NOWOTARSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATE H. NEPVEU OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered August 19, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing his petition seeking to annul the Parole Board’s determination denying him parole release. “This appeal must be dismissed as moot because the determination expired during the pendency of this appeal, and the Parole Board denied petitioner’s subsequent request for parole release” ( Matter of Patterson v Berbary , 1 AD3d 943, 943, appeal dismissed and lv denied 2 NY3d 731; see Matter of Robles v Evans , 100 AD3d 1455, 1455). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here ( see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714-715; Matter of Sanchez v Evans , 111 AD3d 1315, 1315).

Entered: November 21, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<PAGE> 20


                                                               Exhibit 15.1



                       Report of Independent Accountants



To the Shareholders and Trustees
 of BEC Energy


We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of BEC Energy
(BEC) as of June 30, 1998 and the related statements of income for the three
and six-month periods ended June 30, 1998 and 1997 and cash flows for the
six-month periods ended June 30, 1998 and 1997.  These financial statements
are the responsibility of BEC's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures
to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial
and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit
conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that
should be made to the accompanying financial statements in order for them to
be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.




Boston, Massachusetts               PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
July 23, 1998
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Oil Imports and Energy Security

              																	United States. Congress. House. Committee on Banking and Currency, 1865-1974					 and 	Ninety-Third Congress, 1973-1975. 						*Oil Imports and Energy Security : Hearings Before the Ad Hoc Committee on the Domestic and International Monetary Effect of Energy and Other Natural Resource Pricing of the Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives, Ninety-Third Congress, Second Session, August 9 and 12, 1974*,												Washington: 								U.S. Government Printing Office, 										August 9 and 12, 1974,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/215,			accessed on September 22, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER