alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Henry D. Tucker, Respondent, v. Alfred Ely, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed- and new trial ordered in the County Courts *624of Monroe county, costs to abide the event. Opinion by

Haight, J.
From: jeff.gara@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:55:16 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

Please, please, please: rescind the unjust and coercive mandate that all "contraceptives" and

sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance. If you do not reverse course, the please

(at least) expand conscience protections for any organizations that provide individual and group

insurance and have moral or religious objections. I completely oppose the government forcing free

insurance coverage for contraceptives, sterilizations, and most especially for drugs and devices that can

cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

Please also 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,

Jeff Gara

Baltimore, MD 21211
From: ealfeller@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:39:42 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,

Elvin Feller

Everson, WA 98247
From: waynegroefsema@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:08:43 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,

Wayne Groefsema

, 28326-6550
From: janaj4@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:01:48 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,

Jana Johnson

Ridgecrest, CA 93555
From: njgallagher@optonline.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:23:09 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,

Neil Gallagher

Glen Cove, NY 11542
#### LODOVISKA M. BRISBANE, Respondent, *v.*ALBERT BRISBANE, Appellant.

*Power of a cou/rt of equity to sirilce out the defense of a party disoheymg its orders*— *Code of GivH Procedure, sec.*1773 — *effect of.*

The power possessed by a court of equity to strike out a defense, in an action brought therein, because of a refusal to obey its orders, was not taken away by section 1773 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but still exists.

*It seems,*that that section was intended to require that before punishment by fine or imprisonment could be inflicted, proof should be given showing that the amount required by the order to be paid could not be realized from sequestration or by a receiver of the property of the party in default. (Barnard, P. J.)

Appeal from two orders, made at Special Term, striking out the defendant’s amended answer in this action because of a failure by him to pay a counsel fee and alimony as directed by orders duly made therein.

The action was brought by the plaintiff to procure an absolute divorce from her husband, the defendant, upon the ground of his adultery.

*Frcmeis H. Van Veehten,*for the appellant.

*Brewster Kissam,*for the respondent.

Barnard, P. J.:

The power to strike out a defense in an action in equity for refusal to obey orders of the court existed in the Court of Chancery, and now exists (*Walker*v. Walker, 82 N. Y., 260), unless section 1773 of the Code has taken it away. That section does not 'purport to take it away, but only to provide a way by which a disobedient party may be fined or imprisoned for a contempt for refusing to obey orders for the payment of alimony. The real change intended seems to have been that before punishment, by fine or imprisonment, could be inflicted proof should be given that the amount required by the order could not be realized from sequestration or by a Receiver of the property of the party. There does not appear to have been any design to destroy the old principle that courts of equity would, and could, lawfully refuse to hear a person who was in contempt for a violation of an order of the court. One who asks *340equity must do equity. No right is taken away which may not at once be regained by the application of the defendant to the court for leave to pay the amount ordered to be paid, and thereupon to answer and contest upon the merits.

The order should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements as of one appeal.

Dykman and Pratt, JÜ., concurred.

Order of June 17, 1884, affirmed; order of June 21, 1884, v affirmed, costs as of one appeal.
#### Alexander C. Morrison v. Anna C. Horricks.

Motion granted. Order to be settled by

Bockes, J.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. The New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company v. The Common Council of the City of Dunkirk.

Writ quashed and proceedings dismissed, with costs and disbursements, not exceeding fifty dollars in all, to the defendant. Opinion by Smith, P. J.
| (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/ Michael Prince      |   |   |   |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |   |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |   |   |   |
| June 3, 2010            |   |   |   |   |
#### Cullen P. Grandin, Respondent, v. Ysidoro H. Morijon, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Daniels, J.
THOMAS S. PAYNE

,

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 17

- 2723

________ _____________________/

Opinion filed September 15, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Michael C. Overstreet , Judge

.

Thomas S. Payne , pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURI AM.

AFFIRMED.

BILBREY, WINSOR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
From: thracius_cyprian@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:29:07 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,

Keith Graham

Keyport, NJ 07735
From: Tom Penner

To: Senator Debbie Stabenow; E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Interim Final Rules for Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 9:27:49 PM

The religious exemption is much to narrow. No employer should be forced to provide services which

violate the employers conscience.If the employee is not satisfied with what is offered, the employee

can get supplemental or alternative coverage.
# STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURTOFAPPEAL,

# FIRSTCIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA 

### NO. 

### 2024 KW 0139 VERSUS DONOVAN TYRELLE WRIGHT 

### APRIL 19, 

### 2024 In Re: Donovan Tyrelle Wright, 

### applying 

### for supervisory writs, 

### 32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, 

### No. 742992. BEFORE: THERIOT, PENZATO, AND GREENE, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. MRT AHP HG

OURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT



### PUTY CLERK OF COU FOR THE COURT
Exhibit 32.1

# Certification of Chief
Executive OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Solely
for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Alliance
Pharmaceutical Corp. (the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge,
that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended June 30, 2004 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

Date:  September 28, 2004

By:  /s/ Duane J. Roth
                 Duane J. Roth                  Chief Executive Officer
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 Quarterly Report of Comfort Systems USA, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William George, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Date: May 4, 2010

/s/ WILLIAM GEORGE William George Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


*A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.


---



QuickLinks
----

----

----

|                       |   | 2010 |   |   | 2009   |   |   | CHANGE |
|----------------------------|--------|------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Revenues                   |   | $    | 640    |   |   | $      | 676    |   |   |   | (5 | %) |
| Profit Before Income Taxes |   | $    | 89     |   |   | $      | 80     |   |   |   | 11 | %  |
| Profit After Tax           |   | $    | 73     |   |   | $      | 76     |   |   |   | (4 | %) |
| New Retail Financing       |   | $    | 2,484  |   |   | $      | 1,778  |   |   |   | 40 | %  |
| Total Assets               |   | $    | 28,773 |   |   | $      | 30,937 |   |   |   | (7 | %) |

|                       |   | 2010 |   |   | 2009   |   |   | CHANGE |
|----------------------------|--------|------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Revenues                   |   | $    | 1,919  |   |   | $      | 2,057  |   |   |   | (7 | %) |
| Profit Before Income Taxes |   | $    | 255    |   |   | $      | 273    |   |   |   | (7 | %) |
| Profit After Tax           |   | $    | 208    |   |   | $      | 216    |   |   |   | (4 | %) |
| New Retail Financing       |   | $    | 6,754  |   |   | $      | 5,194  |   |   |   | 30 | %  |

----

----
No. 514.

#### Oddie et al. *v.*Ross Gear & Tool Co., Inc.

*Harold A. Cranefield*and *John A. Fillion*for petitioners.

*Owen J. Neighbours*and *James M. Nicholson*for respondent.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: margie_loveslife@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:56:04 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,

Peggy Sanchez

Las Vegas, NM 87701