alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: drmboone1@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:05:42 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

As a physician and a business owner, 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,

Max Boone

Athens, AL 35613
Exhibit
31.1





Section
302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer





I,
William Sears, certify that:





1.   I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sears Oil and Gas
Corporation.





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





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





4.   The
registrant's other certifying officers and I; are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:





a)   designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure


that
material information relating to the registrant, including its


consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within


those
entities, particularly during the period in which this


report
is being prepared;





b)   evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure


controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to


the
filing date of this report (the  "Evaluation


Date");
and





c)   presented
in this report our conclusions about the


effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on


our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;





5.   The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):





a)   all
significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of


internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's


ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial data


and
have identified for the registrant's auditors any material


weaknesses
in internal controls; and





b)   any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management


or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's


internal
controls.


1





6.   The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this report
whether or not there were significant changes in  internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant efficiencies and material weaknesses.








Date:
March 31, 2009








/s/
William Sears


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


William
Sears


Chief
Executive Officer








2
From: edlaney@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:28:09 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I suppot GOD not Satan. You may not believe what you are doing is wrong, but you will find out...that

day

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,

Edward Laney

Hollywood, MD 20636
#### Irene LeVigne, Appellant, v Austin LeVigne, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 610]

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Modugno, J.H.O.), dated September 10, 1993, as, after a non-jury trial, (1) denied her applications for maintenance and *562counsel fees and (2) failed to include the defendant’s pension in the equitable distribution of the marital property.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court erred by failing to award her maintenance in light of its decision to require her to pay the carrying costs on the marital residence *(see, e.g., Berg v Berg,*186 AD2d 236). We conclude that this issue is academic. The plaintiff concedes in her brief that the marital residence was sold at a foreclosure sale shortly after the court issued its decision in this matrimonial action. The plaintiff, who was earning an annual salary of about $36,000, did not establish that an award of maintenance was warranted *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]).

Although a pension is normally subject to equitable distribution, the plaintiff failed to request, either during the trial or in her post-trial memorandum, that the court award her a portion of the defendant’s pension. Moreover, no evidence was offered at trial with regard to the defendant’s pension. Under these circumstances, the court did not err by failing to include the defendant’s pension in the equitable-distribution award *(see, e.g., Cleary v Cleary,*171 AD2d 1076; *Del Gado v Del Gado,*129 AD2d 426; *see also, Michalek v Michalek,*114 AD2d 655).

Finally, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by failing to award counsel fees to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s attorney did not make a proper application for such fees prior to entry of the judgment *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 237; *Taylor v Taylor,*120 AD2d 355). Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.
From: kim.conroy@smartoutcomes.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:02:52 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,

Kim Conroy

Joplin, MO 64803
#### Lucille Turecki, Appellant, v Stanley K. Turecki, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 123]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about March 22, 1995, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly found that the documentary evidence demonstrated that the criminal proceeding initiated at defendant’s behest against plaintiff, his former wife, did not terminate in a final disposition on the merits indicative of plaintiff’s innocence. Her cause of action for malicious prosecution was therefore properly dismissed *(see, Hollender v Trump Vil. Coop.,*58 NY2d 420, 425-426). The documentary evidence also demonstrated that there was ample justification for defendant having notified the authorities that he was the subject of an extortion scheme initiated by plaintiff and her boyfriend. As a result, we find that her second cause of action for abuse of process, based on her contention that defendant had her arrested for the ulterior purpose of influencing her pending suit for an increase in child support, was also properly dismissed *(see, Curiano v Suozzi,*63 NY2d 113, 116). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.
No. 65145.

#### Ignaz Strauss *&*Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 267121-K (New York).

*333Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Rockingham earthenware similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Butler Bros.*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 120, C.D. 303), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: tmielke@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:12:28 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.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter, I pray that you will do the right thing.

Sincerely

Tammy

Sincerely,

Tammy Mielke

Saint Paul, MN 55124
From: danmc@cfloans.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:00:48 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,

Dan McGirr

Chino, CA 91710
From: bnwink@bis.midco.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:19:44 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,

Brent Winkelman

Bismarck, ND 58504
From: jackoat@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:20:21 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,

Jacqueline Almeida

Swansea, MA 02777
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

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.

 July 25, 2017

a0717

Order 

Clerk

July 25, 2017

154111 & (27)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154111

COA: 330207

Berrien CC: 2011-003033-FC

MICHAEL EUGENE BARNER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

By order of April 4, 2017, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the 

application for leave to appeal the June 17, 2016 order of the Court of Appeals. On order 

of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is again 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court. For purposes of MCR 6.502(G)(1), the Court notes 

that, although the defendant’s motion has been styled as a motion for relief from 

judgment by the courts below, it should not be regarded as a motion for relief from 

judgment in any future case. The defendant actually filed a motion to correct an invalid 

sentence under MCR 6.429, which was properly denied by the trial court for lack of 

merit. It was also untimely. MCR 6.429(B). The application for leave to appeal to the 

Court of Appeals was properly denied, but due to the lack of merit in the grounds 

presented, not under the rules of MCR 6.501, et seq. The motion for relief is DENIED as 

moot.