alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: art.tchr38@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:05:03 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,

Roy Garman

Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
#### Whitman & Ransom, Appellant, v Rommy H. Revson, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 567]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Angela Mazzarelli, J.), entered on or about August 3, 1994, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that questions of fact exist sufficient to preclude granting summary judgment dismissing defendant’s legal malpractice counterclaim. First, the IAS Court was correct in holding that defendant is not collaterally estopped from advancing her counterclaim. After the parties terminated the attorney-client relationship, defendant’s adversary in the underlying arbitration action sued her in Federal District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania to enforce an alleged settlement of the arbitration in which plaintiff represented defendant. The District Court’s decision that a settlement agreement had been reached was based in part upon the fact that defendant signed a document dated February 12, 1993 that stated that all parties were estopped to deny the material terms of the settlement *(Matter of New L & N Sales & Mktg. v Revson,*US Dist Ct, ED Pa, June 23, 1993, Newcomer, J., index No. 92-0376). Defendant is not collaterally estopped from proving that plaintiff committed legal malpractice in misleading or coercing her into signing the estoppel agreement since the District Court never passed on the merits of such a claim *(see, Allied Chem. v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.,*72 NY2d 271, 276, *cert denied*488 US 1005). Nor did the District Court address the issue whether the settlement agreement was improvident.

There also is no merit to plaintiffs argument that defendant is estopped from arguing that she was coerced into a settlement by her prior conduct in the settlement negotiations. Although defendant participated in settlement negotiations, her dissatisfaction with respect to plaintiffs services and the agreement is readily apparent from the record and she should not be precluded from advancing a claim based upon her assent to a settlement allegedly compelled by plaintiffs malpractice *(see, Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co.,*160 AD2d 428, 430). We also reject plaintiffs argument that there are no issues of fact as to whether the malpractice, if any, caused defendant damages. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.
No. 68421.

protests 63/10810, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Allard Novelty Company et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67488, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### In the Matter of Ramon Castillo, Respondent, v Peggy Hernandez, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 185]

—In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Staton, J.), dated February 2, 1994, which, after a hearing, awarded permanent custody of the parties’ infant child to the father.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

When the parties’ daughter was about six months old, the mother left the apartment which the family shared with the *747child’s paternal grandmother. The parties informally agreed that the child would continue to reside with the father. When the child was nearly three years old, the father petitioned for permanent custody, and the mother filed a cross petition for the same relief. Following a hearing, the court determined, inter alia, that both parties were fit parents but the circumstances did not warrant disrupting the stable home environment which the father had successfully provided to the child.

It is well established that the primary concern in child custody matters is the best interest of the child *(see, Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167; *Matter of Jaeger v Jaeger,*207 AD2d 448). Since a custody decision depends to a great extent on the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings must be accorded great weight and should not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see, Matter of Williamson v Williamson,*215 AD2d 767; *Matter of Canazon v Canazon,*215 AD2d 652).

While we agree with the mother that the Family Court’s decision contained a misstatement of law, it is apparent from the decision that the court considered the relevant factors in determining whether the totality of the circumstances warranted a change of custody and whether such change would be in the best interest of the child *(see, e.g., Eschbach v Eschbach, supra; Canazon v Canazon, supra; Matter of Jaeger v Jaeger, supra).*Evidence was adduced at the hearing as to the ability of each parent to provide for the child, their home environments, and the length of time the present custody arrangement had been in effect. The Child Welfare Administration conducted an investigation at the court’s request and recommended that the child remain in the father’s custody, with liberal visitation available to the mother. We find no basis in this record to disturb the Family Court’s determination that the child should remain in the custody of the father. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.2


                            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 Booth Creek Ski Holdings,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, as the President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          Section 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.


March  17, 2003


                                          By:    /s/ CHRISTOPHER P. RYMAN
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                     Christopher P. Ryman
                                           President and Chief Operating Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


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

I, John Roblin, President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive
officer) of Cover-All Technologies Inc. ("Cover-All"), for the purposes of
section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, certify, that, to my
knowledge, the Annual Report of Cover-All on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operation of Cover-All. This written statement is being furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-K. A signed
original of this statement has been provided to Cover-All and will be retained
by Cover-All and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

Date: March 29, 2004


By: /s/ John Roblin
------------------------------------
Name:   John Roblin
Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
From: cu_n_az_2000@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:47:58 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,

Venus Scott

Phoenix, AZ 85023
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001037120
<NAME> LOOMIS, FARGO & CO.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,091
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,747
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,574
<INVENTORY>                                      1,146
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,891
<PP&E>                                          83,468
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,521
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 202,259
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,208
<BONDS>                                        150,373
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                     (9,038)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   202,259
<SALES>                                        193,358
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               193,358
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  186,957
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,861
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,460)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       210
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,670)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,670)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
From: merimac25@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:16:20 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,

Jim and Heather McBride

Santa Barbara, CA 93110
From: pprtserv2001@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:52:45 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,

Robert Pierce (Deacon)

Saint Clair, MO 63077
From: cporter1532@wowway.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:06:04 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,

John Porter

Sterling Heights, MI 48310
From: franshaheen@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:02:26 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,

Fran Shaheen

Chelmsford, MA 01824