alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 12,907.

#### In re SINNETT.

[4 Sawy. 250.] 1

District Court, D. Nevada.

May 10, 1877.

Bankruptcy — Homestead — Creditors’ Lien — Right to Enforce.

1. The homestead of the bankrupt never eomes within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, and a creditor may enforce his lien thereon while the bankruptcy proceedings are pending.

2. The assignee should include the homestead in his report of exempt property.

[Cited in Re McKenna, 9-Fed. 30.]

[In the matter of Matthew Sinnett, a bankrupt.]

Lewis & Deal, for petitioner.

M. A. Kelton, for respondent.

HILLYER, District Judge.

In this matter Lonkey & Smith, who claim to have a lien on the homestead of the bankrupt, have petitioned for leave to sue in one of the state courts for the purpose of enforcing their alleged lien. They also ask an order restraining the assignee from designating the premises as a homestead in his report of exempt property.

It is admitted that the premises in question are the homestead of the bankrupt. Being a homestead, no interest in it passes to the assignee by the assignment, nor is the title of the bankrupt thereto impaired or affected by any of the provisions of the bankrupt act. Rev. St. § 5045. Such exempt property never comes within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.

I do not think that section 5106 of the bankrupt act should be so construed as to prohibit a suit against the bankrupt to enforce a lien on property of tinTM, description either in the state courts or elsewhere. Where a creditor claims a lien on property which passes to the assignee, the proper place to enforce it is the court of bankruptcy. Where, however, the lien is claimed on property which does not so pass, it would seem that no provision of the bankrupt act is violated by leaving the parties interested to prosecute their suit at any time. Such suits are wholly without the operation of section 5100, which must be held to prohibit only those suits against the bankrupt which relate to property, or rights of property, within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. Leave to sue, in a case like , the present, is perhaps unnecessary; but as. the creditors have seen fit to ask it, no objection is seen to granting their petition in this respect. Upon the other point although there seems to be a want of uniformity in practice, I conclude that it is better, and fairly within the requirements of general order 19, and section 5045 of the bankrupt act, that the assignee should include in his report of exemptions the homestead as well as the other articles and necessaries. The same reason exists for the one as the other.

Ordered accordingly.
#### Gene T. McKenzie, as Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Charles F. McKenzie, Deceased, Appellant, v Cleary, Gottleib, Steen & Hamilton, et al., Respondents.

[632 NYS2d 98]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered April 1, 1994, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for an adjournment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The administrator of McKenzie’s estate seeks to hold defendant law firm and certain of its employees responsible for McKenzie’s mental distress and suffering which culminated in his suicide on January 27, 1992. Dismissal of the complaint was properly granted since plaintiffs four causes of actions, for intentional inflection of emotional distress, negligent supervision, wrongful death, and prima facie tort, fail to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff also had adequate opportunity to obtain counsel to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
EX-99.B11-ggconsnt

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

United Gold & Government Fund, Inc.:

We consent to the use in Post-Effective Amendment No. 21 to Registration
Statement No. 2-96520 of our report dated February 6, 1998 appearing in the
Statement of Additional Information, which is a part of such Registration
Statement, and to the reference to us under the caption "Financial Highlights"
appearing in the Prospectus, which also is a part of such Registration
Statement.



Deloitte & Touche LLP
Kansas City, Missouri
March 25, 1998
From: kevinwebermd@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:36:01 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,

Kevin Weber

Pueblo, CO 81005
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 1 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 3 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 4 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 5 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 6 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 7 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 8 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 9 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 10 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 11 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 12 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 13 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 14 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 15 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 16 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 17 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 18 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 19 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 20 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 21 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 22 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 37 Filed 01/17/07 Page 23 of 23
##### 



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 Remington Oil and Gas
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, J. Burke Asher, Vice President/Finance (Principal Financial
Officer) of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, and not for any other purpose. /s/ J. Burke AsherJ. Burke AsherVice President/Finance
(Principal Financial Officer)April 27, 2004 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Remington Oil and Gas Corporation and will be retained by
Remington Oil and Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
From: sharion@sutherland-nc.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:02:55 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,

Sharion Bolden

Hendersonville, NC 28791
No. 63800.

protest 59/16640 (New York).

#### C. H. Powell Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 21


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       State of Incorporation
                                                                       ----------------------
            Name                                                       Incorporation
-------------------------------------                                  ----------------------

<S>                                                                    <C>
Cellcom Telephone Company, Inc.                                        Delaware
Car-Tel Systems Corp.                                                  New Jersey
Cellcom Cellular Corp.                                                 Delaware
Cellular Dynamics Telephone Company of Connecticut                     Connecticut
Cellular Dynamics Telephone Company of Boston, Inc.                    Delaware
Cellular Dynamics Telephone Company of Los Angeles, Inc.               California
Cellular Dynamics Telephone Company of San Francisco, Inc.             California
Cellular Dynamics Telephone Company of Maryland, Inc.                  Maryland
Cellular Dynamics Telephone Company, Inc.                              Nevada
Racehorse Cell-Fone Corp.                                              Delaware
Cellular Dynamics Telephone Company of San Diego, Inc.                 California
Cellcom Management Company, Inc.                                       Delaware
</TABLE>


                                       19
From: barbgbell@roadrunner.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:15:34 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,

Barbara Bell

Palmyra, ME 04965
From: kidcrazy10@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:02:42 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,

Marla Olsen

Kohler, WI 53044
**Exhibit 99.5**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S CONSENT**

 

We consent to the use of our report dated February 18, 2013 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Sandstorm Gold Ltd. (“Sandstorm”) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of Sandstorm for the year ended December 31, 2012.

 
| /s/ Deloitte LLP         |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |   |
| Chartered   Accountants  |   |
| Vancouver, Canada        |   |
| February 18,   2013 |   |

 

1

----
From: cjs32@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:08:03 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,

Caroline Stuart

Loranger, LA 70446
From: clairirja@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:02:16 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,

Clair Black

Swainsboro, GA 30401
From: Lucy_Ann_Caruso@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:54:25 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,

Lucy Ann Caruso

Bronx, NY 10469