alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.

Novem ber 20 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk Novem ber 1 , 2017

154442 (1 51 )

ALI BAZZI,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

and

GENEX PHYSICAL THERAPY, INC. and

ELITE CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, PC,

Intervening Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

and

TRANSMEDIC, LLC,

Intervening Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 154442

v C OA: 320518

Wayne CC: 13

- 000659

- NF

SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant/Third

- Party

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

and

CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellee,

and

HALA BAYDOUN BAZZI and

MARIAM BAZZI

,

Third

- Party Defendants

- Appellees.

________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel

to extend the time for filing a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief will

be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before Novem ber 2 1 , 2017

.
From: john@johncremer.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:15:49 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 Cremer

Jenison, MI 49428
From: Elisa Martinez

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:26:55 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Elisa Martinez
Albuquerque, New Mexico
From: aclune@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:28:02 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.

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.

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.

Sincerely,

Alan Clune

Locust Grove, VA 22508
From: carol8950@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:16:52 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. This is a sign of Disrespect of the Person, as you take away their right

to choose. Please show Respect by Allowing the People to Choose and NOT be forced to do anything.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Olzawski

Tulsa, OK 74145
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 546 

Recognizing Mukhtar Mai for her courage and her humanitarian work. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 2007 

Mr. MEEKS of New York (for himself, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, and Ms. 

JACKSON-LEE of Texas) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing Mukhtar Mai for her courage and her 

humanitarian work. 

Whereas Mukhtar Mai is a Pakistani woman from the village 

of Meerwala, in the rural county of Jatoi of the 

Muzaffargarh District of Pakistan; 

Whereas Mukhtar Mai’s brother, Shakoor, was suspected and 

accused of being seen in the company of a Mastoi woman 

and was accused of engaging in sexually inappropriate 

behavior with her; 

Whereas the village council suggested that Shakoor marry the 

girl he was seen with and Mukhtar Mai, a divorcee, be 

married to a Mastoi man; 

Whereas the Mastois reportedly rejected the deal, insisting 

the issue be settled with the eye-for-an-eye principle; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 546 IH 

Whereas Mukhtar Mai was called to the council to apologize 

for her brother’s conduct; 

Whereas when Mukhtar Mai appeared before the council she 

was taken by force and gang raped by 4 men; 

Whereas Mukhtar Mai, an illiterate woman, courageously 

took her case to court where the 4 defendants were found 

guilty; 

Whereas Mukhtar Mai took the settlement money provided by 

the government following her court case and opened 2 

schools in her village—one for boys and one for girls, as 

well as a center for refuge and education known as the 

Mukhtar Mai Women’s Welfare Organization; 

Whereas on August 2, 2005, the Pakistani Government 

awarded Mukhtar Mai the Fatima Jinnah gold medal for 

bravery and courage; 

Whereas on November 2, 2005, Glamour Magazine named 

Mukhtar Mai its ‘‘Glamour Woman of the Year’’; 

Whereas on October 31, 2006, Mukhtar Mai’s memoir was 

released in the United States, titled ‘‘In the Name of 

Honor: A Memoir’’; 

Whereas in March 2007, Mukhtar Mai won the North-South 

Prize from the European Union Council of Europe; and 

Whereas Mukhtar Mai continues to campaign for women’s 

rights and the promotion of education around the world: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes Mukhtar Mai for her courage to 

3 fight for justice; and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 546 IH 

1 (2) recognizes Mukhtar Mai for promoting edu2 cation and being a champion of women’s rights. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
From: janwalk@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:36:06 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,

Jan Walker

San Diego, CA 92107
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Elier GALLEGOS-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50172.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jesus Elier Gallergos-Garcia raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
No. 63815.

protest 59/15515 (New York).

#### Marad Mfg. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
From: dduffett@polarnet.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:20:05 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,

Douglas Duffett

Fairbanks, AK 99701
Case No. 13,540.

#### The STROMLESS. The C. E. PAGE.

[1 Lowell, 153.] 1

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

April, 1867.

Collision — Grounded Vessel — Demurrage-Presumptions.

1. Where a schooner had grounded in the entrance to a dock, and a brig that was ready for sea undertook to haul by her after her officers were warned that there was not room enough, and became jammed, and both vessels were injured; *held,*the brig was solely to blame.

2. Demurrage is allowed in cases of collision for the time the injured vessel is necessarily detained, if she has lost employment.

[See The Baltic, Case No. 824.]

3. A coasting schooner (collier) during the busy season may be presumed to have lost employment.

In admiralty.

J. C. Dodge, for owners of the C. E. Page.

G. O. Shattuck, for owners of the Stromless.

LOWELL, District Judge.

Cross-libels for damage to the schooner C. E. Page and the brig Stromless. In August. 1865, the schooner arrived at Boston with a cargo of coal, and attempted to haul in to Robbins's wharf. The dock which divides this wharf from French’s wharf, which is next it on the south, narrows towards the harbor. The brig was lying near the end of French’s wharf taking in ballast, and the people of the schooner were apprehensive that there was not room to pass, and asked to have the brig hauled up the dock a short' distance, which was done. The schooner then attempted to haul in, but grounded in the narrowest part of the dock and stuck fast. The brig being soon after ready to go out tried to haul by, but was jammed 'between the schooner and the wharf, and when the tide fell both vessels were somewhat damaged. The mate of the brig was warned that there was not room enough, and knew that the schooner was aground.

LOWELL, District Judge. The grounding of the schooner appears to have been an ordi-

nary accident of navigation, and one which had no direct tendency to cause the collision, because the officers of the brig were fully warned of it. and undertook to pass notwithstanding. However provoking the delay may have been, the brig, under these circumstances, went forward at her peril, and must bear all the loss, which, fortunately, is not large.

Demurrage is the principal item of the damages, and it is shown that three days were necessary for making the repairs. The rule is to give demurrage if the vessel has lost employment; and it seems a fair matter of inference that a coasting vessel of this character would obtain freights during the busy season of the year. AVe have no fixed measure of so much a ton for each day’s delay, and I must rely on the evidence in • every case, which in this points to forty dollars a day for this schooner. Damage pronounced for.
Case No. 10,229.

#### NICHOLLS v. HARRISON.

[Cited in Schofield v. Fitzhugh, Case No. 12,-474. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
From: stevec@kajn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:09:45 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,

Stephen Cook

Crowley, LA 70526