alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: mrsdonnaw22@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:13:50 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,

Donna Williams

Bois D Arc, MO 65612
From: kmloibl@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:26:53 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,

Michelle Loibl

La Mesa, CA 91941
Before the Third Division,

July 23, 1953

No. 57440.

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

protests 147798-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the articles in question consist of silent butlers, smoothing irons, and various other trays, the composition of which is the same in all material respects as the merchandise involved in *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 342, C. D. 710), *The Fan Co.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 42, C. D. 1261), and *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(28 Cust. Ct. 280, C. D. 1423). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of the decisions cited, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “A” at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as household utensils, composed wholly or in chief value of brass, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver; (2) the items marked with the letter “B” at 30 percent under the provision in paragraph 339, as modified by the trade agreement with Iran (T. D. 51067), for household utensils, composed wholly or in chief value of brass, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver; (3) the items marked with the letter “C” at 35 percent under the provision in paragraph 339, as modified by the trade agreement with the United Kingdom (T. D. 49753), for household utensils, composed wholly or in chief value of copper, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver; (4) the items marked with the letter “D” at 35 percent under the provision in paragraph 339, as modified by T. D. 49753, *supra,*for household utensils, plated with silver on copper; (5) the items marked with the letter “E” at 25 percent under the provision in paragraph 339, as modified by T. D. 49753, *supra,*for household utensils, composed wholly or in chief value of pewter, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver; (6) the items marked with the letter “E” at 35 percent under paragraph 209 as manufactures of soapstone; (7) the items marked with the letter “G” at 35 percent under the provisions in paragraph 397, as modified by T. D. 49753, *supra,*for articles, plated with silver on copper; and (8) the items marked with the letter “H” at 45 percent under paragraph 397 as articles, composed wholly or in chief value of copper or brass, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, or colored with gold lacquer.
From: Paul Timmerman

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:35:38 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,

Paul Timmerman
Greenacres, Florida
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       84042 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               370930 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            738971 
<PP&E>                                       39707 
<DEPRECIATION>                              (16939)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              940260 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      1301327 
<BONDS>                                     768750 
<COMMON>                                  21890002 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                 198000 
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                940260 
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           1173705 
<CGS>                                       723651 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               237192 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             14327 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           31553 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         212861 
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                166550 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .01 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
        

</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

THOMAS A. WEBER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

TIME WARNER, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-1706L

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ motion for a protective order. (Dkt.

#47). Defendants seek a protective order on the following topics: 

(1) rescheduling the deposition of . . . Defendant Cross . . .; (2) preventing the publication

and dissemination of any videotaped deposition or deposition transcript beyond parties

and counsel of record in this case; (3) preventing production of tax and personal financial

records as unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence absent a hearing to show cause why all relevant information is not

available through provision of royalty statements to be provided; (4) preventing

publication and dissemination of copyrighted, proprietary materials, including master film

footage of Defendant David Cross and relating to the CDs and DVDs at issue in this case.

Defendants’ Motion at pp. 1-2. 

Defendants’ counsel states that he attempted to contact plaintiff prior to filing the motion,

but “had no success to date.” Certification of Randolph I. Gordon (Dkt. #47-3). Because

counsel does not describe his attempt(s), it is unclear whether defendants made a good faith

effort to confer as required, or if plaintiff willfully refused to confer. Compliance with Local

Case 2:05-cv-01706-RSL Document 85 Filed 01/17/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 2

Rule 37 is not a mere technical formality; it is a substantive requirement that must be fulfilled

prior to filing a discovery motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Local Rule 37(a)(2)(A). 

Also, it does not appear that this is an agreed motion. After defendants filed their motion,

they filed a “note” stating that defendants’ counsel conferred with plaintiff, and plaintiff had

stated in writing, “A stipulated protective order as you propose is fine.” (Dkt. #50). 

Defendants, however, did not attach a copy of the writing or file a stipulated protective order. 

Plaintiff then filed a “notice” stating that the parties agreed to reschedule Mr. Cross’s deposition,

so the motion for a protective order was moot. Plaintiff’s notice did not address the remaining

issues in defendants’ motion, and it does not indicate agreement to the proposed protective

order.

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for a protective order is DENIED. The Court expresses

no opinion on the merits of the motion. If defendants continue to seek a protective order, they

must confer in good faith with plaintiff then file a motion if necessary, or the parties may file a

stipulation.

DATED this 17th day of January, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01706-RSL Document 85 Filed 01/17/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 67566.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/5795 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the articles, described on the invoice as “Single magazines for Projection Prado,” are magazines accepting 30 slides for storing or for projection purposes, which are in chief value of base metal, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MICHAEL GORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT HEWLIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5841FDB

ORDER GRANTING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DIRECTING INSTITUTION TO

CALCULATE, COLLECT, AND

FORWARD PAYMENTS

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, does hereby find

and ORDER. 

(1) Plaintiff’s declaration indicates he is unable to afford the court’s filing fee or give security

therefor. Accordingly, plaintiff’s application to proceed as a pauper is GRANTED. As set forth below,

an initial partial filing fee will be collected, and plaintiff is required to make monthly payments of

20 percent of the preceding months income credited to his/her account until the full amount of the

filing fee is satisfied.

(2) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and plaintiff’s approved application to proceed in forma

pauperis, the agency having custody of the above named plaintiff is directed to calculate an initial partial

filing fee equal to 20 percent of greater of -- the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account or the

average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the date

of this Order. The initial partial filing fee should be forwarded to the court clerk as soon as practicable.

Subsequently, if the prisoner’s account exceeds $10.00, each month the Department of Corrections

Case 3:05-cv-05841-FDB Document 6 Filed 01/13/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

is directed to collect and forward payments equal to 20 percent of the prisoner’s preceding month’s income

credited to the prisoner’s account. In the event that the monthly payment would reduce the prisoner’s

account below $10.00, the Department of Corrections should collect and forward only that amount which

would reduce the prisoner’s account to the $10.00 level. Please note that this $10.00 limit does not apply

to the initial partial filing fee described above. Finally, the monthly payments should be collected and

forwarded to the court until the entire filing fee ($250.00) for this matter has been paid.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of this Order and the General Order, and a copy

of this Order along with a copy of plaintiff’s Acknowledgement and Authorization portion of the IFP

application to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) contact person, the inmate account manager at

Kitsap County Jail, c/o the Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office.

DATED this 13th day of January, 2006.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05841-FDB Document 6 Filed 01/13/06 Page 2 of 2
---

Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14(b) AND 15d-14(b) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Thomas L. Wegman, the President, Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of BioSpecifics Technologies
Corp. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

|1. | The Companys report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
      period ended June 30, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) 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 operation
      of the Company.                                             

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
certification this 9TH day of August, 2010.

/s/ Thomas L.
WegmanThomas L. Wegman President, Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act)
or otherwise subject to liability pursuant to that section. Such certification
shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent
that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 1 Filed 11/23/05 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 1 Filed 11/23/05 Page 2 of 2
RI CHAR D J
. DUR BI N COMM ITIEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
ILLINO IS COMMITIEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ASSISTANT DEMOCRATIC LEADER

## ~nitro**~tatrs ~rnetr**  Washington , Blt 20510-no-t April 20, 2015 COMMITIEE ON RULES AND ADM I NISTRATION

The Honorable Anthony Foxx Secretary The Honorable John Kerry Secretary U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Secretary Foxx and Secretary Kerry: U.S. Department ofState 2201 C Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20520

I write to express my concern regarding recent reports that the three largest airlines ofthe GulfStates ofQatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are receiving substantial government subsidies. Market distortion caused by state subsidies give these airlines an unfair advantage over U.S. carriers. As such, I urge you to carefully review this situation and consider appropriate action to uphold the legacy ofour Open Skies agreements. I commend the Obama Administration's success in continuing the Open Skies policy of previous Administrations. Because ofyour efforts, the United States now has 114 Open Skies treaties and provides U.S. consumers and communities with greater choices in international air travel. While fair and open competition is the foundation ofthe Open Skies agreements, government subsidies by the GulfStates have disrupted the level playing field, forcing U.S. carriers to compete with foreign governments rather than foreign airlines. This distortion puts the foundation ofour Open Skies agreements at risk and has the potential to render the agreements meaningless. The ramifications ofthese subsidies will be particularly felt in Illinois, which is home to Chicago ' s O'Hare International Airport. O ' Hare is the second busiest airport in the nation and is the only U
.S. airport supporting two competing international hub networks. United Airlines and American Airlines support roughly 25,000jobs in the state and have invested heavily to build international route networks at O'Hare that connect mid

-sized and smaller Illinois communities-- including Bloomington, Champaign, Decatur, Moline, Peoria, and Springfield

--to the rest ofthe world. Unfair competition by foreign subsidized airlines has the potential to overwhelm U.S. carriers on key international routes and cause air service cuts andjob losses as U.S. carriers are forced to exit these routes. The Administration can help prevent these losses by providing rigorous oversight and consulting with Qatar and the UAE to encourage fair competition in the international aviation marketplace. Thank you in advance for your attention to this important matter.

711 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING

WASHINGTON, DC 2051()..1304 I 

# s 10-150420-002 United States Senate

230 SOUTH DEARBORN, 38TH FLOOR CH ICAGO, IL 60604

(3121353-4952 525 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET SPRINGFIELD. IL 62703 (2171492-4062 durbin.sonaw.gov 1504 THIRD AVENUE SUITE 227 ROCK ISLAND , IL 61201 (3091786-5173 PAUL S IMON FEDERAL BUILDING 250 W
. CHERRY STREET SU ITE 1 15-D CARBONDALE, IL 6290 1 (618) 351 - 1122