alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 17

Case: 2:17-cv-00720-EAS-EPD Doc #: 31-17 Filed: 03/26/18 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 506
8/14/2017 Andrew Anglin | Hatreon

https://hatreon.us/Anglin/ 1/3

Andrew Anglin is creating The Daily Stormer

$1005.17

per month

54

patrons

Make a Pledge

Social

Share This Creator

https://hatreon.us/Anglin/

Copy

Triggering shitlibs and cucks to an absurd degree and serving a reader base of millions, The Daily

Stormer is the biggest pro-white publication in the history of the world. It's humbling to think

about the sheer scale that we serve every day-- roughly the same amount daily as the entire

circulation of Der Stürmer had in an entire month at the height of National Socialist power.

hatreon

Case: 2:17-cv-00720-EAS-EPD Doc #: 31-17 Filed: 03/26/18 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 507
8/14/2017 Andrew Anglin | Hatreon

https://hatreon.us/Anglin/ 2/3

We are signi×cantly larger than the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, which serves an entire state.

They have almost 200 employees and multiple buildings. We are now at the tier of a major metro

daily newspaper, and we do so on a fraction of the resources of any publication our size. Major

metro daily newspapers don't have to mitigate some of the maddening problems which we've faced

either, including random server shutdowns, getting our Internet routes jacked by Internet service

providers that aren't even in the same country as the ones we host in, shutdowns from major

payment processors, having law enforcement harass our families and business partners, and

getting blacklisted from advertising revenues.

A publication at this scale requires thousands of dollars a month in basic expenses just to keep the

lights on, and now we confront increasingly confront dif×cult issues like frivolous anti-speech

lawsuits from Jewish legal activists. We need a consistent and predictable source of operations

revenue. That's where you come in-- donate now and help sustain The Daily Stormer and let it

continue propagandizing on its uniquely massive scale.

Suggested Creators

Richard Spencer

Creating Richard-Spencer-ing

Styxhexenhammer666

Creating Youtube videos, Commentary, and Books

Kantbot

Creating The Autistic Mercury

Sam Hyde

Creating Ongoing Hydian Operations

Brittany Pettibone

Creating Political Commentary, Interviews, Podcasts & Independent Journalism

Featured Creators

About Contact Terms of Use Community Guidelines Privacy Policy

hatreon

Case: 2:17-cv-00720-EAS-EPD Doc #: 31-17 Filed: 03/26/18 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 508
8/14/2017 Andrew Anglin | Hatreon

https://hatreon.us/Anglin/ 3/3

Hatreon © 2017

hatreon

Case: 2:17-cv-00720-EAS-EPD Doc #: 31-17 Filed: 03/26/18 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 509
OMB Control No. 2060 - 0347

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average up to 2.75 hours per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for m inimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N W, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB co ntrol number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address. EPA Form 5900 - 198
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-88568, 333-31414, and 333-34411); the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-132208) pertaining to the 2004 Stock Incentive Plan; the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-85606)pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan, the 1996 Director Stock Option Plan, the 2000 Stock Option Plan, and certain 1999, 2000 and 2001 Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreements; the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-40230) pertaining to the2000 Stock Option Plan; and the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-30228 and 333-06269) pertaining to the 1996 Director Stock Option Plan and the 1995 Stock Option Plan of Velocity Express Corporation and Subsidiaries, of our report datedOctober 17, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Velocity Express Corporation and Subsidiaries included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year-ended July 1, 2006. 

 

Stamford, Connecticut 

October 13, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            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  Ezcomm  Enterprises,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with
the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(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.



/s/ Seung Kwon Noh
-----------------------
Seung Kwon Noh
Chief Financial Officer

November 21, 2005
Case: 1:17-cv-00652-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/28/17 Page: 1 of 20 PAGEID #: 1
Case: 1:17-cv-00652-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/28/17 Page: 2 of 20 PAGEID #: 2
Case: 1:17-cv-00652-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/28/17 Page: 3 of 20 PAGEID #: 3
Case: 1:17-cv-00652-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/28/17 Page: 4 of 20 PAGEID #: 4
Case: 1:17-cv-00652-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/28/17 Page: 5 of 20 PAGEID #: 5
Case: 1:17-cv-00652-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/28/17 Page: 6 of 20 PAGEID #: 6
Case: 1:17-cv-00652-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/28/17 Page: 7 of 20 PAGEID #: 7
Case: 1:17-cv-00652-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/28/17 Page: 8 of 20 PAGEID #: 8
Case: 1:17-cv-00652-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/28/17 Page: 9 of 20 PAGEID #: 9
Case: 1:17-cv-00652-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/28/17 Page: 10 of 20 PAGEID #: 10
Case: 1:17-cv-00652-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/28/17 Page: 11 of 20 PAGEID #: 11
Case: 1:17-cv-00652-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/28/17 Page: 12 of 20 PAGEID #: 12
Case: 1:17-cv-00652-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/28/17 Page: 13 of 20 PAGEID #: 13
Case: 1:17-cv-00652-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/28/17 Page: 14 of 20 PAGEID #: 14
Case: 1:17-cv-00652-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/28/17 Page: 15 of 20 PAGEID #: 15
Case: 1:17-cv-00652-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/28/17 Page: 16 of 20 PAGEID #: 16
Case: 1:17-cv-00652-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/28/17 Page: 17 of 20 PAGEID #: 17
Case: 1:17-cv-00652-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/28/17 Page: 18 of 20 PAGEID #: 18
Case: 1:17-cv-00652-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/28/17 Page: 19 of 20 PAGEID #: 19
Case: 1:17-cv-00652-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/28/17 Page: 20 of 20 PAGEID #: 20
#### Danny BAUGH *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 73-160

505 S.W. 2d 519

Opinion delivered February 25, 1974

*Brockman, Brockman & Gunti,*for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *Alston Jennings Jr.,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

GEORGE Rose Smith, Justice.

The appellant was charged with driving while intoxicated, the second such *65offense within a year, was found guilty by the jury, and was fined $250. Ark. Stat. Ann. §§.75-1027 and-1029 (Repl. 1957 and Supp. 1973). He is correct in his contention that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to be told, before they considered the issue of guilt or innocence, that a second offense was involved. We so held in an identical case, *Francis*v. *City of*Benton, 240 Ark. 738, 401 S.W. 2d 729 (1966).

We cannot, however, sustain the appellant’s further argument that the charge should be dismissed because there is no such crime as “driving while intoxicated, second offense.” Even though the jury should not initially be told about that aspect of the case, the accused cannot complain about the reference in the information to a second offense. Quite the contrary, it is essential that the State make that fact known to the accused, so that he may have an opportunity to dispute the assertion of a prior conviction. The information in the case at bar seems to be amply clear to serve its purpose, but if the defendant had difficulty in understanding it his remedy was to ask for a bill ol particulars. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-1006 (Repl. 1964).

Reversed.

HARRIS, C.J., not participating.
# Official Journal C 210A/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 210A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6221 June 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 210A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6221 June 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 210 A/01 | European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Vacancy Notice for a Principal Adviser function — Brussels — Engagement of a Temporary Agent (grade AD 14) — Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — COM/2019/10388 | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2019/C 210 A/01

European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Vacancy Notice for a Principal Adviser function — Brussels — Engagement of a Temporary Agent (grade AD 14) — Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — COM/2019/10388

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4254 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4254

To direct amounts derived from the repayment of TARP assistance to the 
Deposit Insurance Fund of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to 
 reduce the amount of any increase in premiums that would otherwise be 
required of smaller insured depository institutions and community banks 
 whose prudent activities did not contribute to the financial crisis, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 9, 2009

  Ms. Kaptur introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct amounts derived from the repayment of TARP assistance to the 
Deposit Insurance Fund of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to 
 reduce the amount of any increase in premiums that would otherwise be 
required of smaller insured depository institutions and community banks 
 whose prudent activities did not contribute to the financial crisis, 
                        and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Community Bank Preservation Act''.

SEC. 2. REDIRECTION OF REPAYMENT OF TARP ASSISTANCE TO THE DEPOSIT 
              INSURANCE FUND.

    Subsection (d) of section 106 of the Emergency Economic 
Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5216(d)) is amended by striking 
``shall be paid'' and all that follows through the end of the sentence 
and inserting ``shall be transferred to the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation and deposited in the Deposit Insurance Fund to be used to 
reduce the amount of any increase in premiums that would otherwise be 
required of smaller insured depository institutions and community banks 
whose prudent activities did not contribute to the financial crisis''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 on Form 10-QSB of Syndication, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Brian
Sorrentino, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

      Dated: August 31, 2006


                                        /s/ Brian Sorrentino
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Brian Sorrentino
                                        Chief Executive Officer
#### Geraldine Abrahams *vs.*Alice S. Rice.

Middlesex.

May 8, 1940.

May 9, 1940.

Present: Field, C.J., Ltjmmus, Dolan, Cox, & Bonan, JJ.

*Negligence,*Motor vehicle, Use of way.

Evidence, merely that a young school girl, after she had alighted from and passed in front of a motor bus to cross the street, was struck by the right hand front headlight of an automobile which, at the rate of five miles an hour, was passing the bus before it again started, did not warrant a finding of negligence of the operator of the automobile.

Tort. Writ in the Second District Court of Eastern Middlesex dated March 17, 1939.

Upon a report by *Duane,*J., a finding for the plaintiff in the sum of $200 was set aside by the Appellate Division for the Northern District, and judgment was ordered for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.

The case was submitted on briefs.

*J. C. Collins,*for the plaintiff.

*H. E. Cry an & J. A. Bradley,*for the defendant.

Ronan, J.

The plaintiff, a school girl nearly eight years of age, left an automobile bus by its right hand door when it stopped on High Street, Waltham, at about six o’clock on the afternoon of December 12, 1938. She looked in both directions along the highway and then ran in front of the bus, and about two feet from it, on her way across this thirty-five foot street, not seeing, until just before she was struck, the defendant’s automobile, which was approaching at the speed of five miles an hour in the same direction as the bus and from three to six feet to the left of it. She had stopped running before she was struck by the right hand front headlight of the defendant’s automobile, which stopped with its rear about even with the front of the bus.

The mere happening of the accident was not evidence that any negligence of the defendant had a causal relation to its occurrence. Liability rests solely upon negligence and the *25absence of the latter makes impossible the existence of the former. There was no evidence that the speed at which the defendant was operating her automobile was unreasonable or improper, or that, in passing the bus, which did not start until after the accident, the defendant was guilty of any breach of duty that she owed the plaintiff. We are unable to find any evidence that would warrant a finding that the defendant could see the plaintiff for more than an instant before the accident or that, after her presence in the street was discovered, the defendant failed to act as a reasonably prudent person in attempting to avert the accident. The ruling that the evidence did not warrant a finding that the defendant was negligent should have been given by the trial judge. *Lovett*v. *Scott,*232 Mass. 541. *Rizzittelli*v. *Vestine,*246 Mass. 391. *McGrimley*v. *Jameson,*297 Mass. 280. *Conte*v. *Mizzoni,*298 Mass. 463. *Lynch*v. *Krancer,*302 Mass. 593.

The Appellate Division rightly ordered the finding for the plaintiff vacated and judgment for the defendant entered. That order must be affirmed.

*So ordered.*
Striker Energy Corp.: Exhibit 10.1 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






JOINT FILING AGREEMENT

     In accordance with Rule
13d-1(k)(1) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, the undersigned hereby confirm the agreement by and among them to
the joint filing on behalf of them of a Statement on Schedule 13D/A (including
any and all amendments thereto) with respect to the Common Stock, par value
$0.001 per share, of Striker Energy Corp., a Nevada corporation, and that this
agreement may be included as an exhibit to such joint filing. 

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hereby execute this
Agreement as of May 27, 2010. 

OPEX ENERGY CORP.

Per: /s/ Joseph Carusone             
 
        Joseph Carusone

        President and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Joseph Carusone                     

JOSEPH CARUSONE
#### Smith Trading Company *v.*Parker.

Opinion delivered April 23, 1928.

*18*White*& *White,*for appellant.

*Cochran*& *Arnett,*for appellee.

MgHaNEY, J.

Appellee brought this action against appellant to recover $134.75, balance due on a note secured by chattel mortgage on five bales of cotton given him by one Simmons. It appears that two bales of the cotton covered by the mortgage were sold to appellant, and three bales were sold to one Crenshaw. Separate suits were brought against both purchasers, consolidated, and recovery had against appellant in the sum of $67, and a similar verdict and judgment against Crenshaw.

This appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment and instructions Nos. 1 and 2 given by the court. It is not disputed that appellee had a mortgage on the five bales of cotton in question, and it is not disputed that appellant purchased two bales of this cotton at a time when this mortgage was of record. It further appears that the appel-lee foreclosed his mortgage against Simmons on the remainder of the personal property covered by the mortgage, and applied the proceeds of the sale thereof to the payment of the $500 note which it secured, leaving a balance of $134 due thereon. It is contended by appellant, however, that Simmons gave appellee a mortgage for $'200 on certain real estate in satisfaction of the balance due on this $500. Appellee admits that he took a $200 second mortgage on real estate, but that it was not in satisfaction of his indebtedness to him, but merely as additional collateral for the loan already in existence. Appellant also contends that appellee had given Simmons permission to sell the cotton. These questions were wholly within the province of the jury, and were sub-*19nutted to it by the court under the instructions complained of.

.A careful examination of the testimony convinces us that the case was properly submitted to the jury under the two instructions complained of, and that there was a question for the jury. We have examined the instructions, and find them to be correct statements of the law. Moreover, according* to appellant’s abstract and brief, it made no objection to either instruction. Counsel for appellant has apparently raised objections to the instructions for the first time in the motion for a new trial, in this language: “That the court erred and committed separate and several errors in giving each instruction of its own motion.”

No objections having been made to the instructions when given, and no exceptions saved, the above general assignment of error cannot be relied upon for a reversal of the case. We find no error, and the judgment is affirmed.
22244

#### Jesse J. FLOYD, Appellant, v. J. Means McFADDEN, By his Guardian *ad Litem,*David W. ROBINSON, II, Respondent.

(327 S. E. (2d) 73)

Supreme Court

*George M. Lee, Jr.,*and *Harold L. Swafford,*Columbia, *for appellant.*

*James W. Alford,*of *Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson,*Columbia, *for respondent.*

Heard Jan. 22, 1985.

Decided Feb. 21, 1985.

*Per Curiam:*

The appellant Jesse J. Floyd was served with a Summons and Complaint alleging medical malpractice. He sent the papers to his personal attorney and the respondent attorney, J. Means McFadden, who was retained to represent him by the insurance company. The suit was dismissed by the County Court for lack of jurisdiction. An identical suit was brought in the Court of Common Pleas and a default judgment entered against the appellant. No papers from the second suit were ever sent to the respondent.

The appellant initiated this action against the respondent alleging breach of employment contract, breach of fiduciary *429duty, and legal malpractice. He asserts that the respondent improperly failed to inform him that the county suit was dismissed and he should be looking for additional suit papers.

The trial judge properly rendered summary judgment for the respondent because the appellant maintains by Affidavit and deposition that he was never served with the second suit papers. Therefore, any breach of duty by the respondent was not the proximate cause of the appellant’s injury.

The judgment below is, accordingly,

Affirmed.

Gregory, Justice

(concurring):

I adhere to the dissent in *Stewart v.*Floyd, 274 S. C. 437, 265 S. E. (2d) 254 (1980). Notwithstanding my position in Stewart, I agree with the majority insofar as there was a lack of proximate cause since the appellant has consistently denied receiving the second summons and complaint. I would dispute, however, any suggestion that there was no duty to inform appellant of the first suit’s dismissal, and the possible consequences of the dismissal.
**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**








I,
      Dr.
      David F. Hostelley, Chief Financial Officer of Organetix, Inc. (the "Company"),
      certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, that:





(1)          the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended March
      31,
      2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)          the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:
      May
      21, 2007





/s/
      Dr. David F. Hostelley


Dr.
      David
      F. Hostelley


Chief
      Financial Officer
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 Annual Report of First American Scientific Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Calvin L. Kantonen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 30th day of September, 2009








CALVIN L. KANTONENCalvin L. KantonenChief Financial Officer