alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00979

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ray Bordine <raybordine@msn.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:29 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Ray Bordine

8519 Avon Lake Rd.

Lodi, OH 44254
Elvira PENG, petitioner, v. CITIMORTGAGE INC.; and Elvira Peng, petitioner, v. Landmark Building & Development Co., et al.

No. 16-1416.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied.
William D. WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-6857.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District denied.
Exhibit 8.1

Company Subsidiaries

Novogen Limited is a company limited by shares and is
incorporated and domiciled in Australia. Novogen Limited has prepared a consolidated financial report incorporating the entities that it controlled during the financial year ended June 30, 2015, which included the following:



|                                 |  |                          |                          |  |                |  |        |       |  |  |        | 
|-------------------------------- |  | ------------------------ | ------------------------ |  | -------------- |  | ------ | ----- |  |  | ------ | 
|                                 |  |                          |                          |  | Equity holding | 
|                                 |  |                          |                          |  | 2015+          |  |        | 2014+ | 
|Name of entity                   |  | Country of incorporation |                          |  | %              |  |        | %     | 
|                                 |  |                          |                         
|Novogen Laboratories Pty Ltd     |  |                          | Australia                |  |                |  | 100.00 |       |  |  | 100.00 | 
|Novogen Research Pty Ltd         |  |                          | Australia                |  |                |  | 100.00 |       |  |  | 100.00 | 
|Novogen North America Inc.       |  |                          | United States of America |  |                |  | 100.00 |       |  |  | 100.00 | 
|Triaxial Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd |  |                          | Australia                |  |                |  | 100.00 |       |  |  | 100.00 | 
|Novogen Inc.                     |  |                          | United States of America |  |                |  | 100.00 |       |  |  | 100.00 | 
|CanTx Inc.                       |  |                          | United States of America |  |                |  | 85.00  |       |  |  | 85.00  | 



|+ | Ownership % at June 30, 2015 and 2014 respectively
|- | --------------------------------------------------
No. 14-14-00829-CV

In the Fourteenth Court of Appeals

Houston, Texas

MICHAEL QUEEN and IAN MAGEE.

Appellants/ Cross Appellee

VS.

RBG USA, INC.

Appellee/ Cross Appellants

From the 268 th Judicial District Court of and for Fort Bend County, Texas Honorable Brady G. Elliott, Presiding; Trial Court Cause No. 09-DCV-175886

JOINT MOTION TO CLARIFY

BREIFING SCHEDULE

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellants/Cross Appellees, Michael Queen and Ian Magee and Appellees/Cross

Appellants RBG USA, Inc., submits this Joint Motion to Clarify Briefing Schedule, and in

support thereof would show the following:

1. All parties timely filed notices of appeals in the case at bar.

2. Pursuant to the briefing schedule, all parties timely filed their Briefs on June 8, 2015.

3. Appellants/Cross Appellees, Queen and Magee's counsel mistakenly labeled their

brief “Appellee's Brief” on the cover of their Brief.

4. Based on the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, responsive Briefs are supposed to

be due 30 days after the initial Brief(s) are filed. T.R.A.P Rule 38.6(b). However, ACCEPTED

14-14-00829-cv
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS
6/24/2015 1:35:44 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKbased on Appellants/Cross Appellees mislabeling its Brief, the clerk issued a briefing

schedule allowing only 20 days to file a responsive brief.

5. Based on the Appellate Rules, the partied have agreed and humbly request this Court

approve the following schedule:

a. Responsive Briefs are due on July 8 th (30 days after Appellants' Briefs were

filed. T.R.A.P. Rule 38.6(b));

b. Reply Briefs will be due on July 28 th (20 days after Appellees' Brief will be

filed. T.R.A.P. Rule 38.6(c)).

6. This Motion is not sought for delay only but so that justice may be done.

WHEREFORE, PREMISIS CONSIDERED, Appellants/Cross Appellees and

Appellee/Cross Appellant respectively asks the Court to clarify the briefing schedule as

specified above in order to align the briefing with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Respectfully submitted,

STEPHEN J. SCHECHTER, P.C. GARDERE WYNNE SEWEL, LLP

/s/ Stephen J. Schechter /s/ Michael R. Rahmn Stephen J. Schechter Craig D. Dillard

State Bar No. 17735512 State Bar No. 24040808

607 E. Blanco Rd. Michael R. Rahmn

Suite 792 State Bar No. 24074924 Boerne, Texas 78006 1000 Louisiana, Suite 3400 Tel: (830) 249-3500 Houston, Texas 77002-5007 Fax: (830) 249-8500 Tel: (713) 276-5500 stephen@sjs-pc-law.com Fax: (713) 276-5555 cdillard@gardiere.com

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS mrahamn@gardere.com

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
# C_2010301EN.01003101.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/31

---

Order of the General Court of 15 September 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-157/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Reasonable time for the submission of a claim for compensation - Lateness - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2010/C 301/52

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal lodged against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 February 2009 in Case F-42/08 Marcuccio v Commission ECR-SC 0000, seeking the annulment of that order.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Luigi Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Luigi Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.

1

---
II-00817

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Gerald Carpenter <multiseeker@verizon.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:07 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Gerald Carpenter

53 Johnson Ave.

Plattsburgh, NY 12901
**Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 September 2010 – Quinta do Portal v OHIM – Vallegre (PORTO ALEGRE)**

**(Case T-369/09)**

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark PORTO ALEGRE – Earlier national word mark VISTA ALEGRE – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 53(1)(a)) (see paras
19, 30)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2009 (Case R 1012/2008-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto, SA and Sociedade Quinta do Portal SA. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought: | Word mark PORTO ALEGRE for goods in Class 33 |
| Proprietor of the Community trade mark: | Sociedade Quinta do Portal, SA |
| Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: | Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto, SA |
| Trade mark of the party seeking cancellation: | Earlier Portuguese word mark VISTA ALEGRE for goods in Class 33 |
| Decision of the Cancellation Division: | Community word mark PORTO ALEGRE declared invalid |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Sociedade Quinta do Portal SA to pay the costs. |
II-00777

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Jeff Coffee <percolator469@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:26 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Jeff Coffee

230 East Flamingo

Las Vegas, NV 89169
DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 20, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-23-01284-CV

FULLCLIP CRAFT DISTRIBU TORS, LLC, Appellant V. THE FOOD HALL COMPANY, LLC AND LEGACY HALL BEVERAGE HOLDING, LLC D/B/A UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY BREWING COMPANY, Appellees
On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-11639

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Carlyle, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Reichek Before the Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal because the trial
court has granted a new tria l. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

231284F.P05 /Amanda L. Reichek / AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

FULLCLIP CRAFT DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, Appellant

No. 05-23-01284-CV V.

THE FOOD HALL COMPANY, LLC AND LEGACY HALL BEVERAGE HOLDING, LLC D/B/A UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY BREWING COMPANY, Appellees On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-11639. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek. Justices Carlyle and Miskel participating.

In accordance with this Court’s op inion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that appellees THE FOOD HALL COMPANY LLC AND LEGACY HALL BEVERAGE HO LDING, LLC D/B/A UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY BREWING COMPAN Y recover their costs of this appeal from appellant FULLCLIP CRAFT DISTRIBUTORS, LLC.

Judgment entered March 20, 2024
II-00295

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Forest Jourden <forestmj@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:20 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Forest Jourden

139 McDonnall ave Apt 16

Biloxi, MS 39531
II-O0117

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Don Goldstein <dongoldstein32@yahoo.com>

Sunday, December 5, 2010 9:36 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Don Goldstein

210 Congress St. #IF

Brooklyn, NY 11201
# C_2009193EN.01001202.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 10 June 2009 — Lahti Energia Oy

(Case C-209/09)

2009/C 193/16

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lahti Energia Oy

Applicant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Lahden seudun ympäristölautakunta, Hämeen ympäristökeskus and Salpausselän luonnonystävät ry.

Other parties to the proceedings:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is combustion as an additional fuel in the boiler of a power plant of gas generated in a gas plant to be regarded as an operation within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2000/76/EC, (1) if the gas conducted for combustion is not purified after the gasification process? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is combustion as an additional fuel in the boiler of a power plant of gas generated in a gas plant to be regarded as an operation within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2000/76/EC, (1) if the gas conducted for combustion is not purified after the gasification process?

1

| 2. | If the reply to the first question is basically in the negative, does the quality of the waste for incineration, or the particle content of the gas conducted for incineration, or the content of other impurities in it have any bearing on the matter when making an assessment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the reply to the first question is basically in the negative, does the quality of the waste for incineration, or the particle content of the gas conducted for incineration, or the content of other impurities in it have any bearing on the matter when making an assessment?

---

(1)  Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste, OJ 2000 L 332, p. 91.

1

---
# C_2011319EN.01002001.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/20

---

Order of the General Court of 1 September 2011 — Elosta v Commission

(Case T-102/09) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Out of time - No force majeure - No excusable error - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 319/41

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Abdelrazag Elosta (Pinner, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Grieves and A. McMurdie, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Paasivirta and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Szostak, G. Étienne, M.-M. Josephides and E. Finnegan, Agents

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 of 22 December 2008 amending for the 103rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 60), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Abdelrazag Elosta is ordered to pay his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Abdelrazag Elosta is ordered to pay his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union is ordered to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union is ordered to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.

1

---
NUMBER S 13

- 1 6

- 00 086

- C R AND 13

- 16

- 00087

- CR



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellant,

v.

COURTNEY HAYDEN Appellee.

On a ppeal from 28th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.



# ORDER

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes , and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

On February 10, 2016, this Court ordered the trial court’s proceedings in each of

these causes stayed, pending disposition of the State’s appeals. On May 12 , 2016,

appellee Courtney Hayden filed a n amended mo tion to partially lift the stay s so that she

may request a modification of the conditions of her pretrial bond ordered by the trial court.

The reason offered for this request relates to Hayden’s recently secured employment.2

The Court, having examined and fully considered Hayden’s motion, is of the

opinion that said motion should be GRANTED. Accordingly, the stay is hereby

PARTIALLY LIFTED for th e LIMITED AND EXCLUSIVE PURPOSE of Hayden seeking

modification of her pretrial bo nd conditions with the trial court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2 ( b ).

Delivered and filed the

13 th day of May, 2016.