alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
223 So.2d 580

#### Gertrude NIX and Ernest Nix v. Joe HASSELL and Bob Hassell.

7 Div. 839.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 29, 1969.

Arthur D. Shores, Birmingham, for appellants.

*176Robert W. Weaver, Talladega, for appellees.

BLOODWORTH, Justice.

This is an appeal from a final decree of the circuit court of Talladega County, Alabama, in equity, establishing a disputed boundary line between property of the appellants and appellees.

Appellants, Nix, assign as error: (1) The court erred in overruling their motion to exclude the evidence; (2) the court erred in overruling their motion for rehearing.

Appellees, Hassell, contend that the trial court can never be put in error for overruling a motion to exclude in a civil case; and, that a decree overruling an application for rehearing is not appealable. These contentions are correct.

The assignment of error that the court erred in overruling appellants’ motion to exclude is without merit. This court has long held that in civil cases, the trial court will not be put in error for refusing a defendant’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s evidence. Whiteport v. Whiteport, 283 Ala. 704, 220 So.2d 891; Western Railway of Alabama v. Brown, 280 Ala. 543, 196 So.2d 392; Brunson v. Brunson, 278 Ala. 131, 176 So.2d 490. As we commented in Jack Cole Co. v. Hayes, 281 Ala. 118, 199 So.2d 659: .

> “The granting of a motion to exclude the evidence is never proper in this jurisdiction (Robinson v. Morrison, 272 Ala. 552, 133 So.2d 230), although a trial court will not be put in error in *granting*such motion, even though procedurally improper, where the plaintiff’s evidence does not make out a prima facie case. Stewart v. Peabody, 280 Ala. 5, 189 So.2d 554, and cases therein cited.”

Appellants’ assignment of error that the court erred in overruling their motion for rehearing is likewise without merit because we have held that a decree denying an application for rehearing will not support an appeal. Baker v. Citizens Bank of Guntersville, 282 Ala. 33, 208 So.2d 601.

The final decree of the court below is due to be affirmed.

Affirmed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 782

AN ACT

To amend title 18 of the United States Code to

ernment.resent their views before the United States Govallow members of employee associations to rep-
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 782

AN ACT

To amend title 18 of the United States Code to allow members of employee associations to represent their views

before the United States Government.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 782 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Employee

3 Representation Improvement Act of 1995’’.

4 SEC. 2. REPRESENTATION BY FEDERAL OFFICERS AND EM5 PLOYEES.

6 (a) EXTENSION OF EXEMPTION TO PROHIBITION.—

7 Subsection (d) of section 205 of title 18, United States

8 Code, is amended to read as follows:

9 ‘‘(d)(1) Nothing in subsection (a) or (b) prevents an

10 officer or employee, if not inconsistent with the faithful

11 performance of that officer’s or employee’s duties, from

12 acting without compensation as agent or attorney for, or

13 otherwise representing—

14 ‘‘(A) any person who is the subject of discipli15 nary, loyalty, or other personnel administration pro16 ceedings in connection with those proceedings; or

17 ‘‘(B) except as provided in paragraph (2), any

18 cooperative, voluntary, professional, recreational, or

19 similar organization or group not established or op20 erated for profit, if a majority of the organization’s

21 or groups’s members are current officers or employ22 ees of the United States or of the District of Colum23 bia, or their spouses or dependent children.

24 ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1)(B) does not apply with respect

25 to a covered matter that—
3

•HR 782 EH

1 ‘‘(A) is a claim under subsection (a)(1) or

2 (b)(1);

3 ‘‘(B) is a judicial or administrative proceeding

4 where the organization or group is a party; or

5 ‘‘(C) involves a grant, a contract, or other

6 agreement (including a request for any such grant,

7 contract, or agreement) providing for the disburse8 ment of Federal funds to the organization or

9 group.’’.

10 (b) APPLICATION TO LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELA11 TIONS.—Section 205 of title 18, United States Code, is

12 amended by adding at the end the following:

13 ‘‘(i) Nothing in this section prevents an employee

14 from acting pursuant to chapter 71 of title 5 or section

15 1004 or chapter 12 of title 39.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 24,

1995.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Ronald Milton McCORMICK, Jr., Movant-Appellant, v. Esther Christine McCORMICK, Respondent.

No. 20815.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

Oct. 7, 1996.

Donald Rhodes, Bloomfield, for movant-appellant.

Bill Hopkins, Marble Hill, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment and order modifying a dissolution of marriage decree. In his motion to modify, Ronald Milton McCormick, Jr. (Appellant) sought to modify a prior child support award entered in favor of Esther Christine McCormick (Respondent). That award was for the support of three children in the amount of $18.00 per week per child. He alleged that he remarried after the dissolution of his marriage to Respondent. His second wife had a child which Appellant adopted, and he and that wife later had a second child before their marriage was dissolved and he was ordered to pay child support for those children. According to his motion, he simultaneously filed a similar motion to modify the decree dissolving his second marriage in Cape Girardeau County. He requested that his child support obligation be adjusted so that his five children were treated equally, but within the guidelines of Rule 88 and Form 14, Missouri Rules of Court.

The trial court entered its Judgment And Order Modifying Decree Of Dissolution Of Marriage in this case and ordered that Appellant’s child support obligation to Respondent be changed from $18.00 per week per *829child ($232.00 per month) to $300.00 per month, effective February 1,1996.

On this appeal, Appellant alleges four points of error concerning the judgment modifying the child support. The relief he seeks is stated in the conclusion of his brief as follows:

Appellant respectfully requests that this Court enter its order reversing the decision of the trial court, and awarding child support to Respondent, Esther Christine McCormick in the amount of $130.00 per month per child.

Respondent has not filed a brief with this court, but instead filed a “Consent” in which she “adopts, confesses and consents to the Statement, Brief And Argument” filed by Appellant and “urges this Court grant the relief therein requested.”

The request of the parties is within the authority of this court. Giving it effect would not only promote judicial economy, but would also save time and expense for the parties. *Kiene v. Kiene,*579 S.W.2d 849 (Mo.App.W.D.1979).

Based upon the relief requested by Appellant, and the consent of Respondent, it is our opinion that the portion of the judgment appealed from, which awards child support of $300.00 per month, should be amended in the limited respect requested. *See State, Div. of Family Services v. A.J.,*872 S.W.2d 594, 598 (Mo.App.E.D.1994). The case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to amend said judgment by ordering Appellant to pay child support in the amount of $130.00 per month, per child. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 159 (Friday, August 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47922-47926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18652]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 08-91]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 08-91 with attached transmittal, and 
policy justification.

    Dated: August 5, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 47923]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.017


[[Page 47924]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.018


[[Page 47925]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.019


[[Page 47926]]


[FR Doc. E8-18652 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
Presidential Documents

32629

Federal Register

Vol. 61, No. 123

Tuesday, June 25, 1996

Title 3—

The President

Presidential Determination No. 96–32 of June 14, 1996

Suspending Restrictions on U.S. Relations With the Palestine

Liberation Organization

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Middle East Peace Facilitation

Act of 1995, title VI, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related

Programs Appropriations Act, 1996, Public Law 104–107, (‘‘the Act’’), I

hereby:

(1) Certify that it is in the national interest to suspend the application

of the following provisions of law until August 12, 1996:

(A) Section 307 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (22

U.S.C. 2227), as it applies with respect to the Palestine Liberation Organization or entities associated with it;

(B) Section 114 of the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years

1984 and 1985 (22 U.S.C. 287e note), as it applies with respect to the

Palestine Liberation Organization or entities associated with it;

(C) Section 1003 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years

1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 5202); and

(D) Section 37, Bretton Woods Agreement Act (22 U.S.C. 286w), as it

applies to the granting to the Palestine Liberation Organization of observer

status or other official status at any meeting sponsored by or associated

with the International Monetary Fund.

(2) certify that the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Palestinian Authority, and successor entities are abiding by the commitments described in

section 604(b)(4) of the Act.

(3) certify that funds provided pursuant to the exercise of this authority

and the authorities under section 583(a) of Public Law 103–236 and section

3(a) of Public Law 102–125 have been used for the purposes for which

they were intended.

You are authorized and directed to transmit this determination to the Congress and to publish it in the 

œ–

Federal Register.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, June 14, 1996. [FR Doc. 96–16365

Filed 6–24–96; 8:45 am]

Billing code 4710–10–M
#### Jack Ross Givens v. State.

No. 25107.

January 24, 1951.

*Richard F. Stovall,*Floydada, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for the unlawful sale of whisky in a *410dry area, with punishment assessed at sixty days in jail and a fine of $300.

The complaint, as originally filed and upon which the information in this case was presented, alleged the name of the accused to be “Jack Ross.” The information followed that allegation.

The county attorney, over the objection of appellant, was by the trial court permitted to change the name of the accused in the complaint to “Jack Ross Givens.”

The rule is well-settled that the name of the defendant as stated in the complaint may not be changed by amendment, nor may it be added by amendment if omitted, 6 Tex. Jur., Criminal Law, Sec. 252, p. 576. Wilson v. State, 6 Tex. App. 154; Lazenberry v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 357, 97 S. W. 87; Patillo v. State, 3 Tex. App. 442.

The rule is based upon the proposition that a complaint or affidavit which is materially amended or changed is no longer the affidavit of the affiant thereto and, therefore, is not the sworn accusation of any one.

For the reasons stated, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution is ordered dismissed.

Opinion approved by the court.
Exhibit
23.1




Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (Nos. 333-153487), and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-59902, 333-86728, 333-124960, and
333-146752) of our report dated April 7, 2009, relating to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Arotech Corporation appearing in this Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008.






/s/
BDO Seidman,
LLP


BDO
Seidman, LLP








Grand
Rapids, Michigan


April 7,
2009
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated February 11, 2020, with respect to the financial statement of SmartTrust 463 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-234725) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


February 11, 2020
EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-76624, 333-76592, 333-64478, 33-84042, 33-77132, 33-86156, 333-84816,
333-75424 and 333-96205 of IGEN International, Inc on Form S-8 dated January 11,
2002, Form S-8 dated January 11, 2002, Form S-8 dated July 3, 2001, Form S-8
dated September 15, 1994, Form S-8 dated April 1, 1994, Form S-3 dated April 12,
2002, Form S-3 dated March 22, 2002, Form S-3 dated December 19, 2001, and Form
S-3 dated February 4, 2000, respectively, of our report dated May 14, 2003,
appearing in this Annual Report of Form 10-K of IGEN International, Inc. for the
year ended March 31, 2003.



DELOITTE AND TOUCHE LLP

McLean, Virginia
June 30,2003
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 163 (Thursday, August 21, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 49541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19226]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

[AC-25: OTS Nos. 06789]


Elk County Savings and Loan Association, Ridgway, PA; Approval of 
Conversion Application

    Notice is hereby given that on August 13, 2008, the Office of 
Thrift Supervision approved the application of Elk County Savings and 
Loan Association, Ridgway, Pennsylvania, to convert to the stock form 
of organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection 
by appointment (phone number: (202) 906-5922 or e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1e4e6b7c72777d30577078715e514a4d304a6c7b7f6d30797168"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a0f0d5c2ccc9c38ee9cec6cfe0eff4f38ef4d2c5c1d38ec7cfd6">[email protected]</span></a>) at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20552, and the OTS Northeast Regional Office, 
Harborside Financial Center, Plaza Five, Suite 1600, Jersey City, NJ 
07311.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.

    Dated: August 14, 2008.
Sandra E. Evans,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E8-19226 Filed 8-20-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Kittie G. Wiley, Respondent, v. Nassau Electric Railroad Company and Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellants.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Hirschberg. P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.
#### FLOTTE v. THOMAS EGAN’S SONS, Inc.*

No. 13719.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 19, 1931.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 3, 1931.

Arthur Landry, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Milner & Porteous and P. M. Milner, all of New Orleans, for appellee.

*

Writ of certiorari denied by Supreme Court January 4, 1932.

JANVIER, J.

Rehearing was granted in this matter because we feared that possibly we had failed to interpret the allegations of plaintiff’s petition as plaintiff intended, and because we desired to- follow the rule that, in considering exceptions of no cause of action, doubts as to interpretation of pleadings should be resolved in favor of the petitioner. The rule is well expressed in the opinion written by Mr. Justice St. Paul, then one of the members of this court, in Jacobs Candy Company v. Dennis Sheen Transfer Co., No. 8150, decided December 12, 1921, unreported (See Louisiana and Southern Digest): “* * * An exception of no cause of action should not be sustained unless it is clear that plaintiff can recover nothing under his claim; if the claim be only doubtful the exception should be overruled and the case heard on the merits.”

See, also, Goldsmith v. Virgin, 122 La. 831, 48 So. 279.

There was some apprehension in our minds that possibly we had affirmed a judgment dismissing the suit, not because no cause of action existed, but merely because the petition did not affirmatively, clearly, and positively set it forth. As has often been pointed out, an exception of no cause of action should not be sustained merely because of insufficient allegations, but. an opportunity for amendment should be afforded, unless it' appears that all that might have been alleged has been inserted in the petition, and that, nevertheless, either no negligence is shown to have been committed by the defendant, or plaintiff himself appears to have been con-tributorily at fault. Horrell et al. v. Gulf & Valley Cotton Oil Co., 15 La. App. 603, 131 So. 709; Cazeaux v. N. O. Public Service, Inc., 14 La. App. 320, 124 So. 685; Francis v. Barbazon, 10 La. App. 55, 120 So. 427; Blake v. Jefferson-St. Charles Transfer Co., 8 La. App. 310; James v. City of New Orleans, 151 La. 480, 91 So. 846; Davis v. Arkansas Southern R. Co., 117 La. 320, 41 So. 587.

After hearing the matter reargued, we are well convinced that the plaintiff has made every allegation of negligence which the actual happenings rendered it possible for him to make, and has, nevertheless, failed to aver facts showing fault on the part of the defendant, but, on the contrary, has affirmatively set forth his own acts in sufficient detail to leave no room for doubt as to his own carelessness. Thus a cause of action never accrued, and no amendment could bring one into existence.

The original decree is reinstated, and, accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, and plaintiff’s suit is dismissed at his cost.

Original decree reinstated.
# U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A pp e a l s For the Eig hth Circu it

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No . 1 9 -1 2 73

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Jam es L. To ney
ll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l Pl a in t i

f f - Ap p el l an t

v
. Co rp o ral Heat h Di ck s o n , M al v ern Po l i ce Dep art m en t ; Serg ean t Kei t h Pri n ce, M al vern Po l i ce Dep art m en t; As s i s t an t Ch i ef J i m Bai l ey , M al v ern Po l i ce Dep art m en t

l l l l l l ll l l l l l l l l l l l l lDef

en d a n t s - Ap p el l ees

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ap p eal fro m

Un i t edSt at es Di s t ri ct Co u rt fo r t h e W es t ern Di s t ri cto f Ark an sas - Ho t Sp ri n g s

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Su b m i t t ed : No v em

b er 2 5 , 2 0 1 9 Fi l ed : Decem

b er 2 , 2 0 1 9 [Un pu b l is h ed ]

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ Befo re GRUENDER, W OLLM AN, an d KOBES, Ci rcu i t J u dg es
.

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ PER CURIAM

.Ark an s as p ri s o n er J a m e s T o n ey ap p eal s th e di s t ri ct co u rt ’ s 1 ad v ers e g ran t o f

s u m m ary ju d g m en t in h i s 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 8 3 act i o n
. Aft er carefu l rev i ew of t h e reco rd

an d t h e p art i es ’ arg u m en t s o n ap p eal , we co n cl u d e t hat s u m m ary j u d gm en t was p ro p er. S ee Tu s in g v. Des Mo i n es In d ep

. C m t y. Sch

. Dist

. , 6 3 9 F.3 d 5 0 7, 5 1 4 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 1 ) (rev i ewi ng s u m m ary ju d g m en t d eci s i o n d e n o v o , v i ewi n g t he reco rd i n t h e l i gh t m o s t fav o rab l e t o t he no n -m o v i n g p art y ; st at in g t h at s u m m ary ju d g m en t i s ap p ro p ri at e i f n o g en ui n e i s su e o f m at eri al fact ex i s t s su ch th at t h e m o v an t i s en t i t l ed t o ju d g m en t as a m at t er o f l aw). Acco rd i n g l y , we affi rm
. S ee 8 t h Ci r. R. 4 7 B.

__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

1 Th e Ho n o rab l e P.K. Ho l m es , III, Un i t ed St at es Di st ri ct J u d g e fo r t he W es t ern Di s t ri ct o f Ark an sas
. -2

-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6795
JIMMIE LEE CATO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GREGORY BONDURANT, Officer; JOHNSON, Officer; RONALD CORRIVEAU; HATFIELD, Officer; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:05-cv-00070-GEC) Submitted: October 17, 2006 Decided: October 19, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmie Lee Cato, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jimmie Lee Cato appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and the Federal Tort Claims Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cato v. Bondurant , No. 7:05-cv-00070-GEC (W.D. Va. Feb. 2 & Apr. 19, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 20, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49241-49242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19127]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

[AC-23: OTS Nos. 04433 and H4522]


First Savings Financial Group, Inc., Clarksville, IN; Approval of 
Conversion Application

    Notice is hereby given that on August 12, 2008, the Office of 
Thrift Supervision approved the application of First Savings Bank, 
F.S.B., Clarksville, Indiana, to convert to the stock form of 
organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection by 
appointment (phone number: 202-906-5922 or e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#84d4f1e6e8ede7aacdeae2ebc4cbd0d7aad0f6e1e5e5f7aae3ebf2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e6e4b5c52575d10775058517e716a6d106a4c5b5f5f4d10595148">[email protected]</span></a>) at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20552, and the OTS Central Regional Office, 1 South

[[Page 49242]]

Wacker Drive, Suite 2000, Chicago, Illinois 60606.

    Dated: August 13, 2008.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Sandra E. Evans,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E8-19127 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>