OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# White House Doublespeak on Emails

* related authors: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons gallery, quotes, news.
White House Doublespeak on Emails. www.speaker.gov. March 4, 2015. also archived by the Internet Archive.
White House Doublespeak on Emails
United States House of Representatives
March 4, 2015
Speaker of the House John Boehner
White House Doublespeak on Emails
March 4, 2015 | Cory Fritz
Yesterday's New York Times report on Hillary Clinton’s use of personal emails as Secretary of State, uncovered by the House Benghazi Select Committee, continues to raise new questions about the Obama administration’s compliance with its own policies and the law.
Here’s how the White House says its policy is supposed to work:
“The administration policy that is effective here is that we–all of our work is conducted on work email accounts” – Jay Carney, 2011
Yet Jay apparently meant all work is conducted on work email accounts, except when it isn't – ever.
Per the NYT, Secretary Clinton “exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as Secretary of State” and “her aides took no action to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.”
And remember, Secretary Clinton isn’t the first administration official to flout transparency. Kathleen Sebelius used a “secret” address during her time as Secretary at Health and Human Services and former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson infamously used a fake address and the alias “Richard Windsor.”
At yesterday’s White House briefing, Press Secretary Josh earnest did his best to dodge and duck.
“Josh Earnest said Tuesday that it’s up to the State Department to handle how its employees use email correspondence to conduct official work,” National Journal reports. “[T]he White House thinks the State Department should handle all of the fallout.”
As Washington Democrats try to spin their way out of this mess, Republicans remain focused squarely on getting to the truth about what happened in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# White Fawn's Devotion

* related portals: Drama film, Silent film, Western film.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Cast and Crew :
| Cast ||
| Role | Actor |
| | Red Wing |
| Crew ||
| Production company | Pathé |
| Distributor | Pathé |
| Director | James Young Deer (d. 1946) |
| Screenwriter | James Young Deer |
| Based on available information, the latest crew member that is relevant to international copyright laws died in 1946, meaning that this film may be in the public domain in countries and jurisdictions with 77 years p.m.a. or less, as well as in the United States. ||
WHITE FAWN'S DEVOTION A PLAY ACTED BY A TRIBE OF RED INDIANS IN AMERICA Pathé Frères
AN UNEXPECTED LEGACY
Fine Ridge Dakota London 15th April, 14h
After several years diligent search, we have at length discovered your whereabouts. You are the heir to an immense fortune, particulars of which will be given you on your arrival. Start at once.
J. H. Bolivar and Co., Solicitors.
WHITE FAWN PREFERS DEATH TO LOSING HER HUSBAND
DECEIVED BY APPEARANCES, AND BELIEVING HER MOTHER TO BE DEAD, THE CHILD ACCUSES HER FATHER OF MURDER
THE INDIAN CHIEF SETS OUT IN PURSUIT OF THE SETTLER
JUSTICE BY HIS CHILD
WHITE FAWN ARRIVES IN TIME TO SAVE HIM
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1946, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 77 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# White House Blues

* related portals: Song lyrics.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
The White House Blues is an american folk (or old-time) song, which is a standard in string bands. Its first known recording dates back to 1926, when Charlie Poole and the North Carolina Ramblers cut it for Columbia Records in New York City. Other artists, who performed the song are Bill Monroe, Doc Watson, Merle Travis, the Dillards, the Stanley Brothers, the Del McCoury Band and the New Lost City Ramblers.
The following are the lyrics by Bill Monroe. There may be differences between the different versions.
McKinley hollered , McKinley squalled Doc said “McKinley I can't find the cause You're bound to die, you're bound to die"
Doc told the horse, he'd throw down his rein He said to the horse you gotta outrun this train From Buffalo to Washington
The doc came a-running, he took off his specs Said “Mr Mckinley better cash in your checks You've bound to die, you're bound to die"
Look here, you rascal, you see what you've done Shot down my husband and I've got your gun I'm carrying you back, to Washington
Well, Roosevelt's in the White House, doing his best McKinley's in the graveyard taking his rest He's gone, for a long time
# White Fang/Part5

PART FIVE
THE TAME
| Chapter | I | . . . | The Long Trail |
| Chapter | II | . . . | The Southland |
| Chapter | III | . . . | The God's Domain |
| Chapter | IV | . . . | The Call of Kind |
| Chapter | V | . . . | The Sleeping Wolf |
# Wolf v. Colorado/Dissent Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Black
* Dissenting Opinions Douglas Murphy Rutledge
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
338 U.S. 25
Wolf v. Colorado
Argued: Oct. 19, 1948. --- Decided: June 27, 1949
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.
I believe for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice BLACK in his dissent in Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 68, 67 S.Ct. 1672, 1684, 91 L.Ed. 1903, 171 A.L.R. 1223, that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to the States. I agree with Mr. Justice MURPHY that the evidence obtained in violation of it must be excluded in state prosecutions as well as in federal prosecutions, since in absence of that rule of evidence the Amendment would have no effective sanction. I also agree with him that under that test this evidence was improperly admitted and that the judgments of conviction must be reversed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Wolf v. Stix

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Wolf v. Stix."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* Wolf v. Stix (96 U.S. 541)
* Wolf v. Stix (99 U.S. 1)
# Wolf v. Colorado/Concurrence Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Black
* Dissenting Opinions Douglas Murphy Rutledge
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
338 U.S. 25
Wolf v. Colorado
Argued: Oct. 19, 1948. --- Decided: June 27, 1949
Mr. Justice BLACK, concurring.
In this case petitioner was convicted of a crime in a state court on evidence obtained by a search and seizure conducted in a manner that this Court has held 'unreasonable' and therefore in violation of the Fourth Amendment. And under a rule of evidence adopted by this Court evidence so obtained by federal officers cannot be used against defendants in federal courts. For reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 68, 67 S.Ct. 1672, 1683, 91 L.Ed. 1903, 171 A.L.R. 1223. I agree with the conclusion of the Court that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of 'unreasoanble searches and seizures' is enforceable against the states. Consequently, I should be for reversal of this case if I thought the Fourth Amendment not only prohibited 'unreasonable searches and seizures,' but also, of itself, barred the use of evidence so unlawful obtained. But I agree with what appears to be a plain implication of the Court's opinion that the federal exclusionary rule is not a command of the Fourth Amendment but is a judicially created rule of evidence which Congress might negate. See McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819. This leads me to concur in the Court's judgment of affirmance.
It is not amiss to repeat my belief that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to make the Fourth Amendment in its entirety applicable to the states. The Fourth Amendment was designed to protect people against unrestrained searches and seizures by sheriffs, policemen and other law enforcement officers. Such protection is an essential in a free society. And I am unable to agree that the protection of people from over-Zealous or ruthless state officers is any less essential in a country of 'ordered liberty' than is the protection of people from over-zealous or ruthless federal officers. Certainly there are far more state than federal enforcement officers and their activities, up to now, have more frequently and closely touched the intimate daily lives of people than have the activities of federal officers. A state officer's 'knock at the door * * * as a prelude to a search, without authority of law,' may be, as our experience shows, just as ominous to 'ordered liberty' as though the knock were made by a federal officer.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Wolf v. Stix (96 U.S. 541)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
96 U.S. 541
Wolf v. Stix
MOTION to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee.
Mr. Josiah Patterson, for the defendant in error, in support of the motion.
Mr. William M. Randolph, contra.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Wolf v. Colorado

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6-3 that the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, the exclusionary rule was not. The Court specified no redressive measures for those whose rights were violated. The Court would address that in the landmark case Mapp v. Ohio (1961). Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinion

    Black

## Dissenting Opinions

    Douglas
    Murphy
    Rutledge
United States Supreme Court
338 U.S. 25
Wolf v. Colorado
Argued: Oct. 19, 1948. --- Decided: June 27, 1949
Mr. Philip Hornbein, Denver, Colo., for petitioner.
Mr. James S. Henderson, Denver, Colo., for respondent.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Wirtz v. Laborers' Union

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 477
Wirtz v. Laborers' Union
Argued: Nov. 8 and 9, 1967. --- Decided: Jan 15, 1968
Louis F. Claiborne, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mortimer Riemer, Cleveland, Ohio, for respondent.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN, delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Wirl Television Corporation v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
358 U.S. 51
Wirl Television Corporation v. United States
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen, Messrs. Warren E. Baker and Richard A. Solomon, for the United States and Federal Communications Commission.
Messrs. James A. McKenna, Jr. and Vernon L. Wilkinson, for respondent American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc.
Mr. Jack P. Blume, for respondent West Central Broacasting Co.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action in the light of the matter called to this Court's attention on page 7 of the Solicitor General's brief in No. 235, supra.
Mr. Justice CLARK and Mr. Justice HARLAN dissent. The matters referred to by the Court were not presented in the Court of Appeals and are not presented by this petition. Agreeing with the Solicitor General that denial of the petition for writ of certiorari would not foreclose appropriate consideration thereof by the Court of Appeals, we see no reason for vacating the Court of Appeals' judgments and, therefore, dissent from this disposition of the matter by the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Wirtz v. Local 153, Glass Bottle Blowers Association

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 463
Wirtz v. Local 153, Glass Bottle Blowers Association
Argued: Nov. 8, 1967. --- Decided: Jan 15, 1968
Louis F. Claiborne, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Albert K. Plone, Camden, N.J., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Wirl Television Corporation v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
358 U.S. 51
Wirl Television Corporation v. United States
Mr. Timothy W. Swain, for petitioner.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Wirth v. Branson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
98 U.S. 118
Wirth v. Branson
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Horatio C. Burchard for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. S.C.orning Judd, contra.
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# White Paper on Indian States (1950)/Part 8/Indian State Forces

Indian State Forces
176. The position of the Indian State Forces in the new set-up has an important bearing on the question of the readjustment of the fiscal relationship between the Centre and the States. These forces constitute a body of troops maintained by certain States under conditions, and in conformity with regulations, laid down by the Government of India. The scheme governing the maintenance of Indian State Forces assigned to them a definite role in the overall defence structure of India and provided for the maintenance by them of appropriate standards of efficiency, equipment etc.
177. The number of the States which maintained armed forces before August 15, 1947, was 44. Since then, a number of these States have been merged and with the coming into operation of the new Constitution of India, there are only eight States, namely, the five Unions and the States of Jammu and Kashmir, Hyderabad and Mysore, which still have units of armed forces. So far as the merged States are concerned, the I.S.F. units of the erstwhile Kutch, Kolhapur and Baroda States, of the Gujarat States merged with Bombay, and of the States forming Himachal Pradesh, have been integrated with the Indian Army. The absorption in the Indian army of the forces of the other merged States is now under way.
178. So far as the Unions of States are concerned, the present position is that except in Travancore-Cochin the authority in respect of the forces of the Unions vests in the Rajpramukh, but in the exercise of this authority, he is subject to any directions or instructions that may from time to time be issued by the Government of India.
179. The future organisation of the States Forces has been receiving the attention of the Government of India. For this purpose a series of conferences were held with the Rajpramukhs in 1948 and 1949. As a result, full agreement has been reached about the future treatment of these forces, and agreed scheme has been drawn up. The main features of this scheme are:
180. These forces will immediately come under the operational command of the Indian Army Commands in whose area the Unions are located. It is intended to complete the process of reorganisation by the end of 1951 when the forces of the Unions of States will in all respects, including pay and allowances, organisation, etc. be on a par with the Indian Army units. As a result of the agreements concluded with the States and Unions in regard to the federal financial integration the expenditure for these forces will, as from the date on which the federal financial integration takes place, be a charge on the revenues of India.
To give legal cover to this arrangement, a special provision has been made in the new Constitution of India (Article 259) to the following effect:
# White Paper on Indian States (1950)/Part 8/Progress made in Chief Commissioners' Provinces

Progress made in Chief Commissioners' Provinces
173. Judiciary.—The Judicial organisations existing in the States were in varying stages of development. Soon after the creation of the new Chief Commissioners' Provinces steps were taken ta reorganise the pre-existing judicial machinery. Courts of Judicial Commissioners presided over by competent judicial officers have now been established in all these areas.
Legislation.—The initial notifications under the Extra-Provincial Jurisdiction Act creating the Chief Commissioners' Provinces provided for the continuance of the pre-existing laws of the integrating States. Thereafter, until the coming into force of the Order under Section 290A of the Government of India Act, 1935, the Government of India issued necessary notifications repealing obsolete laws and applying the more important Central and Provincial laws.
Agrarian Reforms.—The problem of agrarian reforms needed urgent attention in Himachal Pradesh and Kutch. In Himachal Pradesh there existed a special class of tenants called "bethus" who were under an obligation to render personal service to the landowners in return for certain cultivating rights. Occupancy rights have now been conferred on all "bethus" who were in cultivatory possession of the land for three generations, on payment of rent equal to one and one fourth times the land revenue and cesses on the land. In Kutch more than one-half of the cultivable land did not pay revenue to the State and was in the hands of jagirdars and alienees. Steps have been taken to reorganise the Revenue Department in Kutch and to apply the necessary revenue laws. A Land Revenue Code, Tenancy laws and the laws designed to deal with alienated lands and jagirdars have been drafted and are being examined by the Government of India.
Communications.—Special attention was given by the Government of India to the improvement of communications in the newly created Chief Commissioners' Provinces. The problem was specially important in Himachal Pradesh and Tripura. The development of Himachal Pradesh depends entirely on the improvement of communications; steps have been taken to improve the existing roads and to construct new roads connecting the main centres in Himachal Pradesh with each other and with the rest of India. After partition, the people of Tripura had to depend on West Bengal and other parts of India for their essential civil supplies needs. Urgent steps are being taken to connect the area with the main communications system ​in West Bengal and Assam. Pending the completion of these schemes, air-strips have been constructed in suitable places in Tripura so that essential commodities may be flown to that area. In Kutch also steps have been taken to improve the road communications.
# White Paper on Indian States (1950)/Part 8/Sections 290A and 290B of the Government of India Act, 1935

Sections 290A and 290B of the Government of India Act 1935
167. As a step in the direction of effecting such an organic integration, the Government of India Act, 1935, was amended to introduce two new Sections reading as follows:—
(a) that the State or the group of States shall be administered in all respects as if the State or the group of States were a Chief Commissioner's Province; or
(b) that the State or the group of States shall be administered in all respects as if the State or the group of States formed part of a Governor's or a Chief Commissioner's Province specified in the Order:
Provided that if any order made under clause (b) of this sub-section affects a Governor's Province, the Governor-General shall, before making such Order, ascertain the views of the Government of that Province both with respect to the proposal to make the Order and with respect to the provisions to be inserted therein.
(2) Upon the issue of an Order under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of this section, all the provisions of this Act applicable to the Chief Commissioner's Province of Delhi shall apply to the State or the group of States in respect of which the Order is made.
(3) The Governor-General may in making an Order under sub-section (1) of this section give such supplemental, incidental and consequential directions (including directions as to representation in the Legislature) as he may deem necessary.
(4) In this section, reference to a State shall include reference to a part of a State.
290B.—Administration of areas included within a Governor's Province or Chief Commissioner's Province by an Acceding State.—(1) The Governor-General may by Order direct that any area included within a Governor's Province or the whole or any part of the area included within a Chief Commissioner's Province shall be administered in all respects by a neighbouring Acceding State as if such area formed part of such State and thereupon the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly:
​Provided that where any such Order is made with respect to any area included within a Governor's Province, the Governor-General shall, before making such Order, ascertain the views of the Government of that Province both with respect to the proposal to make the Order and with respect to the provisions to be inserted therein,
(2) An Order made under sub-section (1) of this section may contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions for varying the representation in the Legislature) as the Governor-General may deem necessary."