OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Public Law 77-331

* related portals: United States Congress.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Chapter 564.
Note: This is the original legislation as it was initially enacted. Any subsequent amendments hosted on Wikisource may be listed using What Links Here.
Joint Resolution To declare war on Germany.
Seventy-Seventh Congress of the United States of America; in the First Session Begun and held at the City of Washington, on Friday, the third day of January, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty One
Joint Resolution Declaring That a State of War Exists Between The Government of Germany and the Government and the People of the United States and Making Provisions To Prosecute The Same
Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:
Therefore be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
(Signed) Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives (Signed) H. A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate Approved December 11, 1941 3:05 PM E.S.T. (Signed) Franklin D. Roosevelt

## References

http://www.archives.gov/global-pages/larger-image.html?i=/historical-docs/doc-content/images/ww2-declaration-war-germany-l.jpg&c=/historical-docs/doc-content/images/ww2-declaration-war-germany.caption.html
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Rosenberg v. Denno/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
346 U.S. 271
Rosenberg v. Denno
'The Court is now convened in Special Term to consider an application by the Attorney General (1) to review the stay of execution of Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg, granted by Mr. Justice Douglas on June 17, 1953, or (2) for reconsideration and reaffirmance of this Court's order of June 15, 1953, in No. 1, Misc., Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg, petitioners, v. Wilford L. Denno, Warden of Sing Sing Prison, June 1953 Special Term, denying a stay.
'The Special Term convenes with the approval of all the Associate Justices except Mr. Justice Black, who objects.'

## 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
# Rosenberg v. United States (344 U.S. 889)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
344 U.S. 889
Julius ROSENBERG and Ethel Rosenberg, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America.
Argued: Nov. 17, 1952. ---
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER.

## 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
# Rosenberg v. United States (344 U.S. 889)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
344 U.S. 889
Julius ROSENBERG and Ethel Rosenberg, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America.
Argued: Nov. 17, 1952. ---
Petitioners are under death sentence, and it is not unreasonable to feel that before life is taken review should be open in the highest court of the society which has condemned them. Such right of review was the law of the land for twenty years. By § 6 of the Act of February 6, 1889, 25 Stat. 655, 656, convictions in capital cases arising under federal statutes were appealable here. But in 1911 Congress abolished the appeal as of right, and since then death sentences have come here only under the same conditions that apply to any criminal conviction in a federal court. (§§ 128, 238, 240 and 241 of the Judicial Code, 36 Stat. 1087, 1133, 1157.)
The Courts of Appeals are charged by Congress with the duty of reviewing all criminal convictions. These are courts of great authority and corresponding responsibility. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was deeply conscious of its responsibility in this case. Speaking through Judge Frank it said: "Since two of the defendants must be put to death if the judgments stand, it goes without saying that we have scrutinized the record with extraordinary care to see whether it contains any of the errors asserted on this appeal." 195 F.2d 583, 590.
After further consideration, the Court has adhered to its denial of this petition for certiorari. Misconception regarding the meaning of such a denial persists despite repeated attempts at explanation. It means, and all that it means is, that there were not four members of the Court to whom the grounds on which the decision of the Court of Appeals was challenged seemed sufficiently important when judged by the standards governing the issue of the discretionary writ of certiorari. It also deserves to be repeated that the effective administration of justice precludes this Court from giving reasons, however briefly, for its denial of a petition for certiorari. I have heretofore explained the reasons that for me also militate against noting individual votes when a petition for certiorari is denied. See Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. Group of Institutional Investors, 343 U.S. 982, 72 S.Ct. 1018.
Numerous grounds were urged in support of this petition for certiorari; the petition for rehearing raised five additional questions. So far as these questions come within the power of this Court to adjudicate, I do not, of course, imply any opinion upon them. One of the questions, however, first raised in the petition for rehearing, is beyond the scope of the authority of this Court, and I deem it appropriate to say so. A sentence imposed by a United States district court, even though it be a death sentence, is not within the power of this Court to revise.

## Notes

* ↑ See 1948 Revised Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1254, 1291 et seq.
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
# Rosenberg v. Fleuti

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Clark
United States Supreme Court
374 U.S. 449
Rosenberg v. Fleuti
Argued: March 26, 1963. --- Decided: June 17, 1963
Philip R. Monahan, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Hirman W. Kwan, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
Mr. Justice GOLDBERG 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
# Rosenberg v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Rosenberg v. United States."
* 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.
* Rosenberg v. United States (344 U.S. 889)
* Rosenberg v. United States (345 U.S. 989)
* Rosenberg v. United States (346 U.S. 322)
* Rosenberg v. United States (346 U.S. 324)
* Rosenberg v. United States (346 U.S. 273)
* Rosenberg v. United States (358 U.S. 904)
* Rosenberg v. United States (360 U.S. 367)
# Rosenberg v. United States (345 U.S. 989)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
345 U.S. 989
Rosenberg v. United States
Messrs. Emanuel H. Bloch and John F. Finerty, for petitioners.
Acting Solicitor General Stern, for the United States.
An application for stay of execution was filed herein on June 12, 1953. It was referred to Mr. Justice JACKSON, the appropriate Circuit Justice. Mr. Justice JACKSON referred it to the Court for consideration and action, with the recommendation 'that it be set for oral hearing on Monday, June 15, 1953, at which time the parties have agreed to be ready for argument.'
Upon consideration of the recommendation, the Court declined to hear oral argument on the application.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER and Mr. Justice BURTON, agreeing with Mr. Justice JACKSON'S recommendation, believe that the application should be set for hearing on Monday, June 15, 1953.
Thereupon, the Court gave consideration to the application for the stay, and denies it, Mr. Justice BURTON joining in such denial.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER and Mr. Justice JACKSON, believing that the application for a stay should not be acted upon without a hearing before the full Court, do not agree that the stay should be denied.

## 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
# Rosenberg v. Denno

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
346 U.S. 271
Rosenberg v. Denno
Supreme Court of the United States
June 15, 1953
The motion for leave to file petition for an original writ of habeas corpus is denied.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER:
The disposition of an application to this Court for habeas corpus is so rarely to be made by this Court directly that Congress has given the Court authority to transfer such an application to an appropriate district court. 28 U.S.C., § 2241, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241. I do not favor such a disposition of this application because the substance of the allegations now made has already been considered by the District Court for the Southern District of New York and on review by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Neither can I join the Court in denying the application without more. I would set the application down for hearing before the full Court tomorrow forenoon. Oral argument frequently has a force beyond what the written word conveys.
Mr. Justice BLACK, dissents.
June 18, 1953
The Court met in Special Term pursuant to a call by the Chief Justice.
The Chief Justice said:

## 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
# Report of a Tour through the Bengal Provinces/Pai Bigha

​Pai Bigha is a considerable village on the Dardhá river close to the point where it separates from the Murhar, and above 2 miles to the south-east of Bishanpur Ghenjan; there are several square granite pillars roughly dressed. One was clearly a pilaster; the temples they belonged to must have been Saivic, as they are all marked with a deeply cut trisul; ​they are now set upright in front of the village; besides these there are some remains of statues.
The place was visited by Mr. Peppe, who has, I believe, taken photographs of what was interesting here, but I saw nothing of any particular interest myself.
# Report of a Tour through the Bengal Provinces/Mári

MÁRI.
Close to Fatuha, or rather Bykatpur, is a small village named Mári, where the dhol (drum) is not beaten. The reason, they say, is that a fakir cursed the place. He came thirsty and asked one of the village maidens who was filling ​water at a well to give him water to drink; the girl contemptuously refused. Next came a wife, and she very gladly gave him water to drink; so the man cursed the place, saying "Beti ranr, Bahu sohagin," i. e., (may the) daughters (of the village) be husbandless and the daughters-in-law fortunate; hence people do not marry the daughters of the village, and if they do, they are sure to die soon; and when any one does venture to take one of the daughters of the village, it is done without music or processions of any kind, but in a thievish sort of way. The village girls are so anxious to get husbands, that it is said they run away with any one who, by venturing to play on any musical instrument in the village, shows that he is ignorant of the traditional curse that hangs over the place.
# Report of a Tour through the Bengal Provinces/Ner and Belá

​Ner is a small village to the west of the road from Jahânâbâd to Gaya, and about a mile from the Jamna river. Here is a large pillared hall, evidently the maha mandapa of a temple. In the centre of one end of this hall, which has a wall running partly round it, is a doorway with a lingam sculptured over the entrance, giving access to a small chamber (the sanctum of the temple) with a lingam in its centre; the walls of this chamber, as, indeed, all the walls, appear to have been of brick picked with stone.
There is nothing of special interest here; the pillars are roughly dressed, and are not elegant, either for proportion or sculpture, of which, indeed, there is no trace; the hall is roofed by flat slabs of stone. The place was, I believe, visited by Mr. Peppe and a photograph secured.
Near Belá are several remains, about a mile and a half east of the dâk bungalow; these consist of various statues, mostly Brahmnanical, but some Buddhist also; and of a lingam and argha, which are fabled to have resisted all attempts at dislodgment for conveyance elsewhere. A fragment of a halo round the head of a Buddha with the beginning of the Buddhist creed was found by me in one of the recently set up earthen lingams. In the vicinity are other temples, none of any antiquity, and containing nothing of interest. One temple contains a statue of the skeleton goddess Kâli in black stone.
# Report of a Tour through the Bengal Provinces/Mokáma

MOKÁMA.
Mokáma Tanr is mentioned in another very popular legend, the legend of Chuhar Mal. As it does not appear to possess any archaeological value, I give a brief summary of it, suppressing, however, no essentials or names.
The hero of the legend is Chuhar Mal; his father was Behari Mal, his uncle Bandi Mal, his brother Dukha Mal. Chuhar Mal was born when his father was away ploughing in the field; no midwife or assistance was near; he, however, sat up, and when his father came and was followed by the midwife, he would not allow the midwife to approach him. When he became a few years old, he prevailed on his father to remove him to the village of Turki Kainjni, because at Mokáma his house was close to the Kachari, and the females of his home were subject to annoyance by the officials. Budhwa was the cowherd of his father's flocks; he induced him to carry him to the akhâda (gymnasium) of Daljit. Daljit was the cowherd of his uncle, and would not allow Budhwa to pasture Chuhar Mal's cattle near his, and Chuhar Mal went to fight with him, but on second consideration he sent Budhwa to his uncle to represent matters, and solicit orders on Daljit to let him pasture his nephew's cattle at the place. Budhwa went to Chuhar Mal's uncle, Bandi Mal, but he declined to interfere; he was living in Mara Mokáma (old Mokáma). Finding that his uncle would not interfere, Chuhar Mal went to Daljit's akhâda again, fought with him and slew him and carried off the cattle to their owner, his uncle, telling him what he had done. Then followed great fights, &c., which, however, as no names and localities are mentioned, I omit. I could not get the entire legend; it is sung, but few people have sufficiently strong memories to remember the whole song. It is exceedingly long, and is said to take three or four nights to be sung through to the end.
# Report of a Tour through the Bengal Provinces/Mátká Hill, Chillor, Murhar and Shergháti

​Mátká Hill, Chillor, Murhar, and Shergháti, all contain interesting remains, chiefly statues. They are noticed by Kittoe in J. A. S., Bengal, 1847, p. 78 et seq. and p. 277 et seq. I did not visit these places.
# Robinson & Company v. Belt

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
187 U.S. 41
Robinson & Company v. Belt
Argued: May 2, 1902. --- Decided: October 27, 1902

## 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
# Robinson Crusoe (unsourced)

* related portals: Children's literature.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons gallery, Commons category, Wikidata item.
First published in 1719 and sometimes regarded as the first novel in English. The original was presented without distinct chapters.
* Start in Life
* Slavery and Escape
* Wrecked on a Desert Island
* First Weeks on the Island
* Build a House - The Journal
* Ill and Conscience-stricken
* Agricultural Experiment
* Surveys his Position
* A Boat
* Tames Goats
* Finds Print of Man's Foot on the Sand
* A Cave Retreat
* Wreck of a Spanish Ship
* A Dream Realized
* Friday's Education
* Rescue of Prisoners from Cannibals
* Visit of Mutineers
* The Ship Recovered
* Return to England
* Fight Between Friday and a Bear
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Robinson Crusoe (Defoe)

The life and strange surprising adventures of Robinson Crusoe
* The life and strange surprising adventures of Robinson Crusoe (Third Edition) (transcription project)
* The life and strange surprising adventures of Robinson Crusoe (Third Edition with cuts) (transcription volumes: 1, 2)
* The life and strange surprising adventures of Robinson Crusoe (Fourth Edition) (transcription project)
* The life and strange surprising adventures of Robinson Crusoe (Sixth Edition)
* The life and strange adventures of Robinson Crusoe, of York, mariner (1885 edition) (transcription project)
* Robinson Crusoe, unsourced

## Bibliographic antecedents

* Life and adventures of Robinson Crusoe (1855)
* Life and adventures of Robinson Crusoe (c. 1855)
# Robins v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Brennan
United States Supreme Court
404 U.S. 1049
Robins v. United States
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
No. 71-5405 Argued: N/A --- Decided: January 17, 1972
Certiorari denied.

## 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
# Robinson Crusoe

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Robinson Crusoe."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, 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.
* Robinson Crusoe, novel by Daniel Defoe (1719)
* "Robinson Crusoe", anonymous song based on Defoe's novel (1797)
* Life of Robinson Crusoe, of York, mariner (1801), a 16-page digest
* The Children's Robinson Crusoe, by Mrs. John Farrar, (1830) (transcription project)
* Robinson Crusoe for Young Readers, by Louise A. Chappell (1903) (transcription project)
# Robins Dry Dock Repair Company v. Flint

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
275 U.S. 303
Robins Dry Dock Repair Company v. Flint
Argued: Dec. 1, 1927. --- Decided: Dec 12, 1927
Messrs. James K. Symmers and John C. Crawley, both of New York City, for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 304 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Roscoe H. Hupper, of New York City, for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 305-306 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice HOLMES 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
# Richard III

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Richard III."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, quotes, 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.
* The Tragedy of Richard the Third, a play by William Shakespeare (c. 1593)
* "Richard III," by William Hazlitt in Characters of Shakespear's Plays (1817)
* "Richard III," in Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, London: Smith, Elder, & Co. (1885–1900) in 63 vols.
* "Richard III.," by Charles Lethbridge Kingsford in Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed., 1911)
* "Richard III," in The New Student's Reference Work, Chicago: F.E. Compton and Co. (1914)
* "Richard III.," in Collier's New Encyclopedia, New York: P. F. Collier & Son Co. (1921)