alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Catharine Doak, etc., *v.*S. H. Wakefield.

Nuisance — Obstruction of Public Highway — Individual cannot Recover — ■ Special Injury.

A public nuisance is not the subject of a suit by a private individual unless he has sustained some special injury thereby. The obstruction of a public highway is a nuisance common to all who use it.

APPEAL FROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT.

December 17, *1870.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

This suit was brought in the court below by Catharine Doak, P. B. Doak and Richard Ross against S. H. Wakefield to enjoin him from closing and obstructing the use of a public highway, as they allege, dedicated to the public by the former owners of *652the land over which it passes and which has been used as such for more than thirty years, and for general relief; a temporary injunction was granted, but on final hearing the injunction was dissolved and their petition dismissed, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

*Bullock & Davis, Tyler, for appellants.*

*Z. Wheat, for appellee.*

The appellants do not allege, nor have they shown that they have any other interest in this road than that which belongs to every other citizen in the community. It was said by this court in *Barr & Yeiser v. Stevens, etc.,*1 *Bibb.*292: Upon general principles that common interest which belongs equally to all, and in which the parties suing have no special or peculiar property, cannot maintain a suit. Thus a public nuisance is not the subject of a suit by a private individual, unless he has sustained some special injury thereby.

As if a man fell trees in a public highway whereby it is stopped up to the annoyance of passengers it is a public nuisance common to all, for which at the common law he might be prosecuted by the commonwealth and punished. But a suit against him could not be maintained by a private individual who had only sustained the injury common to all, who were turned out of the way.

But if in attempting to ride over the trees felled in the road an individual’s horse should be thrown, whereby either himself or his horse is wounded, he may maintain an action for this special damage.

The reason why he cannot' maintain the action without special damage is that if one can, all might, which would b eruinous.

In view of this authority, which hase been recognized in subsequent cases by this court, this action cannot be maintained and the petition was properly dismissed.

If as contended for this is a public highway dedicated to the public use (a question about which we express no opinion), the remedy for its obstruction is by a different proceeding.

Judgment affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Commodity Futures Trading Commission, )

)

Plaintiff )

) 

v. ) Case No. 20-3758

)

Long Leaf Trading Group, Inc., James A. )

Donelson, Timothy M. Evans, Jeremy S. Ruth, )

And Andrew D. Nelson, )

)

Defendants. )

)

NOTICE OF FILING

To: Counsel of Record via ECF

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 3, 2020, the Defendants Long Leaf 

Trading Group, Inc. and James A. Donelson filed their Agreed Motion for Extension to File 

their Answer copy of which has been previously served upon you, with the Clerk of the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

Respectfully submitted,

One of Defendant’s Attorneys

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 20 Filed: 09/03/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:105
2

Nicholas P. Iavarone

niavarone@iavaronefirm.com

The Iavarone Law Firm, P.C.

2516 Waukegan Rd., No. 399

Glenview, IL 60025

(312) 637-9466

Laurence M. Landsman

llandsman@llflegal.com 

Latimer LeVay Fyock, LLC

55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 1100

Chicago, IL 60603

(312) 419-3029

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 20 Filed: 09/03/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:106
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA Awards Artemis Contract for Gateway Logistics Services","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"BTY2GtHPWD\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-awards-artemis-contract-for-gateway-logistics-services\/\">NASA Awards Artemis Contract for Gateway Logistics Services<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-awards-artemis-contract-for-gateway-logistics-services\/embed\/#?secret=BTY2GtHPWD\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Awards Artemis Contract for Gateway Logistics Services” — NASA\" data-secret=\"BTY2GtHPWD\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/spacex-xl-high-orbit.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
Case: 1:20-cv-02549 Document #: 65-2 Filed: 07/02/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:401
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

CHAPTER 4 CORP., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WOMENTOPACCESSORIES.XYZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 20-cv-02876 

Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. 

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert 

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL UNDER RULE 41(a)(1) 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Chapter 4 Corp. 

(“Plaintiff”) hereby dismisses this action with prejudice as to the following Defendants: 

Defendant Name Line No. 

Zhao Inc 67 

hqtn_store 74 

nywybest 79 

prettydollydream_st 81 

Dated this 31st day of July 2020. Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Allyson M. Martin 

Amy C. Ziegler 

Justin R. Gaudio 

Allyson M. Martin 

Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. 

300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

312.360.0080 

312.360.9315 (facsimile) 

aziegler@gbc.law 

jgaudio@gbc.law 

amartin@gbc.law 

Counsel for Plaintiff Chapter 4 Corp.

Case: 1:20-cv-02876 Document #: 61 Filed: 07/31/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2455
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 379 Agreed to House (ATH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 379

                Returning to the Senate the bill S. 104.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 1998

Mr. Ensign submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
                Returning to the Senate the bill S. 104.

    Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 104) to amend the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act of 1982, in the opinion of this House, contravenes the 
first clause of the seventh section of the first article of the 
Constitution of the United States and is an infringement of the 
privileges of this House and that such bill be respectfully returned to 
the Senate with a message communicating this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
#### John McElroy *v.*George Dunn.

Principal and Surety — Depositions Taken in Another Case are Competent Evidence that Party then Claimed to be Principal and not Surety.

The depositions taken by Allen & Dunn in their suit with Boynton are admissible as evidence in this case, to show that at that time Dunn was asserting that he and Allen were partners in the purchase of the mules.

Principal and Surety — Statute of Limitation — Estoppel.

The conduct of the appellant was such as to. induce appellant to believe that he was a principal in the note and not surety, therefore he is estopped to plead the statute of limitation of seven years.

APPEAL FROM MARION .CIRCUIT COURT.

January 12, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The depositions taken by Allen and Dunn, to be read as evidence in their suits with Boynton, were held to be admissible as evidence in this case, to show that at the time such depositions were taken Dunn was asserting that he and Allen were partners in the purchase of the.mules from McElroy.

Of course it was the province of the jury' to consider the depositions themselves, the conduct of Dunn- in taking them and other circumstances attending their taking, and to determine *113therefrom whether or not he was then either expressly or impliedly making such assertion.

*W. B. Harrison, for appellee.*

It seems, however, that the deposition of McElroy was taken, and he insists that Dunn attempted to prove the fact of the partnership purchase -by Allen and himself of his (McElroy) mules. That such attempt was calculated1 to induce him to conclude that Dunn did make the purchase as a partner, and, therefore, that he was a principal and not a surety on the note given for the mules.

That even if he was mistaken in this conclusion, that it was the natural and legitimate result of Dunn’s conduct, and that the latter is estopped as to him from denying that such is the fact.

The third instruction given at the instance of McElroy is based upon this view of the law. By it the jury were told that if they believed from the evidence that Dunn had McElroy’s deposition taken and proved by him that he (Dunn) purchased the latter’s mules as a partner of Allen, that he knew that McElroy had so sworn and failed to notify him that he was only a surety and not a principal in the note for suit to be brought thereon before the seven years’ limitation had become complete, then the law was for McElroy.

We are of opinion that the instruction was proper. If Dunn, to advance his own interest in the suit with Boynton, misled McElroy and lulled him into the belief that he "was a principal in the note, and permitted him to labor under this mistake until limitation had run, he cannot be allowed to rely upon such pleas.

Instruction No. 4, given for appellee, although correct in one view of the case, should have been so modified as to have been made consistent with Instruction No. 3. As it was given, the two instructions are conflicting and were well calculated to mislead the jury.

For this error alone the judgment is reversed.

The cause is remanded for a new trial.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GLEN EDWARD POLSTER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 26 MM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of May , 2019, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Riverport Insurance Company

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02679

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

Area #1 Outdoor Club, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, October 28, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras: Plaintiff Riverport

Insurance Company's motion pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 41(a)(2) for dismissal [16] is

granted. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice(vcf, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-02679 Document #: 19 Filed: 10/28/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:106
#### Lydia WISEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHAYNE SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-5159.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 18, 2005.

Michael L. Boylan, Louisville, KY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

John O. Sheller, Smith & Smith, Louisville, KY, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before NORRIS and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; TODD, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable James D. Todd, United States District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Lydia Wiseman was employed as an environmental specialist at Whayne Supply Company (‘Whayne Supply”) from October 1995 until December 2000. Wiseman filed a complaint alleging that Whayne Supply violated the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, Ky.Rev.Stat. Chapter 344, by discriminating against her on the basis of her sex and by creating a hostile work environment in the Jefferson County, Kentucky, Circuit Court on February 15, 2001. Whayne Supply removed the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on March 2, 2001. Whayne Supply subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on May 15, 2003. The district court granted the motion on January 12, 2004.

Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Whayne Supply. Because the reasons for this determination have been fully articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court on the basis of the reasoning set out by that court in its opinion and order entered on January 12, 2004.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Rachael Whitefield","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/rachaellwhitefield-2-2-2\/","title":"Anne C. McClain","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"aACsDhZt61\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/anne-c-mcclain\/\">Anne C. McClain<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/anne-c-mcclain\/embed\/#?secret=aACsDhZt61\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Anne C. McClain” — NASA\" data-secret=\"aACsDhZt61\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/jsc2017e108313_alt.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":750}
EXHIBIT 1

Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-2 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:362
Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-2 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:363
EXHIBIT A

Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-2 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:364
Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-2 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:365
Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-2 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:366
Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-2 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:367
Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-2 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:368
Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-2 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:369
EXHIBIT B

Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-2 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:370
Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-2 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:371
Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-2 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:372
(i)
    
    the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December
31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: February 12, 2010
    /s/ ALAN D. GOLDAlan D. GoldChief Executive Officer    (i)
    
    the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December
31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: February 12, 2010
    /s/ KENT GRIFFINKent GriffinChief Financial Officer
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DAVID MUTNICK, for himself and others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLEARVIEW AI, INC.; HOAN TON-THAT; 

RICHARD SCHWARTZ; and CDW 

GOVERNMENT LLC,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 20 C 512

Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

ANTHONY HALL, on behalf of himself and 

all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 

CDW GOVERNMENT LLC and 

CLEARVIEW AI, INC.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 20 C 846

Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

DECLARATION OF HOAN TON-THAT

I, Hoan Ton-That, hereby declare: 

1. I am the Chief Executive Officer of ClearYieZ AI, Inc. (3ClearYieZ ́). My current

responsibilities at Clearview include managing technology matters. I have personal knowledge of 

the facts described below, and if called as a witness, could and would testify competently thereto. 

2. I am a resident of New York. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-7 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:377
2

3. I do not reside, pay taxes, or own any property in Illinois. I do not have an Illinois 

driYer¶s license or an Illinois bank account. I travel to Illinois only sporadically, only one time in 

the past five years. 

4. I have never traveled to Illinois to conduct Clearview business. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ௗ1746, I declare under penalt\ of perjury that the foregoing is true 

and correct. Executed on April 27, 2020. 

New York, New York 

April 27, 2020. 

 __________________________

 Hoan Ton-That 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-7 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:378
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 268

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that no new energy

taxes or fees should be imposed on the American public for the purposes

of complying with the global warming treaty.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 9, 1997

Mr. PAXON (for himself, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr.

HOSTETTLER, Mr. EWING, Mr. NEUMANN, Mr. HERGER, Mrs. EMERSON,

and Mr. THORNBERRY) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

no new energy taxes or fees should be imposed on the

American public for the purposes of complying with the

global warming treaty.

Whereas in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the

United States agreed to take voluntary steps toward reducing emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000;

Whereas the administration is working toward an agreement

on the global warming treaty to be signed in December

of 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, to reduce ‘‘greenhouse gases’’;

Whereas the Clinton administration currently has under consideration a plan which, through the imposition of new
2

•HRES 268 IH

energy taxes and fees, intends to reduce carbon usage

and thereby resulting carbon emissions;

Whereas the imposition of regressive energy taxes to comply

with the treaty would be devastating to the American

taxpayer, our growing economy, and employment;

Whereas decreasing ‘‘greenhouse gases’’ by 20 percent in the

year 2010 could require an increase in the Btu tax 5

times greater than that proposed in 1993;

Whereas a tax increase of $200 per ton of carbon could result in—

(1) a 60 cent increase per gallon in the cost of gasoline;

(2) a 50 percent increase in the cost of most fuels

used for residential and commercial heating;

(3) a 4.2 percent reduction, or $350,000,000,000

per year, in United States gross domestic product by

2010; and

(4) a job loss of 1,100,000 in 2010 and 600,000

annually through 2020;

Whereas gasoline and fuel taxes are regressive and less affluent Americans must spend a greater proportion of their

income to pay those taxes than do more affluent Americans;

Whereas additional or increased fees for energy producers

and suppliers, instead of directly increasing taxes on the

American taxpayer, would require increased costs to the

taxpayer for home heating and cooling; and
3

•HRES 268 IH

Whereas many Americans now working toward achieving and

maintaining economic stability will be placed at financial

risk through new energy taxes, including seniors living on

fixed incomes, single parent families with children, recently employed former welfare recipients, working students trying to finance their education, and others: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that no new energy taxes or fees should be

3 imposed by the Clinton administration on the American

4 public for the purposes of complying with the global warm5 ing treaty.

Æ