Clomid Tablet Buy Online :: Licensed Online Healthcare

[August, 2006.
This is the home page of the HyperLaw Web Site as it existed in 2002 - correcting only references to phone numbers and addresses.
The site and linked documents and pages are being retained for archival purposes and because there are many links to documents on this site.
HyperLaw established this site using manual coding in the Fall of 1995 prior to the existence of web editing programs such as Front Page and Dreamweaver.
Please check out the home page.]

March 16, 2002 © HyperLaw, Inc.®

HyperLaw, Inc. ®
"Life is a long rope."

HyperLaw, Inc.

HyperLaw, Inc. was formed in 1991 to engage in electronic publishing of legal information. It was the first company to release on CD-ROM opinions of the United States Supreme Court (1992) and the first to release on CD-ROM opinions of the United States Courts of Appeals (1993), and at affordable prices. Currently [in 1998], it publishes a CD-ROM with over 39,000 opinions from the Federal Appellate Courts from 1993 to date and from the US Supreme Court from 1991 to date. HyperLaw and its founder and President Alan D. Sugarman are also active in citation reform and opening public access to the law. HyperLaw believes that the law should be available to the public at prices not inflated by monopolistic practices and artificial barriers to information maintained by or acquiesced in by the courts and the other branches of government.

Latest Decisions to 2001 in HyperLaw v. West. See http://www.federal-litigation.com.
Posted April 6, 1999. In March, 1999, West filed for certiorari seeking to overturn the Second Circuit affirmation of Judge Martin's decisions in favor of HyperLaw. Since there is not even an arguable position by West that there is a dispute amongst the Circuits as to the ruling that West could not copyright the text of court opinions, HyperLaw on March, 22, 1999, waived its right to file an opposition to the West petition on text. Now, Matthew Bender and HyperLaw will be filing an opposition to the West petition relating to the citation claims -- but, that presents interesting issues. Matthew Bender is now owned by Reed Elsevier, which also owns Lexis. And, it is well known that in 1988 Mead Data, the then owner of Lexis, settled with West and as admitted by a Lexis representative at the famous October 1994, meeting in Washington, DC, Lexis had agreed not to seek to overturn the West citation claim either via legislation or litigation. So,is Matthew Bender going to disclose to the Supreme Court that is no longer an adversary of West on the issue of citations???

Posted April 28, 1998. West/Thomson and Reed Elsevier have continued their transparent behind the scenes lobbying to press forward HR 2652. providing to any publisher of compilations of any nature a chilling sword to hang over anyone who dares intrude into their monopolies. See Database Protection for new information posted today. The purpose of the bill -- to provide copyright-like protection to unoriginal compilations that do not meet the standards of originality and creativity required under the Copyright Act and the Constitution. The bill as marked up over six weeks ago has yet to appear on Thomas, and we have posted a PDF version together with the remarkable witness statements at the last hearing in February. [The Subcommittee did not even respond to HyperLaw's written request to testify at that hearing]. It seems that in order to move the bill forward, an amendment has been inserted that exempts out telephone listing databases prepared by telephone companies. This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the bill which is the anti competitive protection of sole source databases -- except for telephone listing information who were threatened and were at the lobbying table. Every single professor/economist who testified for the bill recognized that sole source databases represented anti-competitive threats. So, users of telephone listings now are protected. But what about those who wish to republish information like sports scores, television listings, stock prices, statutory codifications prepared by private companies, court opinions databases, and who know what else. The bill further is so imprecise as to what constitutes a database -- let's wait and see. We know in HyperLaw's litigation with West, West once had taken the position that a single court opinion is a compilation and no doubt will argue that a single court opinion with the addition of parallel citations is a database, so one volume of a West Reporter will be a database, as well as each case in the volume. The Bill also now provides a variety of naive exemptions about use by libraries and not-for-profits, forgetting of course that commercial publishers sell to libraries and universities, and that the cost of information to these entities will increase if commercial publishers are unable to gain access to the information. Those who do litigation for a living should visualize the position you will be in if called to defend a case brought by a mega-monopolist publisher. This is an unfair bill. One really cute provision: if a court finds that a mega-publisher has brought an action in bad faith against a non-profit entity, then the court may award costs and fees, but, if the mega-monopolists jumps on a small competitor in bad faith, then the court is not permitted to award fees and costs. This bill is all about chilling competition from smaller competitors who want to take advantage of the new economics of publishing with low fixed costs.
Posted February 13, 1998. Reply Brief For Defendant Appellants West Publishing Company, January, 1998. -- Second Circuit Text Appeal. PDF Format.
January 30, 1998 Update. The silence on this page reflect the relative lack of activity. HyperLaw has three appeals pending relating to the efforts of Thomson, West, and Reed Elsevier to monopolize and control the dissemination of court opinions in the United States. We will be "filling" in the gaps during the next few weeks, so, please check back in.

The first appeal before the Second Circuit is the so-called "Citation Appeal", essentially seeking the explicit overruling of the notorious 1986 West v. Mead decision in the Eighth Circuit. Matthew Bender and HyperLaw are co-appellants in that appeal. The appeal was to have been argued on January 5, 1998, but, a district court judge assigned to the panel in effect recused herself, after a motion for recusal filed by Matthew Bender had been filed. The argument for this appeal has not been rescheduled as of February 13, 1998.

The second appeal in that same case is the so-called "Text Appeal", relating to West's overarching claims in the copyright of court opinions. That appeal has been full briefed. HyperLaw is the sole appellant in that appeal. Reed Elsevier has filed an amicus brief supporting West-Thomson. Matthew Bender had been expected to file an amicus brief supporting HyperLaw's position and rebutting the database protection type arguments contained in the Reed Elsevier brief, but, on the afternoon that briefs were to be filed, HyperLaw learned that (1) Times Mirror had announced that it was going to sell Matthew Bender and (2) Matthew Bender would not file the amicus brief. Reed Elsevier and Matthew Bender through a joint-venture own Shepards. The argument for this appeal has not been scheduled either as of February 13, 1998..
- Posted January 30, 1998. Brief For Amicus Curiae American Association Of Legal Publishers -- Second Circuit Text Appeal, Nov. 1997
- Posted February 13, 1998. Reply Brief For Defendant Appellants West Publishing Company, January, 1998. -- Second Circuit Text Appeal. PDF Format.
- Note, other briefs included Librarian Assoc. Brief to be posted. Check back.
The third appeal is an appeal in the United States Court of appeals of the decision of the District Court of the District of Columbia arising out of the Tunney Act proceeding in affect sanctioning the merger of West and Thomson. HyperLaw filed its brief yesterday, January 29, 1998. HyperLaw argues that the District Court has essentially vitiated the Tunney Act. Given the events in the last two years including the acquisition of CCH by Wolters Kluwer, the announced merger of Wolters Kluwer to Reed Elsevier, and the sale of Matthew Bender (most likely to Wolters Kluwer), the reactivation of federal antitrust activity in Microsoft featuring Gary Reback whose client Lexis lured unsuspecting librarians and publishers to support what turned out to be a renegotiation of Lexis's "business agreements" with West and Thomson, the firing of top executives at Lexis, the soaring of prices charged by West and Thomson, the closing of Michie's offices in Charlottesville (Michie being the company that took over the "divested" product from West and Thomson in a DOJ sanction bulk deal), the closure by West of its Westbury, New York office, the termination of numerous jobs by Thomson in Rochester New York, the settlement of the citation case pending in the Eighth Circuit just days before the Circuit was to render an opinion, the refusal of the United States Judicial Conference to clean up its house as relates to public domain citations and dissemination of district court opinions, etc., etc., provides a new landscape for the District of Columbia Circuit to scrutinize how the Justice Department leaned over to approve the merger, supported by State attorney General's like NY's Dennis Vacco who must be proud of all the jobs lost in NY as a result of this merger. Of course, there is also the consolidation in legal newspaper publishing with the American Lawyer and its local papers under common ownership with the National Law Journal. One may also observe that West-Thomson and Reed-Elsevier, who have now joined forces to foist a number of monopolistic intellectual property laws on the unsuspecting, are the largest advertiser for those legal newspapers. Following is the HyperLaw brief filed yesterday.
- Posted January 30, 1998. HyperLaw DC Circuit Tunney Act Appeal Brief filed January 29, 1998
See new postings October 30, 1997 and October 31, 1997 on Database Protection Page.
HyperLaw Observations re Database Bill H.R. 2652 October 23, 1997. A hearing was held on October 23, 1997 by The Subcommittee On Courts And Intellectual Property, House Committee On The Judiciary, Concerning H.R 2652 Collections Of Information Antipiracy Act. HyperLaw made available at the hearing a 13 page document containing observations about the database protection bill. A member of the subcommittee staff provided a copy to the Chairman who read the first three paragraphs into the record and said that the statements were completely incorrect, and that the bill was not on a fast track. Apparently there were a series of "miscommunications" that led us and many others in Washington to conclude that the bill was on a fast track, especially because of the short period between the introduction of the bill and the hearing. We are happy to hear that further hearings will be held in January. As to the other statements in the first three paragraphs, we stand by their accuracy and note that the Chairman did not identify which of the other statements were inaccurate. Of the three witnesses who supported the bill, one was Laura Tyson who was there on behalf of Thomson and Reed Elsevier. A second witness testified on behalf of the so called Coalition Against Database Piracy. Thomson and Reed Elsevier were two of the founding members and one could conclude formed the Coalition. Enough said.
West Files Appellate Brief on September 29, 1997 in Second Circuit in HyperLaw v. West on the Copyrightability of the Text of Court Opinions HyperLaw v. West.Available in 1.4 MB PDF File As expected, the brief takes enormous liberties with the facts. The HyperLaw response is due in 30 days. A motion for filing an amicus brief in opposition to the West brief must be filed with the amicus brief within the 30 day period. HyperLaw's observations concerning the status of the case, September 30, 1997, as posted on CNI-Copyright. .
September 29, 1997. Reed Elsevier seeks to file Amicus Brief -- Motion with Brief Reed Elsevier had filed a motion to submit an amicus brief in HyperLaw v. West in support of West's claims to the copyright of text of court opinions. The amicus brief notes that Reed Elsevier's stock had fallen as a result of the district court's May ruling in support of HyperLaw's position. Reed Elsevier also quotes from the database protection report of the Copyright Office. Reed Elsevier's latest position, supporting the copyrightability of the text of court opinions is just one more illustration of the phenomena of "Wexis", the anticompetitive consortium between West and Lexis which resulted from the 1988 secret agreements between West and Mead (former owner of Lexis). In addition, this latest action demonstrates the naivete of the Antitrust Division and State Attorney Generals who relied upon Lexis to express the public's interests during the negotiations to approve the acquisition of West by Thompson. The motion and brief are contained in a 990 KB PDF file.
New September 30, 1997. Judicial Conference Summary Report on Citation Reform The Judicial Conference has refused to adopt the ABA Citation Proposal, but oddly suggested that the courts establish a central database of opinions. Of course, central to the practicality of any immediately available citation would be archives of opinions which include the authoritative text as well as a means to identify the opinion on an electronic database. Since is it not unusual for their to be more than one opinion in a single matter, the use of a docket number alone will not suffice. Also, as the courts will readily find, in order to maintain assurance that a database is complete, some type of identifying number must be applied to each document. Central to anything the judicial conference does is to establish a rule that the official version of a court's opinion is that as filed in the docket of the court. That would mean that all corrections be implemented by an order, or that a revised version of all opinions be filed on the docket. Amazing at it may sound, most federal courts do not do this, and some even revise opinions and make the revised versions available on the internet, without filing the revised version and using the same file name as the initial opinion before revision. And, with the current methodology, there is no way without a sequence number to determine if one has a full set of opinions. A log file derived from a listing of files in a directory is going to never identify if a file is accidentally overwritten or deleted. Let's face it -- in 1997, this is plain stupidity and it is not exactly brain surgery. If dentists are doctors who cannot stand blood, then judges must be doctors who cannot put on a Band-Aid. Thus, the only authoritative version ends up being the West version. Got it? Guess not. Anyway, following the judge centric view of the world, they will create a centralized database in Acrobat format which will make reuse of the opinions highly expensive, and, moreover, one will not be able to wholesale download say a whole year of opinions. Why, because then a non-government disseminator could compete for the government bureaucrat's job of making the opinions available. The same mind set blindness occurs with the law school attempts to provide web sites of opinions: some do not permit wholesale downloads via FTP. In the meantime, let us understand a central issue. Since August of 1993, all 13 Courts of Appeals have made electronic versions of their opinions available on BBS's or the Internet. But, of the 94 district courts, only 2 or 3 make electronic opinions available to the public, even though the court's have their internal databases. This is a scandal and shame on the federal judiciary for keeping the public from having access to this existing public asset. Maybe Senator Grassley has a point.
May 21, 1997
HyperLaw Wins Another Round -- West Cannot Copyright so-called enhanced versions of court opinions
Jol Silversmith "Universal Citation: The Fullest Possible Dissemination of Judgments." College Hill Internet Legal Practice Newsletter, May 19, 1997. This is an excellent comprehensive discussion of the citation issues, written by a third year student at Harvard Law School. We assume it received an A+. The article discusses many of the articles appearing on this WEB site and some we had not seen, and, indeed credits this site as an excellent archive. The article cites again John B. West's 1909 article, which HyperLaw "discovered" in 1995 and introduced into the citation debate.
NEW Friday, March 21, 1997
HyperLaw Letter to Hon Richard Posner, Seventh Circuit Re ABA Citation Proposal, March 21, 1997

NEW Friday, March 14, 1997
HyperLaw Comments to the U.S. Judicial Comments Re Citation: March 14, 1997

NEW Friday, March 14, 1997
Department of Justice Comments to the U.S. Judicial Comments Re Citation: March 14, 1997

NEW Tuesday, March 11, 1997
Report on Oasis v. West (8th Cir) 3/10/97 Oral Argument

NEW Wednesday, February 26, 1997
Proposed Technical Standards for Electronic Filing in the Federal Courts -- Administrative Office of United States Courts December 20, 1996, Notice of Hearing of Judicial Conference for hearing on public domain citation, and information concerning efforts in Norway and Canada relating to access to the law.

NEW Wednesday, February 26, 1997
More new news articles re DOJ v. Thomson/West and HyperLaw v. West

NEW Friday, February 21, 1997
New Filings in DOJ v. Thomson/West

NEW February 15, 1997
Transcript - Conference before Judge Friedman, February 6, 1996 -- USA v. Thomson, 96 CV 1415, USDC District of Columbia Judge Friedman raises further questions, criticizes Department of Justice, objects to provisions in new license agreement proposal, objects to divesture to Lexis, and invites HyperLaw to file an expanded motion to intervene.
HyperLaw Comments Re West Spin Control Press Release -- Judge Friedman Ruling - December 26, 1996
COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF NOVEMBER 26, 1996 HEARING
"HyperLaw Comments: DATABASE PROTECTION -- TILTING THE COPYRIGHT BALANCE - I, November 18, 1996 and related information"
HyperLaw Summary Judgment Reply Brief in Matthew Bender/HyperLaw v. West 94 Civ. 0589, U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y., November 4, 1996.
Alan D. Sugarman Summary Judgment Affidavit in Matthew Bender/HyperLaw v. West 94 Civ. 0589, U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y., November 4, 1996.
NEW OCTOBER 16, 1996.
HyperLaw Amicus Curiae Brief October 16, 1996
NEW OCTOBER 14, 1996.
DOJ Response to Comments -- September 23, 1996
A Word Perfect For Windows Version may be found at DOJ's Site: "United States v. Thomson Documents" DOJ did not include a copy of the cross-reference table included in the version filed in court which purported to permit correlation between the comments filed prior to September 3, 1996 and the DOJ response.
NEW OCTOBER 10, 1996.
HyperLaw October 10, 1996 Letter to DOJ requesting that DOJ make available to the public, as required by the Tunney Act, documents on which the proposed consent decree is based.
This letter includes a discussion of the 1988 Secret License Agreements between West and Lexis which are the counterpoints to DOJ's Proposed License Agreement for everyone else. Included is language from 1976 and 1988 complaints.
NEW OCTOBER 10, 1996.
HyperLaw Request to DOJ to file an Amicus Brief concerning West claims to the copyright of the text of judicial opinions
This request was denied by DOJ on October 3, 1996.

Buy clomid tablets uk
At that place has been special unconcern with pesticidess stoping organochlorines (ddt and its metabolites, such as dieldrin) and pyrethroids (permethrin), simply at this attribute prove of any causal tie is rattling weak. Worrisome vista to Clomid kopen bij apotheek radiation therapy is a significant risk element for mamma cancer. Young lady un agency experience high-dose radiation medical aid for soul face an increased essay for white meat sign of the zodiac in adulthood. the herbss in the bonnefont court garden ar totally grouped accordant to their uses. The kickoff separate is household plants, including thwart broom, absinthe, material thistle, acaulescent carline thistle, hop, soapwort, vernacular mullein, southernwood, fuller's teasel, and juniper. The position gather of places ar Clomid citrate online those old for healthful purposes, as antecedently described. These countenance avens, st. women who increase unit aft biological time are least at risk. In postmenopausal women, estrogen is produced in suety tissue. Low bes of thin person body part alteration pull down of steroid hormone in the body, in the lead to faster object of estrogen-sensitive cancers. Steroid is up to his neck in commercial enterprise bony mass. Icon to estrogen-like industrialised chemicals. Materials with estrogen-like effects, titled xenoestrogens, get it on been subordinate mistrust for years. they acquire gamete and the female secretion testosterone. A theologizer who expands in unwellnesss of the manlike and androgynous excretion groups and the antheral generative system. Plosive consonant here to check author just about urologists. Besides referred to as tube-shaped structure deferens. this poise acts of the apostles variety an auto cable television with all over clomid tablets buy online a trillion secures and is obligated for circularizeing models from the sagacity to the brain. In the primitive degrees of the disease, in that respect haw be no symptoms. Goods compute that playing period of the folk constrained by it crataegus laevigata not have intercourse they take in it. Glaucoma is a really misunderstood disease. validity of assorted preparati

HyperLaw, Inc. ® "Life is a long rope."

HyperLaw, Inc.

Buy clomid tablets uk

HyperLaw, Inc. ®
"Life is a long rope."