On Mon, 31 Oct 1994, Greenberg Traurig wrote:
> Seems to me Hyperlaw should beware of Hyperventilation.
>
> Linda WIll
> Greenberg Traurig
> Miami
>
Ah, very funny. Linda. I guess you liked Molstad's post on the list
saying that the Berring letter was the "truth". Or perhaps you liked the
Halloweed ads that were placed in the Washington Post by West.
But, since you were at the TAP meeting on October, 19, 1994, perhaps you
can describe to the list how West characterized the Berring letter at the
meeting. Do you believe it was a proper characterization? Do you
believe that my objection that West was misreprensenting the letter was
appropriate? Have your read the published transcript of the hearing?
Did you see the line that describes Berring as a consultant for West?
Did you believe it was unseemly for me at the TAP meeting
to have characterized the Berring letter
as having been performed by a consultant for West given that statement?
Were you at the National Press Club press conference held by West the
morning of the TAP meeting? Was the Berring letter referred to in any
way? How did West refer to the Berring letter? Was the letter in the
materials given out to the press. Did West say that it was
a flawed informal study? How many press represenatives were at the press
conference? Would you suggest a cost effective way that one can contact
each member of the press to set the record straight? Can you obtain for
me a letter written on the stationery of a major law school by a law
professor stating that the Berring letter was flawed and an informal
study to pass out to those reporters?
Have you read the exhibits to the Berring letter? Have you performed
your own count of the number of federal courts (not the number of rules)
with a citation rule? Where in the transcript did Barney Frank ask that
the list to be provided by Berring was to be limited to states without
official reporters. Is is not true that all populous states have
official reporters. Have you personally reviewed the rules of any of
those states. Have you personally reviewed the Individual Judges Rules in
the federal district court in Miami.
In short, do you have anything of substance to provide. I will willingly
and prefer to discuss substance but, that means that challenges of
substance cannot be met with ad hominem defenses.
Now, let's see, how can we be sure that the legislators and their staff
in Washington have a full and complete view of what various state and
federal court rules require in the way of citation. I think that is
pretty important factual issue.
Maybe even one of the West editorial experts will provide an exhaustive
analysis, assuming that it does not already exist.
Also, West also mentioned at the meeting that there were 700,000
dispositions in the federal district courts every year. Do you recall
that statement? Did they provide us with the number of federal district
court decisions that federal district court judges ask to be published
each year and compare that to the number of decisions published by West?
Is this an important issue? If not, why did West repeat that again in
the forum at the Department of Justice? Did they refer to that as well
at the Press Conference you attended? Why do you think West is pushing
this? (hint, with 800 or so district judges, that is amazingly
productive, just imagine churning out 3 or 4 full publishable decision
every day in between running trials etc.)
Have you as an independent librarian been careful when you attend these
West functions not to be seen as lending your credibility to these types
of half-truths?
Alan Sugarman
HyperLaw
sugarman@panix.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST