HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 07:28:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.011741.28510@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug8.015920.18753@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug7.042743.21796@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug7.003830.9547@u.washington.edu>
>>>jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes: 
>>>#    This "nature is unequal hence the laws should stay unequal"
>>>#    is the biggest bunch of sexist crap that I've ever had to ingest.
>>>
>>>Propose a method besides force abortions for women, and you might get
>>>a hearing. 
>>
>>Scrap the paternity statutes, and adapt regular tort or contract principles 
>>for deciding paternity child support liability. 
>
>Ummm, regular tort or contract principles support the current system.
>Perhaps you're thinking of something else.

Or, then again, perhaps you're just trying to be smug...

If regular contract principles apply, why aren't child-support contracts
legal, without some special Squeal of Approval from the judge who decides
custody?

If regular tort principles apply, why can't a woman who fails to abort 
after having defrauded and/or misled the man vis-a-vis contraceptive 
protection be sued for having violated her duty of care, and ordered to 
reimburse him penny-for-penny for his statutory child-support liability,
and maybe punitive damages besides?

Doesn't seem very "regular" to me, but then what do I know, I'm not part of 
the status quo apologist elite, right??

>Followups directed out of misc.legal.

That's nice.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.environment,fl.general
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Grand Jury Indicts Jacksonville Shipyards, Employee for Discharge
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:54:58 GMT

In article <STEINMAN.92Aug19122430@hawk.is.morgan.com> steinman@is.morgan.com (Jan Steinman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.154908.18523@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
...
>
>   Mr. Stephens appears to be a relatively low level employee of what appears
>   to be a relatively large Corporation.
>
>"Director of Environmental Safety" sounds pretty high up the ladder to me!

Perhaps. However, it probably looks high up when viewed from the bottom. It
probably doesn't look so high up when viewed from the top. It does not
sound like a corporate officer. Companies have been known to give high
sounding titles to relatively unimportant functions.
...
>
>   In other words the penalties on Mr. Stephens are certainly large enough
>   to discourage him from doing the same thing again. The penalties on
>   the corporation may be small enough that the corporate officers look at
>   it as the cost of doing business.
>
>What is a corporation? Essentially, a collection of individuals. A
>corporation does not decide to pollute, individuals do. Punishing a
>corporation without producing a hardship on responsible individuals
>doesn't do much good: ROI goes down, P/E goes down, investors go away,
>truly "low level" employees get laid off.

Corporations are more than a collection of individuals. A corporation
is granted many of the rights of persons. They have the right to Freedom
of Speech. A corporation does pollute. It is a collective decision.

Punishing a corporation to a significant amount would do a lot of good.
If it was enough to drop the ROI or the P/E the stockholders would insure
that the management of the corporation would act responsibly towards the
laws. IMO punishing a corporation to a significant degree would have more
effect than does punishing individuals. Individuals tend to act more
irrationally than does a corporation simply because corporate decisions are
collective decisions. Corporations tend to calculate the risks and the
benefits of any decision and act acordingly. (Yes I recognize that it is a
set of individuals who are doing this.)

>--
>: : Jan Steinman	   steinman@is.morgan.com		 Bytesmiths : :
>: : 2002 Parkside Court				   West Linn, OR 97068-2767 : :
>: : 503/657-7703					       212/956-8722 : :


Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer












Xref: sparky misc.legal:16285 talk.politics.misc:41306
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
Date: 20 Aug 92 05:21:02 GMT
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

In article <l955ltINN9gg@spim.mips.com>
mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>
>In article <1992Aug19.015046.3591@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (tupendous Man) writes:
>|> In article <PA146008.243.714182108@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu David Veal) writes:
>|> > In article <1992Aug18.015503.3560@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.eu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>|> >
>|> >>	Double jeopardy is being tried in the same court for the same crime
>|> >>(with the same evidence) twice.
>|> >>
>|> >      The Constitution does not make this distinction.  It says simply
>|> > that noone will be twice put in jeapardy of life and limb for the same
>|> > offense.   Just because somebody comes up with new evidence after an
>|> > acquital does not mean you have to have another trial.  Nor can you just
>|> > switch jurisdictions and try again.
>|>
>|> 	You're not "switching jurisdictions".  There are two separate court
>|> systems, and two separate law systems.
>|>
>Give it up guys.  The LA Cops are being tried on a new charge and a new
>crime.  It's as if they committed a robbery and a murder at the same
>time.  You can be tried on the two charges independantly.
>
     I do not object to the police officers being charged in Federal
court under different crimes, although I might argue about how applicable
the specific charges might be.  What I object to is that the Federal
Government waited until the current trial was over and riots had ensued
before making their decision.  The whole point of prohibiting double-
jeapardy was to prevent the government from trying over and over again
to get a conviction.  If the Feds wanted to prosecute on civil rights
violations they had plenty of time to file charges before the trial
was over.  They blew their chance.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:32:02 EST
Followup-To: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: Let's get smarmy

In article <1992Aug19.175601.18252@asuvax.eas.asu.edu>, ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra) writes:
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>> 	Double jeopardy is being tried in the same court for the same crime
>> (with the same evidence) twice.
>> 
>> 	Federal courts and state courts are not the same court system.  A
>> suspect can be tried in both courts for the same act (e.g. bank robbery)
>> and it doesn't violate the double jeopardy standard.
> 
>      Well aren't you the clever little lad.

	Obviously someone needed to tap you with the hammer of knowledge.

> 
>> 	Anyone not understanding that should do a little reading before
>> proceeding further.
> 
>      Why don't *you* do a little reading of a
> thread before you respond to it, now there's
> a good boy.  And after it dawns on you that we're
> all quite aware of how the courts currently
> interpret double jeopardy and that the nature
> of that interpretation is what starts the debate
> rather than finishes it, come on back if you
> think you have anything interesting to say.

	Starcap'n Ra, proving he had nothing to say from the get-go.

	After a trip to the library, maybe you could bless us with why it
shouldn't be that way?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16219 talk.politics.misc:41002
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:27:17 EST
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug20.201027.14670@asuvax.eas.asu.edu>, ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra) writes:
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>> ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra) writes:
>> >      Why don't *you* do a little reading of a
>> > thread before you respond to it, now there's
>> > a good boy.  And after it dawns on you that we're
>> > all quite aware of how the courts currently
>> > interpret double jeopardy and that the nature
>> > of that interpretation is what starts the debate
>> > rather than finishes it, come on back if you
>> > think you have anything interesting to say.
>> 
>> 	Starcap'n Ra, proving he had nothing to say from the get-go.
> 
>      What a pathetic response, Brett.
> 
>      I see it still hasn't dawned on you.
> I hadn't expected it would.

	Said the blind mind, about to walk into a pit.

	The ball is still in your court.  Why don't you try picking it up and
explain how the constitution forbids two separate crimes from resulting from
the same act.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: XXVII Amendment
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:30:14 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <c0rr02pb1dlg01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
> Personally, while I usually like reading Gunther, I think he hasn't 
> articulated any sound reason disallowing the amendment.  After all, the early 
> states, if they no longer approved, could withdraw their ratifications.

I remember some state legislatures did withdraw ratification of ERA. 
and ERA proponents arguing that they couldn't do it.  Certainly the
Constitution is mute on that point, and it probably needs a Supreme
Court ruling if the issue ever comes up.  I'm sure that if the
opportunity had ever come up, ERA proponents would have been in court
challenging the state legislature's right to withdraw ratification once
having ratified.  You're probably right, but nothing is set in stone
on that point. === Al Sparks
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16151 talk.politics.misc:40596
From: ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:56:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: asuvax.1992Aug19.175601.18252
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: misc.legal

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 	Double jeopardy is being tried in the same court for the same crime
> (with the same evidence) twice.
> 
> 	Federal courts and state courts are not the same court system.  A
> suspect can be tried in both courts for the same act (e.g. bank robbery)
> and it doesn't violate the double jeopardy standard.

     Well aren't you the clever little lad.

> 	Anyone not understanding that should do a little reading before
> proceeding further.

     Why don't *you* do a little reading of a
thread before you respond to it, now there's
a good boy.  And after it dawns on you that we're
all quite aware of how the courts currently
interpret double jeopardy and that the nature
of that interpretation is what starts the debate
rather than finishes it, come on back if you
think you have anything interesting to say.

--Starcap'n Ra       {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
                        {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
                                          ^---------------The Wrong Choice
                             internet: kennedy@asuvax.asu.edu
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16218 talk.politics.misc:41000
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: How To Really Annoy People
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:08:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Aug19.100823.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Aug19.123406.17394@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> 
> I don't know.  But it's not a conflict of interest for a judge to rule
> me in contempt of court if I call her a "st*p*d fu*ki*g bas*ar*".
> -- 
>              ......................................................
>              ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
>              the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
>              you can't throw me to the lions -- i'm charlton heston

Wrong "B" word.  No wonder she's pissed at you.  What did she do to
you, and how much time did you spend in jail? === Al
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard)
Subject: Re: Too many lawyers?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:18:22 GMT


Yes, I concede that Japan produces many items at lower rates than in the U.S.; 
however, one cannot only look to lawyers.  Perhaps some of our union worker 
will be willing to work for less money.  Consider that?  Do the people who 
always idealize Japan ever mention that many of their business types went to 
school in the U.S.?

Yes, the U.S. has, argueable, too many lawyers.  No, let me concede that as 
well.  Why is it, then, still the case that the majority of U.S. citizens do 
not have access to affordable legal services.  I've interned in a legal aid 
office, and the workload was truly unbearable.

Maaybe the Japanese will help us.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: National Guard Status was (Re: Equal Rights Amendment)
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:14:42 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug12.194817.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
> In article <11712@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# # Actually, you have it backward, but it's a confusing situation, you
# # have a right to be confused.  
# # 
# #               In  Perpich  v.  Department  of  Defense  (1990),  the
# #             U.S. Supreme  Court provided a history of the process by
# #             which the  National Guard  was "federalized" in 1916, so
# #             as  to  eliminate  questions  of  the  constitutionality  of
# #             sending National  Guard  units  abroad.57    National
# #             Guardsmen are  both members  of organized  militias of  the
# #             various states,  and members  of the  U. S. Army, though not
# #             members of both at the same time.  When the President orders
# #             a National  Guard unit into federal service, they are no
# #             longer members  of the organized militia, but members of the
# #             Regular Army.58
# # 
# #               57 Perpich v. Department of Defense, et. al., 110 S.Ct.
# #             2418, 2423 (1990).
# #               58 Perpich v. Department of Defense, et. al., 110 S.Ct.
# #             2418, 2424 (1990).
# 
# I saw a post in soc.history that discussed the political motivations
# behind that law.  Basically Theodore Roosevelt was threatening to
# organize a military unit to go "over there" (remember this was during
# WWI).  He even sent President Wilson a letter saying he was especially
# qualified to do so as a former Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
# 
# It was hard for his aide's to tell, because Wilson rarely lost his
# temper.  One person close to President Wilson indicated that he could
# tell the President was furious when he read that letter.  Besides
# Roosevelt was Republican, and Wilson a Democrat.  Due to the political
# popularity of the former roughrider and President, Wilson was unable
# to turn him down personally w/o political repercussions.  That 1916
# law was how he solved the quandary he was in.  === Al Sparks

I've seen a variety of claims for why the federalization process 
happened in 1916.  I don't have the case in front of me, but I
recall that _Perpich_ also mentioned that some of the motivation
came from legal disputes about obligations to serve in Mexico
as part of the Pancho Villa raid.  I've seen the claim elsewhere
(with very little to back it up) that the Spanish-American War
led to a call-up of militias, and that some militias insisted that
they were not obligated to fight in an "imperialist" war.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
When the government wins the War on Drugs, they are welcome to try their
gun control snake oil.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Keywords: Third party beneficiary
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 04:44:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.014854.11044@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>I disagree. 

It's your right to disagree, but I'll be much more impressed when you
address the long list of legal precedent refuting your position that
you insisted I research.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             you can't throw me to the lions -- i'm charlton heston
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16176 alt.folklore.urban:21798
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: How To Really Annoy People
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 21:12:26 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Aug18.110630.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
  <1992Aug18.233346.27136@midway.uchicago.edu>

> 
> Which brings me to my second cross-posted newsgroup.  Did this really
> happen, i.e., did the Seattle Times give names?  Or were they just relaying
> an urban legend anecdote?

They gave the names of her, the people she liened, and the judge who
those people went to to have the liens removed.

If anyone wants to search, my subscription to the paper started on
the 12th, I believe, and so it was probably on the 12th, 13th, 14th
or 15th.  (I am pretty sure it was (1) in the Times, and (2) one that
I received by subscription rather than vending machine, although there
is a remote chance it was the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.)

--Tim Smith
From: edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Advice for first year law student?C
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 18:12:44 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Aug19.233855.22855@midway.uchicago.edu>
  <170cqiINN6uk@gw.home.vix.com> <170edjINN7rm@gw.home.vix.com>


Annie Mitchell, Esq. says :

>It's only law school, for chrissakes.  It's not worth your marriage,
>relationship, children, or any other life-important thing.
>

And I may presumptuously add that law school is no more than a rite of
passage, just like the bar exam.  It is related to the practice of law only 
in a metaphysical sense.  Eventually and inevitably you will come to 
terms with your conscience and practice real law.  So, enjoy law school 
for what it is.  Also, how much you enjoy it depends on how much you
put in.  I think I was the only guy in my class who read every case in the case
book for con-law (constitutional law).  I was even foolish enough to 
look up the unedited version in the U.S. Report for some interesting cases.  
But, boy, did I enjoy con-law!  On the other hand, I swore by Emanuel's
on property.  Mind you I did equally badly/well in these classes.  The 
educational value of law school has little to do with grades, the eventual 
return on investment, however, is interwined with grades.  Unless you don't
need to get hired, keep your eyes on your grades!  But that should not 
prevent you from taking advantage of perhaps the only time in your legal
career that you can actually enjoy law putting yourself first.  I don't
think I will run into a paying client in the next 10 years who will
let me argue a constitutional question for the hell of it.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:59:47 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug12.204934.13662@asuvax.eas.asu.edu>, ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra) writes:
> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
# # I'd like to pose a nonconfrontational but significant question to
# # those who agree with Starcap'n Ra: how do you solve the problem of
# # deliberate inter-sovereign pre-emption under this view of double
# # jeopardy?
# # 
# # Scenario: X, who lives in Backwater State, commits an act arguably
# # violative of both federal and state felony statutes.  The local DA is
# # a friend of X, and doesn't want to charge him with anything, but is
# # concerned about the possibility of subsequent federal prosecution.
# # The DA allows X to plead to a single count of disorderly conduct.
# # Presto change-o, X is immune from federal prosecution.
# 
#      First of all, one way or another the local
# DA would soon find himself roasted -- out of
# office if lucky, and prosecuted and convicted
# of some sort of obstruction of justice if not.
# I don't see what you describe as being very
# likely, and if a DA pulled that I doubt he'd
# get the chance to do it again.  And even so,
# the rights of the defendant are paramount (ie.,
# too bad).

What if X's action is lynching a black man, and there is general
support for that sort of action in the State of Backwater?  That's 
WHY the Federal Government stepped in the 1860s and 1870s with 
laws to enforce what had been formerly considered entirely
local problems.

# --Starcap'n Ra       {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy

I cringe at the abuse potential of separate prosecutions for what
is one act.  But I also cringe at the abuse potential of allowing
a civil rights violation because the locals don't have any problem
with civil rights violations.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
When the government wins the War on Drugs, they are welcome to try their
gun control snake oil.