HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Advice needed:  Pregnancy and immigration problems
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:21:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.224837.3996@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>I believe that he will have to do the same. However, is it fair. In many
>cases the state has forbidden women to have babies at home with a midwife 
>attending etc. If the state imposes rules on how one should have a child,
>should they also pick up the tab that those rules create.

Is this a general rule, or does it only apply to child birth?

For example, license fees are a cost that is completely determined
by the state.  Under the above rule, the state should not charge
for licenses.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16112 sci.econ:6888
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Predatory Pricing
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:21:18 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Aug14.030242.17482@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>The standard Chicago School/Bork argument about anti-competitive predatory
>pricing is that it simply doesn't happen -- a price-setter would lose so
>much money that they could never hope to recover the losses with later
>monopoly profits and, therefore, no corporation acting in its self-interest
>would ever engage in a strategy of predatory pricing.  (The Supreme Court
>adopts a weak form of this position in Matsushita v Zenith, 475 US 574
>(1986).)
>
>This argument is far from universally accepted, but the counter-arguments
>I've seen seem weak -- I'm reading an article by Rapp in 59 Antitrust L J
>595 (1991) where he gives two cases as proof that "Predatory pricing does
>happen, however."  But, in one of these cases, Kelco v Browning-Ferris,
>845 F2d 404 (2d Cir 1988), the predator corporation, though it used the
>colorful language "We'll squish 'em like bugs," only succeeded in driving
>itself out of business by charging below-cost rates (and then suffered the
>further indignity of being cited for antitrust violations).  (Caveat: I
>haven't yet looked up the other case cited by Rapp, D&S Redi-Mix v Sierra
>Redi-Mix, 692 F2d 1245 (9th Cir 1982).)
>
>So, what's the deal here?  Did Rapp unintentionally weaken his argument
>by citing a case that supports Bork on closer inspection?  Or is this just
>the best example anybody could come up with?  Are there any real predatory
>pricing cases out there?  (I have the Burns paper on American Tobacco on

See American Airlines recent win in the price war. Extensively covered
in the business press.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
From: steveb@meaddata.com (Steve Brooke)
Subject: Re: How To Really Annoy People
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:10:11 GMT

In article <64327@cup.portal.com>, ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
|> > 
|> > 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

I found the article in the The Seattle Times August 14, 1992, Friday, Final Edition.

The lady's name is Charumati Rana.
She placed liens on the following people:  some members of the State's 
Attorney General's Office, 7 County Superior Court judges, the Court of
Appeals Commissioner, the County Sheriff, and the Deputy sheriff.

The only persons named are the sheriff (James Montgomery), the judge who
delayed ruling for three weeks on motions from a raft of government 
and private attorneys to strike down the liens (Charles Mertel), and Attorney Beth Andrus.

-- 
Steve Brooke  		      "Revolution Calling!"          Mead Data Central
BIS Conversion Engineering        -Queensryche   	     P.O. Box 933
uunet!meaddata!steveb                                        Dayton, Ohio 45401
steveb@meaddata.com		   Go Cubbies!               (513)865-7691
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Some References to Studies Re: Is Pornography Harmful?
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:34:02 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <9208131332.AA03868@novavax.nova.edu>, mitch@novavax.nova.edu (Mitch Silverman) writes:
> In article <JGREELY.92Aug6140214@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu>,
> J Greely (jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug6.162859.27637@icd.ab.com> adnan@icd.ab.com
> > (Adnan C. Yaqub) writes:
# ##I have no statistics on hand about the amount of child pornography in
# ##the U.S.  I don't believe that the U.S. Customs Office "produces"
# ##child pornography.  They probably buy it for their investigations.
# #
# #Nope.  They repackage it, advertise it, and send it out through the
# #mail, in attempts to arrest buyers.  I'll dig up my references on this
# #one.
# 
# Post them, please.  I know, for example, that the Broward County (Florida) 
# Sheriff's Office, our local "people in green," prepares its own crack
# cocaine from cocaine seized in other "operations," so that when an
# officer sells someone a rock in a sting operation, the lab technician
# that prepared the rock and sealed it in an envelope can testify that
# the same rock is still sealed in the same envelope.  Chain of evidence,
# that is.
# 
# Now if I find out that Customs is repackaging child porn with *my money*, 
# I might just have to write my Congresscritter a letter.

They certainly send out solicitations for it.  The recent Supreme
Court decision involved a man in the Midwest who, after MANY 
letters attempting to sell him child pornography, finally ordered
some from the Government.  (Lest we think they are picking people
at random, this man's name was on a mailing list of a firm that
sold child pornography back when it was legal).

The Supreme Court decided that such a concerted effort qualified
as entrapment, as well it should.

# Mitchell L. Silverman

I hope you are under no illusions about the morality of our
government -- it sounds like you are.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Posting copyrighted material
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:40:51 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Aug18.230830.22661@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, bz754@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Derek J. Wojciech) writes:
> 
> 
> I have seen material posted on news services, and articles available
> by ftp, with copyright notices in them.  I am wondering if for example,
> I wished to post an interview I saw in a music magazine, either to a newsgroup
> or available for ftp.  Now the magazine has the typical 'Contents may not
> be reprouduced in any manner, either whole or in part, without prior written
> permission.'  Now this kinda seems straightforward.  But as I have seen
> interviews, reviews etc., and these have included a copyright disclaimer(?)
> available, would it be legal to post an interview, or review if I stated
> the full copyright???   
> 				Thanx!
> 					Derek
> 					(email or post here)]
> 
> 

Most articles posted to usenet in full that are copyrighted are in
violation of copyright laws.  I don't consider it legal, unless the
poster says something like "reprinted with permission".  Hopefully the
poster really does have permission when he says that.

If you keep track of the news.* hiearchy, you'll find a lot of debate
on copyright laws.  Usenet rapes copyright laws, especially in the
pictures section.  Playboy has already taken some bbs's to court for
having gif's of their pictures available, but they haven't tried going
after usenet yet.  This is probably because it's hard to figure out
who to sue, especially with header forging being so easy.
                    === Al Sparks
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Advice needed:  Pregnancy and immigration problems
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:48:37 GMT

In article <19090@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>
>When my brother and I were born, our parents had to pay the
>entire cost of our births out of their pockets.
>
>When my sons were born, I had been paying premiums into a health
>insurance plan for eleven years, so the insurance company paid
>for most of the cost of their births.
>
>So, parents get to pay for the births of their children --
>either beforehand, with insurance premiums, or at the time
>of birth.  At least, that has been the experience of two
>generations of my family.   Why does Mr. Crane "have a very
>difficult time believing" that he will have to do the same?
>
>					-- Matt Rosenblatt
>                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>"Die Knechtschaft dauert nur noch kurze Zeit."

I believe that he will have to do the same. However, is it fair. In many
cases the state has forbidden women to have babies at home with a midwife 
attending etc. If the state imposes rules on how one should have a child,
should they also pick up the tab that those rules create.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer





Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
From: hollaar%basset.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar)
Subject: Re: Copyrights: Government research plagarized!
Date: 16 Aug 92 07:31:59 MDT
Summary: No copyright on government publications
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <92228.235918U38134@uicvm.uic.edu> Noel B. Lorenzana <U38134@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>My friend and I have a bet, He says that government information such as
>handbooks and pamphlets can be copied without infringing on the govt's
>research. And possibly sold for profit. I disagree...

You probably lose.  35 U.S.C. 105 states that "Copyright protection under this
title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the
United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding
copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."

Without copyright protection, the work is in the public domain (unless some
aspect is protected by patent or trademark), and can be freely copied by
anybody.  Those copies can be sold at a profit.  There are some companies
that copy IRS publications (particularly Publication 17, which covers
individual taxes), put their own cover on it, and sell it.

There is an exception in 15 U.S.C. 290e, which authorizes the Secretary of
Commerce to secure copyright "in all or any part of any standard reference
data which he prepares or makes available to others."
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:11:35 GMT

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

[....]
>  I propose that UNLESS one's alienation is already
>pathological (eg., one views all government as necessarily alienated
>from one's own interests and desires), one will see that the freedom of
>our small community to enact an informal hate speech law is exactly
>parallel to the freedom of St. Paul MN to improve ITS climate by doing
>the same.
[...]

The difference is that your pact was voluntary. It depended on
individual consciences, not on the authorities, to decide was, and was
not, proper.

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:03:02 GMT
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX

In article <1992Aug20.215056.4083@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.180717.29099@natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug20.161412.27423@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>
>>I see a couple differences between your "law" and the St. Paul law.
>>
>>1) Did everyone agree to your "law"?  Did EVERYONE agree to the St. Paul
>>   law.
>
>Let's see, Chris Bartz will only allow as law those laws for which the
>people vote unanimously.  This is utterly absurd.  What do you want?  A
>Romanian (Ceaucescu era) plebiscite?
>

I don't think that I said "...only allow as laws those laws for which
the people vote unanimously."  I asked a question, which I notice you
did not answer.

You claimed that your law made your group work together better and made
the experience better for everyone.  You then claim that the St. Paul
law would have a similar effect if the supreme court would not have
got involved.  I was pointing out differences between your group and St.
Paul which might explain why it worked fine for your group but would not
work fine for St. Paul.

What would have happened if one or more people in your group refused to
go along with your "law" but were forced to by the threat of being left
on a moutain or having to do 20 pushups or whatever other effective
punishment you came up with.  Would your "law" have made the expierence
better or worse.  Would you have been able to make more climbs or fewer.
The fact that you had no objections to your "law" makes a big difference
in how it affected your trip.


-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: weverka@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert T. Weverka)
Subject: Pittsburgh Press articles on Civil Forfeiture
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 10:51:07 GMT

The Pittsburgh Press articles on the RICOH laws
were posted here some time ago.

Did anyone save them?
-Ted 

Xref: sparky misc.legal:16059 alt.conspiracy:10022
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: INSLAW (Very strange case)
Date: 16 Aug 92 00:56:15 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1t7m-bn.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>The last and biggest legal subterfuge by the government on the INSLAW
>case was that when the case was appealed to the SC by the government
>after its latest loss, the SC said the case had been pursued *through
>the wrong court system* and the whole thing presumably has to start
>again all over at the bottom rung of the legal system.

But it had gone through the wrong court system.  Do you really want
bankruptcy courts making judgments on fraud and tort claims
without Congressional authorization?  
-- 
             ......................................................
             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
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Seeking employment
From: arothman@eve.wright.edu ()
Date: 16 Aug 92 22:04:20 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wright State University

Is this the appropriate newsgroup for a job wanted ad for a lawyer?  If
not, is there a Usenet newsgroup that is?

Aric Rothman
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: annsera@mandolin.ctr.columbia.edu (Ann Sera)
Subject: Recording Phone Conversations - is it lawful??
Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:45:28 GMT
X-Posted-From: mandolin.ctr.columbia.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Does anyone know if it is legal to tape a telephone
conversation between oneself
and another party *without* expressly advising the other party that
the phone conversation is being recorded? 

I tried to tape a conversation between myself and my incredibly
arrogant and incompetant lawyer (for starters, the guy has advised
me to lie, has lied himself with regard to my case, and then recently
enetered a guilty plea without even discussing that matter with me - you
see, I really NEED some sort of protection against this guy and all
my friends said that I should tape him).  

I used a recording machine that gives a 30 second warning beep.
Also, the call was sent and originated in New Jersey.

A few minutes into the phone call the lawyer asked if I was recording
the conversation and I affirmed that he was. He repeated, loudly,
that I was committing a crime and then after several more minutes of
yelling at me, hung up on me.

I want to know if this is just another example of his bullying me or
if it really is against the law to tape one's own phone conversation
with a warning beep going.  I'd really appreciate any thoughts
anyone had about the subject.

-ann
annsera@ctr.columbia.edu

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:19:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.041324.15863@panix.com>, lkk@panix (Larry Kolodney) writes:
>In <1992Aug16.211146.9792@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>>I do find Mark's scenario troubling, but I also find troubling the
>>notion of allowing a person to be tried again and again for the same
>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>conduct until a charge sticks.
>
>Even if you accept the "seperate sovereigns" doctrine, this still only
>gives the government two chances to convict.  Where does "again and
>again" come from.

I remember reading about a satellite company being sued in every state
until it ran out of money or a suitable decision was reached.  So, for
this postings which contains a statement "George Bush earns a Nobel
peace price" which would be considered obscene by any sane court I
could be sued in every state in USA because the posting is spread to
every state in USA.  But wait, that would be a violation of the first
amendment.  You're in a twisty maze of constitutional violations, all
looking absurd.

>I'm not so sure it feels like double jeopardy.  The point of the
>double jeopardy clause (in my mind) is to prevent the harrasment of
>unfavored individuals by powerful prosecutors.  Giving the Feds a
>chance to intervene where civil rights have been violated doesn't
>appear to be an abuse the kind of which the jeopardy clause is meant
>to prevent.

"Civil rights violation" seems to be on a very shaky foundation by
itself, to put it mildly.

>Do you feel the same way about Al Capone being convicted for violating
>the section of the IRS code which requires reporting income from
>criminal activities?  

With my English skills such section seems to be a clear violation of
the fifth "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself" and thus the conviction was unconstitutional.

//Jyrki
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: felony convictions
Date: 15 Aug 92 14:10:46 GMT
Distribution: misc
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <199210.1297.15689@execnet>, 
"hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com> said:

> > If you have been convicted on a felony charge and you have served
> > your sentence are your rights (e.g. voting,bear arms)
> > automatically restored?
>
> It depends on the jurisdiction in which you were convicted, but
> generally not.

Are you sure?  My intuitive feeling is that it would depend upon the
laws of the jurisdiction in which you are now living rather than the
jurisdiction in which you were convicted.  After all, it seems a bit
unlikely that Kentucky, for example, has the power by law to forbid
you from voting in state or local elections in Arkansas...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:21:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.015046.3591@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>	You're not "switching jurisdictions".  There are two separate court
>systems, and two separate law systems.
>
>	If you go on an interstate killing spree, is it double jeopardy to be
>tried for murder in more than one state?  I think we've made the case for
>separate court systems.

A better analogy would be if I shot a man in Nevada while I was
standing in California.  Would it be double jeopardy to try me in
both California and Nevada for the Murder ?  I think that it would
be.  I think that any reasonable person would conclude the same.

Guido


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: leo@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (leonard.oppenheimer)
Subject: National Choice Legislation
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:36:11 GMT
Summary: What is the Costitutional basis?


Hi Folks,

I'm new to this newsgroup, and I'm sorry if this issue has already been
discussed.  If so, please tell me.

What I would like to know is -- what is the constitutional basis for the
pro-choice statute now being proposed in Congress.

My understanding of the statute is that Congress wants to make it illegal
for any state to ban or restrict abortions, at least for some part of the
pregnancy.  I really don't know any of the details.

From my limited understanding of ConLaw, I know that any affirmative law
that Congress passes must rest on one of the enumerated powers in Article I
Section 8.  None of those would seem (to me) to give Congress the power to
make this legislation.

As for the 5th amendment liberty rights, these are only LIMITS on what
Congress may do (they may pass no law that ...), not bases for affirmitive 
lawmaking on the part of Congress.  Congress has no right to pass laws
limiting the powers of the States, unless it has a specific grant of power
to do so in that area.  Although I know that Congress has passed some very
burdensome rules against States in the past, it has always had to base
itself, however tenuously, on Art I Sec 8, usually on the commerce clause.

I would appreciate if anyone could explain to me where I am wrong.

(Please email, because I do not read this group very often.)

Leonard Oppenheimer
att!hrmso!leo
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: [UPI] "Judge rules artist's rights violated in painting seizure"
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:38:04 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <adams.713731675@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> 
> >	CHICAGO (UPI) -- Three aldermen violated an artist's rights when they
> >removed from a student exhibit a painting of the late Mayor Harold
> >Washington dressed in women's underwear, a federal judge has ruled.
> 
> I bet they understand why the conservatives are upset at the National
> Endowment for the arts right now....
> 
>  -Steve

But that's different!  Conservatives were trying to stop funding of
REAL art, not "trash." :-)
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
Newsgroups: misc.legal