HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Predatory Pricing
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:08:38 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Aug18.232940.26847@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <52004@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>See American Airlines recent win in the price war. Extensively covered
>>in the business press.
>
>Is this really "predatory" pricing, though?  Or just competitive pricing
>in a market with excess capacity?  AA was certainly pricing above marginal
>cost -- I don't think they scheduled extra planes to make up for their
>lower prices, they were just filling the planes they already had.

Not according to the CEOs of Northeast and some other airlines.
As I recall, some airline had the temerity to compete fairwise against
AA on some lucrative route, and AA retaliated by dropping all fares 
to a level which none of the airlines wanted. 
-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 09:42:38 GMT


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

That reminds me read Das Kapital yet eh Brett? Or have you dropped your claim to
be an expert on commuinsm?
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Advice for first year law student?
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:07:27 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <1992Aug21.051223.19091@leland.Stanford.EDU> shedevil@gw.home.vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell, J.D.) writes:

>About computers [darn, already deleted the discussion about "If you
>buy a Mac, get "MORE", etc]:  If you don't already have a computer,
>and you are going to buy a Mac - don't.  At least around here, DOS
>machines are the standard in law firms.  I can't imagine it is that
>different anywhere else in the country.

My Mac, like all current Macs, reads and writes DOS disks and files.
Anne's statement here is way out of date. Buy a Mac. It's a better
outlining tool than any DOS machine. I'm extensively familiar with
both platforms, and can speak from experience in training other law
students.

I'll gladly do a demo for anyone in the area, both as to outlining,
and as to file and disk compatibility between Macs and DOS machines.
As a sage once commented, it's not what you don't know that hurts
you--it's what you know that ain't true.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First
mnemonic@eff.org| Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit 
(617) 864-0665  | the expression of an idea simply because society finds 
EFF, Cambridge  | the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." --W. Brennan
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Keywords: Third party beneficiary
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:48:54 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Aug16.001250.9522@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.203618.8723@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>Matt writes:
>>>...then
>>>that child can be viewed as a third party beneficiary, and it is a 
>>>principle of contract law that where there are third party beneficiaries
>>>to a contract, the contracting parties are not always free to disregard
>>>the interests of those beneficiaries.
>>
>>Well, I know that third party beneficiaries can have standing to sue in
>>the case of a contract breach, but I am unfamiliar with any limitations
>>on the actual TERMS of contract based purely on the interests of a third
>>party beneficiary. 
>
>Certainly.  For example, Y cannot legally enforce a contract she signs
>with X to refuse to fulfill a legal obligation to Z.  If Z sues Y, Y
>cannot show the piece of paper signed with X to demonstrate the lack of
>existing legal obligation to Z.  And this is precisely on point.  

I disagree. Unlike your model, the man has no EXISTING explicit legal 
obligation to his child prior to entering into the child support agreement. 
Therefore the contract cannot be ruled enforceable purely on the grounds of
prior obligation. Instead, it's ruled unenforceable simply by legislative
fiat. My point is that this legislative fiat seems to violate the 
constitutional Right of Contract.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 05:08:23 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Aug22.221651.8893@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>In article <1992Aug22.163731.5253@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>Ted, you buy into Larry's argument at the price of missing what I was
>trying to say. The Department of Justice effort to bankrupt sex publishers
>is not grounded in the protection of particular communities. In fact, it
>has even been acknowledged that the federal prosecutors don't expect
>to win upholdable convictions when they take on the same publisher
>successively in multiple jurisdictions.

Right.  The law as it is written is subject to abuse.  But the reason
is not because it is double jeopardy.   The reson is because it makes
it so easy for someone to commit multiple offenses, and not even know
if they are committing an offense until they are convicted.

You are basically making a kind of "due process" argument, not a
double jeopardy argument.

Think about it.  Under the "community standards" doctrine, the act of
mailing pornography to Cincinatti is a crime if the good citizens of
that city think it is "without serious artistic value, etc. ... and
<offensive>", and have passed a law banning such material.

Now suppose the U.S. attorney in Cincinatti decides to prosecute the
person who mails this stuff to Cincinatti, but before he gets a
chance, the U.S. attorney in the district of Sodom and Gammorah
prosecutes him instead.  ANd the jury in the district of Sodom and
Gammorah decides that his stuff isn't pornographic, (in fact they love
it), and so they acquit him.

Now are you saying that the good citizens of Cincinnati are now
absolutely powerless to prevent this vile smut from being mailed to
their friends and neighbors (to use for god-knows-what evil purpose)?    


>Think about it. You're a defendant, and the Department of Justice has
>singled you out for bankruptcy. They take you on again and again in
>expensive trials they admit are unlikely to gain upholdable convictions.
>They *admit* that their purpose is to put you out of business.

Same is true with civil forfeiture laws.  But the problem with them is
not double jeopardy either.  Its due process.

If you could know in advance, through clear objective guidelines,
whether or not you were violating the mailing obscenity statute, then
it would be impossible for the feds to do what they do.  A publisher
would simply not mail his materials into the jurisdictions where it
was considered obscene, and he'd be safe from any prosecutions.  The
problem is, there's not way to know in advance, and consequently,
mailing to 50 different U.S. districts is potentially committing 50
different federal crimes each time you do it, and you can't know until
they start prosecuting you.  (God, if this doesn't chill speech, what
does?).

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
From: ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Advice for first year law student?
Date: 22 Aug 92 02:39:24 GMT
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
X-Md4-Signature: 2c4c8f9831435d6ea42e9d60382b36f6

In article <3732@cvbnetPrime.COM> jharring@banner.UUCP (Joe Harrington) writes:
>I'm starting first year of law school at Boston University next
>week.  Are there any law students or recent law grads that would
>care to share some advice for a first year? 

Go to Medical School instead. :-)
-- 
Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw   ...duke!wolves!ggw           [use the maps!]
Domain: ggw@wolves.Durham.NC.US  ggw@cds.duke.edu  ggw%wolves@duke.cs.duke.edu
[The line eater is a boojum snark! ]           <standard disclaimers apply>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:55:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.184336.12971@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.171135.29223@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
:
>>The difference is that your pact was voluntary. It depended on
>>individual consciences, not on the authorities, to decide was, and was
>>not, proper.
>
>Living in a community, from a small town to a big nation, is ALSO
>voluntary...at least to a degree.  The resident of St. Paul IN PART
>volunteers to live in St. Paul.  Even residence in a country is
>voluntary (in part), at least insofar as the country is a signatory to
>the UN charter, and thus allows freedom to emigrate.  
>
>And just as living in a community is partially voluntary, my
>participating in Outward Bound was not a PURE act of volition, for I can
>cogently argue that a heavily ideological Outward Bound limits my
>freedom to gain its benefits; I'd be quite wrong for the reasons set
>here, but this shows that the sharp voluntary/involuntary distinction
>you use is bogus.  Indeed, participants in Outward Bound and in National
>Outdoor Leadership School occasionally state that they prefer the less
>ideological training of NOLS to the training of Outward Bound,
>influenced as it is by the thoughts of educator Kurt Hahn.  I like
>Hahn's ideas (and if you ask me, a lot of the discussants on this net
>could do with the training in compassion provided by Outward Bound), but
>actual mileage may differ.  Just don't limit MY freedom to join OB (or a
>community with a well-drafted hate speech law that keeps the peace.)

You are welcome to FORM a community with any rules you like.  You may
not DEFINE your community to include me, unless I agree.  Likewise, if
someone else has formed such a community, you may join it (with the
agreement of the community).

For instance, you may form a housing coop with rules against hate
speech.  You may require all potential residents to agree to those
rules.  You cannot impose such rules on all people who live in some
area, even if a majority of the people in that area want the rules.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16028 talk.politics.misc:39825 alt.society.civil-liberty:5548
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Date: 15 Aug 92 00:50:40 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

From biz.clarinet.sample UPI radio feed:
>         A judge agreed today to dismiss an assault charge against Los Angeles
> Police Officer Laurence Powell for the videotaped beating of Rodney
> King. L-A Judge Stanley Weisberg said there's NO need to pursue the
> state case since the federal case against Powell and three other
> officers will cover the same ground. Judge Weisberg said he will
> formally dismiss the state case after the federal trial is under way.
> However, if the federal case ends in a mistrial or if it doesN'T take 
> place, prosecutors can pursue the state case. 

Well, it looks like the State of California is being reasonable about
this.  However, the Fed case will be harder to prove.  Looks like the
feds shouldn't have persued this particular defendant until after the
retrial was over.

Does this mean the flame war is over?  Naaaawwww.
=== Al Sparks
From: manning@cco.caltech.edu (Evan Marshall Manning)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: New LSAT scores for old
Keywords: LSAT
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:02:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: cco.1992Aug19.180231.15995
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

Here is the scaling from "old" LSAT scores to new ones.  Several
things must be noted:
 
1) Some of you may recall that many months ago I promised a simple
linear mapping, which this is not.  The misunderstanding seems to
have sprung from the fact that my father's school (U of Miami) just
adds 119 or 120 to scores and doesn't worry about the outer
fringes, which I would take to indicate that they consider anything
over 39/159 quite good and anything under 27/146 poor.
 
2) New LSAT tests soemwhat different things than old one.
 
3) mapping is based on actual score distributions 1991-2 vs.
1988-91, not on LSAC estimated percentiles.  In some cases the
differences are significant.
 
4) disclaimers galore!  This is all just my understanding and the
mapping below was reverse-engineered by lawyers I don't know
personally...
 
scaled score    old score
------------    ---------
180
179
178
177
176
175
174                48
173
172                47
172
170                46
169
168                45
167                44
166
165                43
164                42
163
162                41
161                40
160
159                39
158                38
157                37
156                36
155                35
154                34
153
152                33
151                32
150                31
149                30
148                29
147                28
146                27
145
144                26
143                25
142                24
141                23
140                22
139                21
138                20
137                19
136                18
135                17
134                16
133
132                15
131                14
130                13
129                12
128                11
127
126
125
124
123
122
121
120                10

<<<<<<<<<< Evan M. Manning ======= manning@alumni.caltech.edu >>>>>>>>>>>>
Your eyes are weary from staring at the CRT.  You feel sleepy.  Notice how
restful it is to watch the cursor blink.  Close your eyes.  The opinions
stated above are yours.  You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16169 talk.politics.misc:40691
From: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:40:14 GMT
Reply-To: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA

In the referenced article, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>     If two different murders are commited in two different states, then
>you are tried for the first murder in the state it was commited in,
>then the second murder in the state it was commited in.  You are not tried
>for *both* murders in *both* states.
>
>     It spells it out clearly that no person will be "twice put in jeapardy
>of life and limb," for the same offense.  It's black and white and crystal

As far as I can tell, it is possible to "violate someone's civil
rights" without using "excessive force" against them, and it is
possible to use "excessive force" against someone without violating
their "civil rights" as defined in the laws in question.

Therefore, it seems to me to be crystal clear and unambiguous that use
of excessive force and violation of civil rights are not "the same
offense". 

If one commits a robbery and a murder at a liquor store, one is tried
for both offenses. Admittedly, it is more usual to try both offenses
at the same time, but it is not generally required or economical.
-- 
"When you're down, it's a long way up
 When you're up, it's a long way down
 It's all the same thing
 And it's no new tale to tell"                      ../ray\..
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Final Solution for Pro-Lifers
Date: 15 Aug 92 15:14:41 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

Do the >100 bombings of abortion clinics(none yet solved by the FBI as
far as I know) qualify as federal crimes?
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
---
Given Civil Seizure, from the DEA's point of view, winning the War on
Drugs would be killing the Goose that lays golden eggs.

It's also hard to tell which group is up to more no-good: cops or
crooks.
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Advice for first year law student?
Date: 22 Aug 92 02:24:28 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Aug19.233855.22855@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> >Buying study aids
> >
> >You may find it best to buy Legalines outlines for each of your 
> >courses except contracts. 
> 
> But on the other hand, some of the Gilbert's outlines are written
> by the person who wrote your casebook, and you may want to get those;
> Gilbert's on Property is crucial if you want to understand the
> Dukeminier casebook.

I find the Law-In-A-Flash cards very helpful, but I suspect that that varies 
from individual to individual.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.games.video,misc.legal.computing
From: edwards@andy.bgsu.edu (Bruce Edwards)
Subject: Re: SNES GAMES for 2 players.
Followup-To: rec.games.video
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:20:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.170821.7277@i88.isc.com>, medved@i88.isc.com (Pat Medved (STG)) writes:
> 
> I would like to know about any games that are for
> 2 players.  I currently have Zelda III, Super Mario, Super Adventure
> Island,and Joe and Mac.  
> 
> Pat Medved
> medved@i88.isc.com

I don't think Lemmings would be very interesting for a five year old although
I think it's a good puzzle game it lacks the action that will keep a young
child's attention.  A good game you might look into which I have played in fact
with my five year old is Mystical Ninja.  It is a cute game and not at all
blood-thirsty as the Ninja part might imply.  It's a combination action/puzzle
game and you'd probably enjoy it.

edwards@andy.bgsu.edu

-- 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
edwards@andy.bgsu.edu  (ken jenkins as guest of Bruce Edwards)
century marketing corporation
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Final Solution for Pro-Lifers
Date: 15 Aug 92 14:27:51 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <y02m80a.feustel@netcom.com>, 
feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) said:

> Have President Bush issue an automatic pardon for all people
> convicted of any offense involving abortion protests (i.e. bombing
> abortion clinics, etc).

Just for the record, the President is the Chief Executive of the
federal government and as such can issue pardons only for federal
crimes.  I believe that with the exception of any anti-abortion
actions that take place in federal territory (e.g., Washington, D.C.),
virtually all criminal charges associated with such actions are state,
not federal, matters.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: sthiruna@HP-UX (Srinivas Thirunagari)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Question about Agreements.
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:55:48 GMT

Hello:

I want to find out if anyone can help me with a problem
I have with a fine print agreement that I signed  with
a job contractor. Please ignore this mail if this group
has no business with things like this.

I want to know what the California (generally) Law says with
respect to the agreement that an employee signs with an employer
during the time of employment. What constitutes an agreement
ethically? What does one do when there is no choice but to
sign an agreement which might be malicious, especially when
you want a job desperately and you get one and the employer
askes you to sign an agreement to get the offer.

I would be happy if anyone can help me specifically or suggest
me what books I should go through when dealing with such a
thing.

Thanks,

Srinivas T.

Email : uunet!cimshop!sneezy!tsrinivas




Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 22:16:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.163731.5253@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>But with "community standards," what's obscene in Peoria may or may not
>be obscene in Times Square.  And each community would have the right to
>prosecute under their own standards.  

Ted, you buy into Larry's argument at the price of missing what I was
trying to say. The Department of Justice effort to bankrupt sex publishers
is not grounded in the protection of particular communities. In fact, it
has even been acknowledged that the federal prosecutors don't expect
to win upholdable convictions when they take on the same publisher
successively in multiple jurisdictions.

*They do this in order to bankrupt the publisher.* That the tactic of
multiple, successive prosecutions can be used this way seems
to me to implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause *regardless* of whether
one can analyze the publication or distribution as a single act.

Think about it. You're a defendant, and the Department of Justice has
singled you out for bankruptcy. They take you on again and again in
expensive trials they admit are unlikely to gain upholdable convictions.
They *admit* that their purpose is to put you out of business.

Now, your lawyer may tell you, with good reason, that these successive
prosecutions are technically not forbidden by the Double Jeopardy Clause,
since it is possible to analyze each delivery of the same issue of a
sexually oriented publication as a separate act. *But it feels like double
jeopardy.* 

I believe it *feels* as if federal prosecutors are getting multiple bites
of the apple precisely because *that's what they are doing.* I believe 
that this tactic *feels* like double jeopardy precisely because it
implicates the very same personal interest that the Double Jeopardy Clause
was drafted to protect.

As you and Larry both know, when one is taking a law exam, one begins
one's answer by dealing with the rule and applying it to the facts of the
particular case you're asked about. Then, if your professor asks you to,
you develop policy arguments. *What I'm making here is a policy argument.*
Telling me how the rule may be applied to the facts is fine, but it
doesn't address the point I'm making.



--Mike





-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First
mnemonic@eff.org| Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit 
(617) 864-0665  | the expression of an idea simply because society finds 
EFF, Cambridge  | the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." --W. Brennan
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16008 soc.women:15231
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.women
Subject: Re: Equal Rights Amendment
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:03:41 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

>>And what are those consequences, Matt?  Perhaps you can demonstrate by
>>showing those consequences in effect in Pennsylvania, which does have
>>an Equal Rights Amendment?
>>

Before the flaming gets any hotter, could anybody post the text of the
Pennsylvania ERA.  How does it differ from the proposed Federal ERA.
If they are substantially different, then there is no way to compare
the Pennsylvania experience with what might have happened on the Federal
level.  Even if they are substantially the same, there are still political
and structural differences between the Pennsylvania government and the
federal government that will undoubtably influence the impact.

-- 
--Mark

Newsgroups: misc.legal