HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Monday, 4 Jan 1993 11:52:17 EST
From: Cheryl Lynn Lavertu <LAVERTU@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Divorce question

I'm getting a divorce after 18 years of marriage.  We own a home
together, and want to sell it and split the "profit."  I am
handling my own divorce since we have no minor children or major
property holdings except the residence.  I'm not sure how to word
this mutually-agreed-upon condition in the divorce agreement.
We agree that I will live in the house and be responsible for
all expenses until the house is sold, no matter how long it takes.
Once sold, we'll split the profits.  Do we have to transfer the
title to my name or can the home remain in both our names after
the divorce until we sell it?   Except for this one point, I am
very confident that I can manage a pro se divorce and save myself
a LOT of money.  I contacted several reputable lawyers in my area,
and all of them want $750 - $1000 minimum to handle the case.
That seems an awful lot, considering that it is an uncontested
divorce with no child support, alimony, or disputed property.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 13:45:32 GMT

linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:
: 
: Federal Express is a business. You are in individual and have a choice. If you
: were, say, a taxi company, you MUST drive and MUST pick up everyone requesting
: a ride (including pick ups in dangerous parts of town). Otherwise you WILL
: have your taxi license revoked.

The excellent book "Healing Our World" by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart tells about
the taxi situation in New York City.  It seems that in certain parts of
town, it is so dangerous that no licensed taxi driver will go there.
Taxi medallions are hard to come by (the city limits the number) so it
prevents the people who are poor and unemployed from operating in this
area legally.  These laws helped keep the lower class from ever being
able to make their own way in society.

If anyone is interested in reading how we can help the poor and
disadvantaged, where eliminating the licensing laws is one example, you
can order the book "Healing Our World" for $14.95 + S&H from the Advocates 
for Self-Government at 1-800-932-1776.  I highly recommend this book to
anyone who feels a civic duty to helping the poor and disadvantaged.
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:56:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan7.064609.5462@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> And of course, taxi licenses are one of the more useful inventions of
> our time.  Other than allowing existing taxi companies to keep prices
> higher, are there any rational reasons for them?
> 
> David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?

How DARE you question a democratically adopted institution of control
and power by Big Brother?  Don't you know that you lose your standing
as a spoiled rich kid liberal when you stop accepting the conventional
wisdom that all governmental regulation is in the public interest?


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: dan.baer@ehbbs.gwinnett.com (Dan Baer) 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: PHONE TO ADDRESS
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:42:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Berkeley Lake, GA - 404-446-9462
Reply-To: dan.baer@ehbbs.gwinnett.com (Dan Baer) 

 Okay. I am trying to find the address for an unlisted phone number.
I would also like to find out about the background of the person that
lives there. I have tried to get the address from Southern Bell,
Georgia Power, the Post Office, as well as trying to get the Drivers
License information (however GA does not distribute Drivers License
information as public information). The phone number is not listed
in the Aug '92 edition of Hill-Donnely's CrissCross reference, and
Haines says that their CrissCross is not current for that exchange
(562) (Temple GA).  So, does anyone have any suggestions as to how I
can find the address of this phone number?  I am presently waiting for
an information package from 'Dialog' Information Systems. I was told
that their database may help in obtaining information about the person
once I find out the address of the phone number. Does anyone have any
experience with 'Dialog' or any other online service for this type of
situation? If not, does anyone know of a good, reputable PI in the
metro Atlanta area? I have the name of the person that is supposed to
be at this phone number, but I'm not sure if it is their real name. I
also know (if they were honest) where their mother lives. (Thomaston,
GA).   Someone told me that a good way to find the name and address
for a phone number would be to make a Calling Card call to the number.
When the Calling Card bill comes in, call the phone company and ask
for the name and address of the number. Do you know if this works,
even if the number is unlisted?
                                                                                                                       
----
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|       Ed Hopper's BBS - ehbbs.gwinnett.com - Atlanta, Georgia         |
|  USR/HST: 404-446-9462                  V.32bis: 404-446-9465         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.rural,co.general
From: ndallen@r-node.pci.on.ca
Subject: U.S. Sues Four Colorado Farmers for False Claim
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:00:53 GMT

Here is a press release from the U.S. Department of Justice.

 U.S. Sues Four Colorado Farmers for False Claims
 To: National Desk
 Contact: Joseph Krovisky of the U.S. Justice Department,
          202-514-2007

   WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 -- The Department of Justice has 
filed a lawsuit against four Colorado farmers, alleging they
defrauded the United States Department of Agriculture by submitting
false claims for payments to the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC),
a USDA agency.
   Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Gerson, head of the Civil
Division, said the complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in
Lincoln, Neb., late Monday against Larry Bond of Joes, Colo.; Kent
Crawford of Eaton, Colo.; and Jack Bond and Randy Bond, both of
Greeley, Colo.
   The complaint alleged that the defendants made false statements to
CCC for program payments from at least 1985 through 1987 while
enrolled in a crop subsidy program administered by the Agricultural
Stablization and Conservation Service, an agency of USDA.  The
defendants received $815,116 in payments, of which at least $500,000
they were not entitled to under the program.
   According to the complaint, the defendants, in signing contracts
to receive payments from CCC, represented themselves as separate
entities as defined by the program and were therefore entitled to
individual payments.
   The government said the claims by Larry Bond, Randy Bond and
Crawford that each individual financed his own farming operation were
false because Jack Bond financed portions of the costs of farming the
land for which they received payments and that Larry and Randy Bond
and Crawford did not own their own equipment as they claimed at the
time of the contracts.  The complaint said CCC paid an inflated
amount for the program payments by relying on the defendants'
misrepresentations.
   Gerson said, "Improperly diverting much-needed support for
legitimate farming operations to individuals who are not entitled to
the support will not be tolerated."
 -30-
-- 
Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario    ndallen@r-node.gts.org
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:33:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.040753.3016@cis.ohio-state.edu>,
csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:

|>In article <C0KLAr.D8y@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
|>
|>>|>Maybe selling arms to Iran was bad policy. But was it criminal? Did
|>nothing
|>>|>good come from it?
|>>
|>>Plenty of evil came from it.
|>>
|>>For a start the weapons helped prolong a war that cost a million lives.
|>
|>Prolonged the war? How long? Remember this was the Iran that sent children
|>to slaughter, who were not armed with American weapons. It might also be
|>argued that it helped shorten it.

If arming Iran was a desirable goal then Regan should not have made it illegal.

In fact in view of the fact that Iraq's attack on Iran was equaly despicable as
it's attack on Kewait perhaps there should have been action taken aginst Iraq at
the time. 

However the fact is that as well as arming Iran, Bush and Regan armed Iraq.
Arming both sides in a war is the best way of ensuring that it is prolonged.


|>>|>Maybe Congress did not want funds going to the Contras, but the Executive
|>>|>did. Who decides foreign policy, anyway?
|>>
|>>The Senate, try reading your constitution.
|>
|>I HAVE read my constitution. The senate has the power to ratify treaties, but
|>not to sign or create them. They have the power to declare war, but not to
|>command the armed forces. The diplomatic corp is under the executive branch
|>and it is the diplomatic corp, under the direction of the president that
|>defines what foreign policy IS! YOU try reading your constitution!

Since I'm english that might take a wee bit of time since it isn't a Macdonalds
style fast-reading version.

|>
|>>
|>>|>Americans did not find this incident nearly as scandalous as the liberal
|>>|>media
|>>|>did. The constant barrage of the media has shaped public opinion somewhat
|>>|>(just
|>>|>as it has made Anita Hill a martyr when the real martyr is Judge Thomas)
|>but
|>>|>Americans still don't think it is that much of a scandal.
|>>
|>>In fact public opinion in the US was overwelmingly opposed to Iran and also
|>>opposed to the supply of arms to the Contra terrorists.
|>
|>WRONG! They were in FAVOR of the contras! They knew the Sandanistas to be
|>Communists and apposed them.

And just where is it written that the United States of America has the right to
chose the method of government of other countries?

Sounds to me like the kind of imperialism the founders of the USA opposed.


|>+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|>|                (This sig intentionally left blank)                 |
|>+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
		That mind left intentionaly blank


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Post-acquittal partying (was Crown Heights Jury)
Summary: Can the prosecution also throw a party if it wins?
Keywords: Post-conviction partying.
Date: 11 Jan 93 13:39:28 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1993Jan8.170026.26007@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu 
(William December Starr) writes:

>> > The defense attorney held a party for the defendant after the
>> > verdict which many of the jurors attended.  Strikes me as somewhat
>> > unseemly.  If it's not covered by existing ethics rules, it should
>> > be.  [Ted Frank]

>A minority viewpoint, perhaps, but I don't see what's wrong, ethically
>speaking, with either (1) a defense attorney holding a party for the
>acquitted defendant to celebrate the victory or (2) with some of the
>jurors attending.  [William December Starr]

What would the media reaction been had the defense lawyers for the
police officers acquitted of mistreating ex-convict Rodney King
held a party for the defendants which many of the jurors attended?

Also:  Suppose the prosecution had won in Brooklyn, and Lemrick Nelson
had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor
with no chance of parole.  And suppose the District Attorney had
held a joyous party for his prosecution team, which many of the
jurors had attended.  Anything wrong with that?

Again, how about a post-execution party?  The police, the prosecutors,
the warden, and especially the families and friends of the murder
victims can have a midnight bash, complete with the popping of
champagne corks, right after the prison lights dim for the third
time.

(Note:  Yes, I know that today's circuitry is a lot better, and
 the lights don't really dim the way they do in the old movies.)

Could it be that what we're talking about here is not "unethical"
conduct so much as "unseemly" conduct -- in any of the cases outlined
above.  In other words, bad taste.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: In response to "Another man sees the light"
Keywords: Feminism, overreaction
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:41:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: oregon.12JAN199310414466
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Oregon
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

For _____'s [Fill in the blank with the deity or non-deity of your choice :-)]
sake, lighten up!

You're sounding like the traditional sarcastic definition of a conservative:  A
liberal who's been mugged.  Any movement will have alleged manipulators.  Any
movement will have over-the-edge radicals.  In this case, I don't see feminism
really going to the extent that you have portrayed Dworkin in, and I'd like
some feedback on how she's seen within the feminist movement.

What you should be prepared to do is let your grief and betrayal go.  Get over
it.  Everyone takes hard blows to the gut, and most people eventually get up 
and go on with their lives.

And, Mr. Rosenblatt, if you're really worried about Hitlerian movements, you
might want to see about what you can do for the remnants of Yugoslavia.  :-)

							Daniel Reitman
							The Annoyed
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Obsessive ex-spouses..can the madness be stopped?
Keywords: Whose son?
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:47:33 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <2935174540.0.wk00191@worldlink.com> wk00191@worldlink.com 
(Eddie Kovelan) writes:

>After four years of dealing with a clinically diagnosed obsessive 
>ex-husband, I am fed up.  My ex has no life and therefore tries to 
>destroy mine by taking me to court as often as legally possible (every 
>six months or so) and threatens to take my son away from me.  
. . .                                    ^^^^^^
>He has no grounds to take my son, in fact, he always gives up the fight 
>[Bundy]                   ^^^^^^

Maybe he thinks that Bundy had no grounds to take *his son*.

>at the end.  He just fights to get revenge on me for leaving him four years 
>ago.  He is so obsessed that he video tapes me at every moment possible, 
>he interrogates my son to find out if anything is going on at home, he 
>[Bundy]         ^^^^^^

Whose son?

>has people follow me and look up records (credit reports, driving 
>records, etc.) of both my husband and myself.  I fear that he will 
>continue to do this until my son is 18 or I find a way to stop him.  
>[Bundy]                   ^^^^^^

Maybe this four-year-old boy's father is concerned that someone is
trying to take him out of his son's life.  I know I would be concerned.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Die Knechtschaft dauert nur noch kurze Zeit."
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: SPS
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:05:49 GMT

In article <C0CoKw.7z8@panix.com>, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
|> In <1993Jan4.190237.20702@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com sez:
|> >
|> >Testimony changes but it is reliable.  Not very impressive Mark.
|> 
|> 
|> Try this, Eric:
|> 
|> a)  Eric Titmas asserts that Homer wrote in iambic pentameter.
|> 
|> b)  Eric Titmas reads a few books about Homeric poetry and scansion.
|> 
|> c)  Eric Titmas agrees in the end that Homer used dactylic hexameter.
|> 
|> 
|> The fact that his position changed doesn't mean that his ultimate
|> conclusion in (c) is wrong.  To ascertain the validity of (c), one
|> would have to look to his sources.  If there's no reason to doubt the
|> opinion of Homeric scholars like Milman Parry, then the Titmas opinion
|> based thereon is correspondingly reliable.
|> 
|> Unless anyone besides Eric needs more remedial instruction on this
|> elementary point of logic, I intend to let this thread die of natural
|> causes. 

Try this Mark,
McFarland (to Congress): On the 14th of September North & I met with Mark
Eckenwiler to negotiate the cost of his supplying weapons to the Contras.
On the 16th of September we met again and delivered $2,000,000.

North (to Congress): On the 14th os September Mcfarland & I met with Mark
Eckenwiler to discuss ideas he had about removing the communists from Nicaragua.
We decided he is a buffoon.  I never had anything to do with him after that
meeting.  On the 15th to the 18th of September my family and I vacationed
at Disney World (North supplies documentation proving this).

McFarland (to Congress & at the trial):On the 14th os September Mcfarland &
I met with Mark Eckenwiler to negotiate the cost of his supplying weapons 
to the Contras.  I then traveled to Orlando to meet secretly (and I wanted 
deniability on this so there are no records) with the Contra commander in
chief.  On the 16th ( the day before I meet with the Contra) North left his 
family at Disney World and he Eckenwiler & I met and we gave Eckenwiler 
the $2,000,000.

You see Mark, there are benign changes in testimony and there are malevolent 
changes.  So take your remedial instruction and stuff it.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: First Amendment Stuff
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:16:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.151302.931@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.121455.17475@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>If you look at the post-Brandenburg cases, it's fairly clear that speech
>>that does not contain an explicit incitement or, as a factual matter, was
>>not directly followed by lawless action, is deemed protected by the First
>>Amendment.
>
>Okay, I thought post-Brandenburg also removed protection from non-explicit,
>but actual, incitement.

Can you give me an example of non-explicit but actual incitement? I'm
having trouble thinking of one.

>Hand would prosecute explicit incitement that didn't lead to lawless action,
>but would always protect non-explicit incitement, regardless of context.

I note that in practice, when the lawless action is something like a riot
or other violent act, if the alleged incitement did not actually lead to
lawless action, it was probably only mere advocacy.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Recording conversations
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:36:38 GMT

pas@cc.gatech.edu (Paulo Santos) writes:

>Is it legal to record conversations (meetings, etc.) without everyone
>involved explicitly knowing that they are being recorded?
[...]

Here is a procedure that I think is prudent (it was used in parts of
IBM 10 or so years ago):

Before turning on the tape recorder, ask "Is it ok if I tape record
our meeting?"

Is there are no objections, turn it on and say "For the record, is it
ok if I tape record our meeting".

- Carl

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Oral contracts (was: verbal contracts)
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:53:10 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1ijpeiINN6e4@shelley.u.washington.edu>, 
tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
> Yes, verbal contracts can be binding.

Nit alert. 

I realize you were picking up on the previous poster's terminoligy, but I 
thought I'd interject a point.  The term is "oral contract", i.e. a spoken 
one.  A written contract is also a verbal contract, that is, it is expressed 
in words.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:22282 comp.org.eff.talk:8510 alt.privacy:2873
From: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy
Subject: need court cases involving ECPA
Date: 9 Jan 93 15:41:28 GMT
Organization: IBM Corp., Austin TX


 My fiance, who works as the Human Resources director for a hospital
that has a substantial PC network installed, is trying to get the
hospital to write a sane policy concerning the employee's expectation of
privacy on the hospital's e-mail services.

 What she requires, and what I am humbly asking for here, are references
(not even cites as much as who was involved or the issues) to court
cases in this area or involving the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act. This would so that she can convince their lawyers that having a
policy that the employees know about is a Good Thing.

 I will summarize here the results I receive...e-mail or public post is
fine.

humbly,
mark

-- 
Mark Brown       IBM PSP Austin, TX.| Fear the Government
(512) 838-3926   VNET: MBROWN@AUSVMQ| that fears your privacy.
MAIL: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com | Keep personal cryptography legal.
       DISCLAIMER: My views are independent of IBM official policy.
Newsgroups: misc.legal