HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bmasel@igc.apc.org (Ben Masel)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: JAIL PRISONERS RIGHT TO VOTE?
Date: 10 Oct 92 08:34:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1427200016:000:2222
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!bmasel    Oct 10 01:34:00 1992


						516 E Mifflin #4
						Madison, WI 53703
						608-257-5456 Oct.
						4, 1992

Rick Raemisch, Dane County Sheriff 210 Martin Luther King Blvd.

	As I am sure you are aware, I have declared my candidacy
for the office you currently hold, and to which you seek
re-election. I have registered my candidacy with the Dane County
Clerk. This letter formally notifies you of my intention to
personally campaign among the elegible voters in your custody at
the Dane County Jail and Ferris Center. I intend to visit these
prisoners in company of a voter registrar. We will be willing to
submit to a search before entering secured areas.

	You are reported in the Oct. 1 Isthmus as being unwilling
to approve my visit citing security concerns.  In view of my
willingness to co- operate on particulars in arranging access, I
can only conclude that your real reason for obstructing such
visits is concern for your job security.

	If this is indeed the case I believe your use of your
position to obstruct my campaign activity constitutes malfeasance
sufficient to cause your removal from office and criminal
prosecution. In any event I am prepared to bring action before the
Wisconsin Elections Board and/or Dane County Circuit Court to
compel access to all eligible voters in your custody.

	I also hereby request (persuent to the Wisconsin Open
Records Law) to be informed of any arrangement your department has
made to enable all eligible voters in your custody on Nov. 3 to
exercise their right to vote, and to inform them of the steps they
must take to do so. When I was in custody in the Ferris Center in
1986 I was told prisoners would only be allowed to vote by
absentee ballot. This is insufficient, as it disenfranchises any
individual placed in custody after the absentee voting deadline. I
strongly recomend you immediately take steps to insure sufficient
staffing for Nov. 3 that prisoners unable to vote absentee may be
safely escorted to their designated polling place. Since there are
candidates for Federal office on the Ballot this year, your
failure to do so could violate Federal, as well as Wisconsin,
Election Law.

					Tenaciously yours, Ben
					Masel Write-In Candidate
					for Dane County Sherriff
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
From: mhr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike Reaser)
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:39:06 GMT
Organization: a stone mountain of Kudzu

In <1992Oct16.214735.25070@midway.uchicago.edu> pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson) writes:

>That's a good question.  As far as I know, when a Veep takes over, he
>does not then select his own Veep.  I wonder why not.

>(The last instance of this was when Jerry Ford became prez.  As far as I
>know, he had no Veep)

BZZZT!  But thanks anyway for playing!

Gerald Ford nominated Nelson Rockefeller to be his Vice President, and
this nomination was ratified by Congress.

Go read the (I think) 25th amendment to the Constitution of the U.S.
This explains how the vice-presidency will be filled in case of a
vacancy.


=======================================================================
 Mike Reaser, Hewlett-Packard N. Amer. Response Center - Atlanta
 Internet:  mhr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com
 NBCS: B4 f w g+ k s-               I barely speak for myself, so
 #include <standard.disclaimer>       don't make me speak for HP
=======================================================================
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Doing a "continuance" on a case in court.
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:29:46 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory


	Can someone tell me how *I* can file a continuance to
	delay a court date that I am scheduled for, what papers
	I need to do, and any other particulars?

	Please don't say a lawyer has to do it!  (unless it's
	true)


	Thanks.


	Please respond direct.

-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
From: terry@gtm-inc.com (Terry Gerritsen)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Mass Murderer
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 03:26:55 EDT
Reply-To: terry@gtm-inc.com (Terry Gerritsen)
Distribution: world
Organization: G.T.M. Incorporated, Kingston, ON (613) 546-3078
Content-Type: Text

Kingston Ontario is where I live, and in our area we have 6 Penitentiaries.
In the Kingston Pententiary, we have Canada's most notorious mass murderer, 
Clifford Olsen who has killed 11 children in British Columbia.
Olsen has been serving his sentence in a special isolation cell at the
Kingston Penitentiary.  Yesterday for some "legitamate medical reason",
Olsen was taken by two guards at 8:45 am to the Hotel Dieu Hospital.
When he left the prison he was searched by using a "wand-like metal detecter
something very similiar to what they use at the airports.
At the hospital he was given a normal routine X-Ray, but discovered in
his lower bowl a very convenient key that would open the leg irons, and
handcuffs. Now wouldn't that have been a nice situation, if that key had
not been discovered. Who knows what, might have taken place if the X-Ray
had not revealed this key. Now of course nobody seems to have any idea
how this jerk got a key, but they did guess how one possibility the key got
into the lower bowl. It just blows my mind how this thing we call a human
being, came this close to a possible escape. 
When he was rushed back to the Penitentiary he "passed" the key over to the 
Warden. 
Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Gerritsen         |  G.T.M. Incorporated              (613) 384 0162
terry@gtm-inc.com       |  Kingston, Ontario           Fax: (613) 389 4594
                      "Transportation is our business"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18371 talk.politics.misc:50495 talk.politics.theory:4476
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History (was: Presidential UL's)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 03:23:35 GMT

In article <92288.092418MBADBH@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> David B. Horvath, CDP <MBADBH@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.051945.12035@PA.dec.com>,
>mikkelson%rwtms2.decnet@consrt.rockwell.com (snopes) says:
>>
>>This does bring up an interesting question, though.  In case of
>>nuclear attack or something that wipes out a large number of high
>>officials, what is the line of succession?
>>
>> - snopes
>
>In the case of something like a nuclear war, the FEMA (Federal Emergency
>Management Agency) takes over.  If the government is destroyed (too many
>levels are killed before they make it to the shelters/when the shelters are
>destroyed; there is supposed to be a parallel government waiting to take
>over.  They're based in the wilds of West Virginia or Maryland (Ft. Ritchie?).

	I believe Mount Weather is one important base of operations in
a post-Oopsie environment. As is usual when I post on this thread, my texts
are elsewhere....

>These details may not match reality 100% - I'm trying to remember what I read
>in an article long ago...

	Ditto

								James Nicoll
From: jms@vision.sarnoff.com (Jerry Shapiro x2420)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: student loans
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:25:50 GMT
Reply-To: jms@vision.sarnoff.com
Organization: David Sarnoff Research Center

In article 23059@linus.mitre.org, bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
In article 23059@linus.mitre.org, bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>In article <4154@novavax.UUCP> vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro) writes:
>:Hi,
>:
>:A friend of mine ows about 10,000 dollars plus interest on a 
>:guaranteed student loan. He graduated and has a job, a condo, and
>:a year old baby, and can't afford the $140/month payment. He tried
> 
>Oh? He had enough money to buy a condo, but not enough to pay his
>debts and obligations to others?
>
>His debts and obligations to others comes FIRST, before he buys
>things for himself. If he couldn't afford to pay his bills, then he
>should have had enough responsibility to WAIT to have a child until
>such time as he could AFFORD it.
> 
>If his finances are so tight that he can't afford an extra $140/month,
>then he probably over-reached his means when he bought the condo.
>
>My heart bleeds peanut butter. This person deserves whatever they do
>to him. 
>--
>Bob Silverman
>These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
>Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
>"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"


There is no way you can be a recent graduate, unless your parants paid
your way.  Your too insensitive to realize how much damage Reaganomics
did to the American standard of living. You better save up to bail out
your own children. They will not be able to make it on their own.

Jerry
These are my opinions alone
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: How Can I Really Annoy Someone?
Organization: my opinions only
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:03:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.173444.2631@telebit.com> brunner@telebit.com
(Eric Brunner) writes:
>Well, sit down and figure out what you can afford to pay since you clearly
>have intent to commit intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Is inflicting emotional distress really a tort?  (Think of all the
jilted lovers who would have cause for action.)

>Now cost out the statuatory wrongs -- such as the use of the phone you
>mentioned,

According to the last phonebook I read, it is illegal to telephone a
female or repeatedly telephone a male for purposes of harassment.  See
the small loophole there?  Of course, in your jurisdiction the rule
may differ.


He did specify that his neighbor started it (though without details),
can he sue?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Point of Technicality (Was Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net)
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:30:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.145702.26669@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
afadel@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ayman Fadel) writes:
>I've heard the use of the work death sentence or death threat.
>
>The technical legal term for what Ayatullah al-khomayni
>did is called fatwa, which is the response of a scholar to
>a question.  Someone asked him whether it was permissible
>to kill Salman Rushdy, and his answer was yes.  I haven't seen
>a text of this response (fatwa), so I don't know exactly
>what his evidence was.
>
>So actually what he said was that it was permissible to kill
>him.  He didn't say it was a good thing to kill him no matter
>what consequences resulted from such an action.  Nor did
>he say it was obligatory for Salman to be killed.

So who was it that offered the $5,000,000 reward for killing Rushdie?
(The offer was only $1,000,000 if the killer wasn't one of the
faithful; that seems to be more than a statement that "Rushdie isn't
covered by the commandment against murder".)

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com

Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college
From: mdchaney@fractal.ucs.indiana.edu (M Darrin Chaney)
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:01:05 GMT

rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) writes:
>That is not illegal.  What is illegal is for a manufacturer to inform
>a dealer "you will not be permitted to buy any more merchandise from
>us if we catch you selling at less than full list price".  This used 
>to be permitted up unitl the mid/late 70's when various firms had "fair
>trade" policies.

Ask Nintendo about it.  They just lost a suit because they did the
same.  Anyone who bought one got a $5 gift certificate.  I'm for the
$5 check personally...

	Darrin
-- 

mdchaney@iubacs mdchaney@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu mdchaney@rose.ucs.indiana.edu

"I want- I need- to live, to see it all..."
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18753 talk.abortion:42973
From: pimentel@earrth.enet.dec.com (John Pimentel)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:38:37 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Oct15.001825.144271@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
>>>What the hell are you talking about? "Child manufacture"? "Raw materials"?
>>>We're talking about HUMAN REPRODUCTION, fer crissakes, not heavy industry!!
>>>
>>stating that the man's only "contribution" was the sperm or "99.9999% of
>>the raw material and 100% of the labor was provided by the woman".
> 
>Nope, you're wrong.  That was stated by a "pro-lie" person who makes
>up extremely stupid arguments and then attributes them to pro-choicers.

Really, so Pro-Choice now believe that there is such a thing as *HUMAN*
reproduction?  Tell me then when does this *HUMAN* reproduction begin?
At what point is this reproduction a *HUMAN* and not an it?  As you know
an *IT* can be terminated, because according to Pro-choice folks, *IT* is
not viable and can't survive on *IT's* own, regardless of the fact that
*IT* *HAS* a gender.  Last I heard the *IT* was terminated in a _very_
_nice_sounding_surgical_term_ called *ABORTION*.  

That aside, with regard to a women's "right" to to terminate this *IT*,
because she doesn't want to become a parent, shouldn't the man have the
same "right"?  I say give the man the *equal* right, and while we're at
it -- not to be confused with *IT* -- let's give the same "right" to the
state, that way if the man nor the state want to support this women in 
her having this *IT* (which Pro-choice folks now call *HUMAN REPRODUCTION*),
they can go to court and a simple hearing will separate the estates, so
to speak.  This is all possible since this *IT* can legally -- note I'didn't
say morally, since the *IT* is not the same as the *HUMAN*, else it be
murder -- be terminated.  Right?

>You probably *should* have included a smilie, as it would have made
>you look like less of an idiot when it was pointed out that you
>couldn't keep the facts straight.

Really?  We'll see.

=============================================================================
-- John Pimentel

The opinions expressed are my own.  No rights are granted to take them out of
context nor do they represent the views of my employer, whomever it might be
for the moment.

Murder by any other name is still murder, nice terms can not even protect the
guilty.
=============================================================================
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: JD != "lawyer" (was: What a Problem!!!
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:32:30 CDT

In article 10880@u.washington.edu, tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
>>attorney present.  Kinda like a learner's permit.  Try explaining
>>"not being a lawyer" and the distinction between being certified and 
>>being admitted to the bar, to a client!
>
>$100/hour to the clients wallet?
>
>:-)
>
>--Tim Smith

Knowing the law (constitutional, civil, whatever) does not make a good
lawyer from my laymans perspective. Knowing how the court works in the
real world (experience) is the only basis for a good attorney. Where they
went to school and what grades they received is irrelevent in most cases.
A good attorney knows who is in bed with the judge, so to speak.
From: hong@oregon.uoregon.edu (Hong)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: HELP! A company paid me less than what was promised on the contract
Date: 13 Oct 92 07:32:00 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I signed a contract with a company to do some contract work this summer.  
The work was divided into several batches.  I submitted my first assignment
and was accepted.  Then they sent me the second assignement.  When I was 
working on my second assignement, we had some disagreement over some details
(they had a new requirement over my work, and I thought that was too much
work for the pay rate).  So they abrubtly terminated my project.  However,
on Labor Day, they suddenly phoned me and asked me to complete a portion
of the project again because they needed to get it done in time.  I
agreed.  On Labor Day, I worked on this emergency assignment whole day, 
from 8 am to 8 pm.  

I got my pay check a few days ago to realize that they had reduced my pay
rate for my first and second assignments.  I had not been informed of this
reduction before I got the check.  They did it unilaterally.  The reason they
gave was that they needed to pay someone else to furnish my first and second 
assignemnts to meet their requirment.  However, I believe that I should be 
paid full amount according to the contract for all the previousely
accomplished and accepted work, i.e., the first and second assignements before
they terminated my project.  Besides, throughout the work, I didn't get
any good feeling from them.

What shall I do to protect my contract right?  Please advise. 

Please reply directly by e-mail:  hong@oregon.uoregon.edu.  Thanks.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.history,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Marbury v Madison (US 1803)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:12:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.002923.2820@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>They invoked it, but Marbury was the first time they overturned a 
>>federal law and claimed the rest of government was bound by their
>>ruling (e.g. that they had the final say in the matter.)

>Not so.  I've already cited to a 1792 opinion that lists cases where
>courts overturned an Act of Congress.

My second phrase was the improtant one: "...and claimed the rest of
government was bound by their ruling..." Your post of earlier cases
hasn't reached me, but as far as I know, none of the earlier
ruligns asserted the _supremecy_ of the Court's interpertation.

>Not so.  Even those who opposed judicial review at the Convention
>(such as Mercer and Dickinson) acknowledged that there was no preferable
>alternative....

The issue isn't if the Court can rule a law unconstitutional, but 
whether or not all other parts of government are constitutionally
required to accept the Court's interpertations.

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech = Not Responsible?
Date: 10 Oct 92 13:00:59 GMT
	<1992Oct8.161803.11438@athena.mit.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu's message of 8 Oct 92 16:18:03 GMT

sampson@cod.nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson) said:
|> In a recent article, the Los Angeles Times reported on yet another
|> "rappers made me do it" case.  In this case a woman was suing a rapper
|> because a miscreant had shot her policeman husband shortly after
|> listening to a number by the rapper urging people to do just that.

Well one of the real reasons this will get thrown out of court is
because the song doesn't urge anyone to do just that, assertions by
the widow to the contrary (there were also numerous pop tapes in the
car). 

The other is that its a clear freedom of speech issue.

Personally, I find the whole thing absolutely ridiculous.

--
Peace.
         "Sex between a man and a woman can be wonderful,
          provided you get between the right man and the right woman"
	                           --Woody Allen
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: craig@bunsen.rosemount.com (Craig Taylor)
Subject: property/future interests formal syntax help
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 20:12:13 GMT

I am currently taking Property and I'm more than a little
confused by what seems to be use of undefined words in
future interest problems.  

Perhaps I am supposed to figure them out from context like 
a Heinlein novel but I hope there is an easier way.  
In my dreams there would be some sort of grammar defined 
specifying what words mean and how they can be modified 
and how they modify other words.  It doesn't help that 
the professor does not solve the problems in a well defined 
manner, rather comes up with an answer then justifying it.
Backward chaining.

I am definitely looking for black letter solutions here, 
preferably in some formal syntax.  I did not have this problem
in contracts, civil procedure or torts last year.

BNF ;-) || flowchart || good study guide suggestions?


-- 
Craig F. Taylor
craig@rosemount.com
Work (612) 895-2254
Home (612) 454-4994

Xref: sparky misc.legal:18337 alt.censorship:7973 rec.arts.tv:19577
From: rlcarr@animato.network23.com (Rich Carreiro)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's Freedom of Speech ( was Re: SNL - Oct 3, Latest on Sinead reaction
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:21:56 EDT
Organization: The Other Side of Life

In article <1992Oct7.184806.2229@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
> You are wrong of you are offensive to those Mr. Nilges defines as
> being people that "can't hit back."
> 
> You are right/OK if you are offensive to the real oppressors (again
> as defined/selected by Mr. Nilges).

Well, if you have had to misfortune to read Nilges (Bilges?) posts
in misc.legal, you'd not be surprised.

In NilgesWorld(tm), only people whom Nilges agrees with are allowed
to have free speech.  Everyone else are "opressors" and must be
censored.

-- 
Rich Carreiro                                  Home: (401)841-8514
rlcarr@animato.network23.com
uunet.uu.net!animato!rlcarr
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Date: 12 Oct 92 07:04:09 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

Say, guys, isn't there a more appropriate newsgroup for this discussion than 
misc.legal?

Please use your followup-to: line.

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.arts.books
From: fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:19:36 GMT

Does this dot-sig get the prize for longest and most elaborate *ever*?
Don't say "or what?"  If there's been a more info-packed dot-sig than
this one, I gotta *see* it!

						--Fiona Webster

>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Peter Horn 
>German Department, UCT 
>43 Trevor Road, Lansdowne 7764, Cape, Republic of  South Africa . 
>Phone Home ZA-(021)696-1983		e-Mail: HORNPETE@UCTVAX.UCT.AC.ZA 
>      Work ZA-(021)650-2936		Fax ZA-(021) 650-3726 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Peter Horn, Walking through our sleep (Poems), Ravan Press 1974
>Peter Horn, Poems 1964-1989, Ravan Press 1991
>Peter Horn, An Axe in the Ice (Poems), COSAW Publishing House 
>forthcoming September/October 1992
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ravan Press, P.O.Box 31134, Braamfontein 2017, Republic of South Africa
>COSAW Publishing House, P.O.Box 421007, Fordsburg 2033, Republic of 
>South Africa.
>USA: Ohio University Press Fax (614) 593-4536
>Britain: Central Books, Fax (71) 378-1811
>Australia: New Era Books, Fax (02) 596-0045
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.edu