HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Original Intent of Laws (Was Re: Another Gun Thread Gets Cross-Posted)
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:45:00 GMT
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr8.030740.5515@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
> ...
>You can't go with original intent, period.  The whole idea of
>"original intent" is incoherent.   ...

  Even with modern laws, courts often take notice of the 
legislative discussion/debate in interpreting the law - to better
determine the intent of the legislature.  
>
>The language of the law, like that of any other body of literature,
>is just the raw material for argument and other forms of pursuasion.
>
>Anyone who thinks that the laws have unambiguous purposes is blinding
>themselves to a) the real legislative process, b) modern understanding
>of human psychology.

  There is a lot of middle ground between "unambiguous" and "just the
raw material", now isn't there?  Certainly there are ambiguities, and
that's why extra information (such as legislative intent) is brought
into the process.  Even then there are not guarantees of perfect
resolution, but certainly more than "literature" (in most cases.)

--henry schaffer  n c state univ
From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Jury Pools
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:00:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University

From article <1992Apr14.212429.5727@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
> I am interested in hearing why jury pools are selected from a county's 
> registered voters versus just the at-large adult population.  My assumption is 
> that it is this way across the United States--not just my home state of Ohio.
> Has it been from the inception of this country that juries were selected from
> registered voters?  Or, did this criterion slowly creep into law because it
> presented to the judicial system a more manageable group to select from and a
> higher probability of finding "good" jury members.
>

I believe that is how it works here in Indiana.  Currently, you
are called for, I believe, three months, or until you get on a
jury, whichever comes first.  It may be that the voter
registration rolls are used because registered voters
automatically meet the requirements of being a juror.
 
> You may well guess that I have just filled out a questionnaire required of
> prospective jury members.  Constitutionally, isn't the defendant entitled to a
> jury of his peers?  Since when, historically speaking, was the definition of
> peers narrowed to mean registered voters?
>

I don't think the constitution says anything about peers, that
goes back to the English Nobility not being tried by the
"rabble".  I think the constitution specifys a jury from the
community where the crime was committed. 
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas More)
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: THE LEGALITIES OF INTERNET
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:10:12 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

This group often entertains legal queries of a normal and somewhat
standard nature. However, I don't see the legalities of INTERNET
addressed very often here. Have there been many legal issues addressed
as a result of actions and words carried ou;on internet? Read the
following and tell me if it is legal please? 
   Incedentally the following post has been censored to protect the 
victim, and keep my butt from being nailed by my sysadmin...

>For the price of 1 United States Stamp, you can put a little
>joy into one man's life (mine). You see, there is a neighbor
>of mine who as the Subject line says probably has no penis and is
>a surefire As* H * L E!!! He loves to harass anyone who doesn't agree
>that he is King of the Universe. He's a real S.O.B. So,....I am asking
>all out of the evilness of your hearts to send anonymous snail mail
>to this man saying anything you desire. The only stipulation is that
>you don't mention my name, my town or where you got his name. I
>want to really FU*K with his mind. Imagine receiving thousands of
>letters saying YOU SUCK, and not knowing who so in so in Austin, Texas or
>[insert your town here] is, let alone how [he/she] knows you. Have fun!
>It will only cost $0.29 for this bit of fun. I can respond later when I
>notice him in a R E A L L Y bad mood knowing that he has just received his
>mail.
>
>The jerk and his Snail mail address
>
>Paul D********
>* *** Lane
>******, De 1***3

   This was published world wide in one of the more eccentric and wasteful (?)
newsgroups found on newsnet. I'd be intersted in knowing how you feel on
the matter... Maybe be interesting to hear your queries regarding the
posting of email as well?
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: gerald.mcdougall@yob.sccsi.com (Gerald Mcdougall) 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: NEEDED: CONSTITUTIONI
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:13:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: gerald.mcdougall@yob.sccsi.com (Gerald Mcdougall) 

.KC>One such example is the anti-abortionist forces in WA state. Initiative .
.KC>120, legalizing Roe v. Wade, just barely passed by less that 1 % last   .
.KC>fall. The anti-abortionists are already gearing up to try to defeat     .
.KC>this. Rather than accept that some people don't believe what they do and.
.KC>want to conduct their lives differently, they, by God, aren't going to  .
.KC>do that. They will keep fighting until they get their way, by hook or by.
.KC>crook.                                                                  .
.............................................................................

So, isn't that their right, to at least try to get their way - or
does the "will of the people" only apply to those with whom YOU
agree.  And a >1% majority isn't exactly a fool-proof mandate, is
it?
---
 . MegaMail 2.10 #847:Notary Sojack is NOT a game show host.
      
Xref: sparky misc.legal:9148 alt.society.civil-liberty:3381
From: arg@huxley.bitstream.com (Adam R. Grossman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: jury nullification
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:20:34 GMT
	<1992Apr7.232540.18978@esd.dl.nec.com>
	<ARG.92Apr8160924@huxley.bitstream.com>
	<1992Apr09.152612.16381@eng.umd.edu>
Reply-To: arg@bitstream.com
Organization: Bitstream, Inc. - Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: russotto@eng.umd.edu's message of 9 Apr 92 15:26:12 GMT

russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
   Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
   Date: 9 Apr 92 15:26:12 GMT

   arg@bitstream.com writes:
   > someone writes:
   >    [...something about "bad" laws...]
   >
   > There are no such things as "bad" laws--strictly speaking... trying to
   > figure out which laws are bad only depends on whom you  ask... How can
   > you prove a law is good,  or bad, or just, or  fair?  You can't.  It's
   > only a matter of opinion.
 
   But, if you follow your relativist assumption-- that laws are just
   opinions and cannot be intrinsically good or bad, my opinion is just as
   good as yours, or the legislatures-- therefore by punishing me, you are
   simply showing that you are stronger than me.  Your system degenerates
   quickly into might makes right.

Any system ultimately degenerates into might makes right.  This property is
not limited to my relativist  system.  If I  were punished  by the state in
your absolutist  system,  it still means   that you are   stronger than me,
except in addition  you would   be quoting  from the  Koran,  Ayn Rand, the
Constitution,  Das Kapital, etc, to  justify  your  actions.  IMHO, such  a
system is still just opinion, not divine knowledge.

[And, back to jury nullification... since an individual's belief  about the
law  is just an opinion, I  think it  is not sufficient  to acquit  against
sufficient facts.   Our  legal  system should strive   to be *procedurally*
fair,  by  requiring  that  laws  enactly properly,  applied properly,  and
enforced properly according to "due process" and "equal protection".]
--
Adam R. Grossman
arg@bitstream.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen)
Subject: Re: Justices
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 05:44:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.211719.327@holos0.uucp> lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) writes:
>This is a joke, right?  O'Conner a liberal!  For God's sake she was
>appointed by R.W.R.  The last two real liberals on the court were
>Brennan and Marshall.  The court now goes from moderately conservative
>(Stevens) to moderately conservative (O'Conner) to flat-out-crazy-off-the-
>map-right-wing.

actually, i'd characterize blackmun as a liberal, and more so than
stevens.  i still find it amusing that nixon appointed him in the
mistaken belief that he was a diehard conservative... nixon must've
had a sh*t fit when blackmun wrote roe v. wade.  i think nixon once
said that putting blackmun on the Court was the worst mistake of his
entire career.

o'connor is a moderate conservative, yes.  my vote for ultra right-wing
goes to scalia, though rehnquist is a close second.

as for those who might take issue with my characterization of blackmun
as a liberal... hey, i'm getting desperate.
-teddy
Newsgroups: alt.sex,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
From: becker@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (John Becker)
Subject: Re: Censoship of nudity (was Re: Photo of minor: is it illegal to possess?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:57:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.090737.6766@engage.pko.dec.com> boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (The fox so cunning and free) writes:
)In article <1992Apr3.170513.13193@athena.mit.edu>, hrothgar@athena.mit.edu (Katie Hamill) writes...
)} In article <1992Apr3.113057.22796@engage.pko.dec.com> boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (The fox so cunning and free) writes:
)}} There are plenty of films showing genitalia that get only an "R" rating.
)} For example?? 
)Examples:
)ROOM WITH A VIEW
)BRITANNIA HOSPITAL
)MONTY PYTHON'S LIFE OF BRIAN
)THE WOLFEN
)THE QUIET EARTH
)All definitely "R" rated, all definitely showing male genitalia.

Also "The Doors", very close to the end of the movie in the scene where the
nude Indian (male) is seen at the end of the hallway.

John
-- 
|=================================|=================================|
|  John Becker, Staff Engineer    |     "When The Music's Over,     |
|  Motorola, Inc., Schaumburg, IL |      Turn Out The Lights!"      |
|  becker@areaplg2.corp.mot.com   |     James Douglas Morrison      |
|=================================|=================================|
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: cacummin@descartes.waterloo.edu (Charles Cummins)
Subject: Filing a lawsuit in Canada
Keywords: Canada
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 06:04:52 GMT

   Can anyone out there with knowlage of the Canadian Legal
System please point me in the direction of a few good books?
   What I would like to do is file a suit against a ministry
of the provincial government ( Particularly the Ontario Ministry of
Colleges and Universities ).  This ministry has an outstanding
debt to me but refuses to pay.  It has owed me approx $1500
since 1989.
   Do you think I can get paid?  Am I entitled to interest?
Could I be charged with filing a frivolous lawsuit if my case
is weak?
   These questions are probably too complex to answer briefly
over the net, so please point me in the direction of some books
which you think might be useful.

   Thanks.
Charles Cummins
cacummin@descartes.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Another Gun Thread Gets Cross-Posted
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:59:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.030740.5515@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
>The language of the law, like that of any other body of literature,
>is just the raw material for argument and other forms of pursuasion.

Thus, Kolodney's constitution is amended by language change.  Suppose
that "trial" comes to mean "testing by a potential consumer"; there
goes all of the protections in criminal adjudication.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky misc.legal:8919 talk.politics.misc:17039 ca.politics:3327 ba.politics:2579
From: jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan A Woodman)
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Organization: The Ohio State University College of Law
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:51:28 GMT

In article  matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:

>>2. It's OK for IRAN to carry out its death sentence on Rushidie.
>>[David Feustel]

>On the contrary!  Whatever Ayatollah who imposed that sentence (if he
>were still alive) would be criminally responsible in a British court 
>as a principal in the crime of attempted murder of a British subject
>in Britain.

All right, Matt. Let's turn the tables. Assuming that the US had not 
installed a puppet povernment when we left Panama, and that that government
was outraged at the US government coming into their country and kidnapping
one of their citizens. Would you then say that President Bush should be
criminally liable in Panama for ordering the kidnapping of Noreiga, and
that the Panamanians would be justified in kidnapping him and trying him
back in their country?

Methinks you like the ends that justify your means.

-- 
Jonathan Woodman                   \ "I mean, sex is one thing, but reading
jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu /  to someone is *really* intimate." C. Duda
The Ohio State University          \ "Oh, you can slice that salami of 
   College of Law                  /  copyright any number of ways." S. Halpern
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 8 Apr 1992 15:37:06 EDT
From: <TJT107@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Articles of Incorporation

I have recently started a small engineering software company in central PA
and I'm looking for some quotes on how much the lawyer fees might be.  I
 heard of companies that offer packages to do this.  Does anyone
 know of a specfic company to help me?


 Todd J Tyson, "President"
 "Integra Software Systems"
 Calder Square
 PO Box 10273

 State College, PA 16805-0273
From: cdr@stolaf.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Computer Software used in Law?
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:56:12 GMT


Greetings!  Please pardon this post if it is inappropriate -- I'm not quite
sure where to find information of this sort.

We have a visiting professor from Thailand at St. Olaf this semester who is
interested in finding out some things about computer use in the law profession.

	1. What types of software are used in managing a law office?
	   Both general and specific information would be helpful.

	2. What types of software and databases are used in a law office,
	   for example to retrieve information about laws and past legal
	   cases.

If you are able to help out, please respond directly to me, as I don't
subscribe to this mailing list.

Thanks in advance for your help,
Craig
--
Craig D. Rice		UNIX Systems Specialist/Network Analyst
cdr@stolaf.edu		Academic Computing Center, St. Olaf College
+1 507 646-3631		1520 St. Olaf Avenue
+1 507 646-3549 FAX	Northfield, MN  55057-1098   USA
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 04:02:54 GMT
Organization: The Witherspoon Excludables
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST

In <18469@smoke.brl.mil>, matt@smoke.brl.mil stated:
>
>If Manuel Noriega had been a law-abiding fine fellow instead of a 
>protector of cocaine smugglers, then capturing him and bringing him 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to trial in North America would indeed have been "kidnapping," and 
 ^^^^^^^^
>President Bush should indeed have been criminally liable in Panama 
>for ordering the kidnapping of an innocent citizen.  But those are 
                                   ^^^^^^^^
>not the facts of this case.  

I don't suppose anyone else is amused by this circularity.  Just how
is it that under Matt Rosenblatt's conception of Justice (his caps,
not mine; see his sneer at Islamic law elsewhere) we possess this
extraordinary clairvoyance?

One is reminded of Wiley Catt's observation in the original _Pogo_
collection: "Is I heerd right? Isn't NOBODY GUILTY OF NOTHIN'? . . . .
Faw! I git all dressed up, walk ten miles carryin' Ma's clo'sline an'
*nobody's guilty*.  What kind trial you calls that?"  (p. 134)


>Mr. Noriega's arrest was no more a 
>"kidnapping" than John Gotti's was.  

Ah yes, I forgot that FBI Special Agent George Gabriel (who arrested
Gotti) has no custodial authority under U.S. or New York law.  How
foolish of me.

Let's try once more that which others have posed to you, Matt.  It is
clear beyond peradventure that George Bush, as Vice-President,
was personally involved in U.S. dealings with Noriega at a time when
Noriega received substantial CIA support.  Given that Bush is
therefore an aider and abettor (if not a "protector") "of cocaine
smugglers", would it be acceptable for Panama (or perhaps some cocaine
destination country) to arrest Bush and transport him abroad for
prosecution? 
-- 
When the Persians have an important decision to make, the leaders discuss it
when drunk. They revisit their decision when sober, and adopt it only if they
reach that same conclusion again.  Conversely, any decisions made in sobriety
are reconsidered in drink. {Herodotus, bk. 1}   eck@panix.com  Mark Eckenwiler
Xref: sparky misc.legal:9256 alt.society.civil-liberty:3439 talk.politics.drugs:2909
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: All Drugs WILL Be Legalized!!!
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:17:43 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <=kwjw1r.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:                                                           
>pouring money down a rathole prosecuting and imprisoning people who
>engage in drug use.
>
>This phenomenon has already occurred wrt gambling. 20 years ago the
>government busted everyone caught gambling; now the government is the
>biggest provider of gambling sports. Unfortunately it is killing the
>golden goose by taking too much off the top.
 
Wouldn't it be funny if drugs were legalized and then usage decreased because
the government was taking too much off the top?  Education and lack of 
dealer incentives could cripple the industry.  Maybe they could counteract
the declining revenue with a good ad campaign promoting drugs.


	George Tucker        tucker@kali.hac.com
		Just say NO to incumbents.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard)
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:07:20 GMT

I write to join the opinion expressed by Mr. Woodman, at the Ohio State 
University.

I conceed that Mr. Noriega does not present the epitome of a model person; 
moreover, I detest the amount of drug activity which exists in this nation, and
which travels herein.  Still, I cannot determine, and the U.S. government 
argueably cannot explain, how the U.S. government has jurisdiction over Mr. 
Noriega.

Mr. Noriega is a citizen of Panama, and was not released to the U.S. by the 
government of Panama.  The U.S. broke the peace, and forcibly removed Mr. 
Noriega to this country.  While I am a far cry from a defense advocate (I would
like to fry drug importers), I do not advocate self-help, create the rules as 
we go along justice.

Dennis B. Pollard
From: venu@cirrus.com (Venu Nayar)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Email Privacy?
Keywords: email, posting on the net, copy-right
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:36:05 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.

In <1992Apr10.201938.4498@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp
(24411-sohl) writes: 

>First question - How are you defining "private email."

Any email which I send to a person which is not connected with business
matters (like a private letter).

>Second question - In what way is the "private email" being posted?
>  As a responce that is copied to a newsgroup?  As a reply to a list
>  of other email users?

Posting it on a newsgroup in its entirity...along with email headers.
-- 
Venu Nayar			|		Internet: venu@cirrus.com
Cirrus Logic Inc.		|		(510)-226-2100 X3737
Yield to Temptation ... it may not pass your way again.
From: cuthbert@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David Cuthbert)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Legal aspects, if any of Re: Email Privacy?
Keywords: email, posting on the net, copy-right
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:35:24 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

FROM: A whole string of cites going back and back...
RE: Copyright and privacy

>put a copyright notice in every email message you send with an additional 
>note that the message is NOT to be resent, copied, etc. in any form, or 
>otherwise made public to anyone but the recipient. [etc.]

This is actually two remedies, one implies a copyright case, the other is
more like a trade secret issue and would depend upon the content of the email.

COPYRIGHT

There is no requirement for notification on US copyrights. Notification is only
needed to take advantage of certain federal remedies that are available under
the copyright act. 

As noted in the prior posting, passing on an original copy of a letter would 
not violate any copyright provisions. I'm not sure at what point an email
letter becomes a letter and when it becomes a copy. If the entire transmission 
-headers and all- is retransmitted and the old copy deleted from the first 
recipient's files the retransmitted version may be the original. I think this
makes sense, as a message is passed from system to system I think it gets 
recorded then resent, possibly picking up handling information in the header. 
If the end copy counts as the original, after several machine changes, I don't
know why someone reading the message during the process should change that 
result. 

TRADE SECRET

If the material is a confidential trade secret (TS), the sender may be entitled
to protection. That protection may be inadequate however, depending on the type
of disclosure. (The damage may be irreprable through monetary payment, a secret
can't be put "back in the bag" very easily.)

TS have requirements of the type of protected matter. They also have some 
restrictions  based upon security measures taken to maintain the secret. If the
material does qualify, the recipient is bound, in most cases, to keep the 
confidence.

GENERALLY

Messages of a confidential nature should be marked as such if there is any
doubt as to the actions of the recipient. If there is a lot of doubt, simply
don't send dangerous messages. 

-Dave
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing