HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:35:47 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug14.174810.4815@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> In article <11734@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> #But I also cringe at the abuse potential of allowing
> #a civil rights violation because the locals don't have any problem
> #with civil rights violations.
> 
> This from a man who froths at the mouth when homosexuals try to get
> civil rights laws passed.
> 
> -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia

This from a man who can't seem to understand that children aren't
appropriate sexual partners for adults.

Homosexuals aren't trying to get civil rights laws passed.  There
are attempts being made, supported by many homosexual activists,
(and not supported by some other homosexuals,) to get laws passed
that would prohibit an employer or landlord from expressing his
disapproval of homosexuality by refusing to do business with a 
homosexual.

Isn't it odd that the liberal definition of free expression includes 
nude dancing, flag-burning, child pornography, and neo-Nazis marching 
through Skokie, but doesn't include, "I don't approve of homosexuality.
Look elsewhere for a consenting adult to engage in private actions."

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:28:44 GMT
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <1992Aug12.204934.13662@asuvax.eas.asu.edu>, ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu sez:
>     What if, what if, what if.  All your
>questions are attempts to create unlikely
>scenarios that threaten what you would seem
>to consider the primary importance of making
>sure the guilty go punished.

If you believe that was my point, you have entirely missed the real
one, which is this: the separate levels of government within "Our
Federalism" :) have independent interests in vindicating their
respective criminal laws.

Needless to say, this was true even in the early years of the
republic.  (Treason in particular is the sort of crime that then (as
now) was a matter of federal concern.  See, e.g., the Alien and
Sedition Acts.)  It is a more pointed issue here in the late 20th
century, given the enormous expansion of federal criminal law.  To the
extent that federal criminal law now mirrors and/or incorporates
crimes historically regarded as matters for punishment by the states
(RICO being only the most obvious example), your interpretation of the
Double Jeopardy Clause has some appeal.  IMHO, however, your position
ignores the historically *federal* category of criminal laws
vindicable only at the federal level.  

The difficulty is that under your reading, the states can (by
prosecuting first) interfere with the enforcement not just of the
20th-century-commerce-clause-run-amok federal statutes, but also with
fundamentally federal crimes (assassinating the president, treason,
etc.).  I find that proposition troubling because the fifth amendment
has to be read not in a vacuum, but *in conjunction with* the
constitution -- a constitution which not only creates a system of
distinct federal and state sovereigns, but also explicitly recognizes
distinctly federal interests in certain crimes (Art. III sec. 3 names
treason, for example).

-- 
		       Apres moi, Les Etooges.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Too many lawyers?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:39:30 GMT

			LAWYERS

Do we have too many?

I would not disagree with the statement that if someone has a grievance
against another party (person, company, government, etc.), they should
have the right (and ability) to obtain legal counsel to obtain redress
for this grievance.

On the other hand, another cause of the increase in lawyers is in the
establishment of government regulatory agencies staffed by lawyers who
are looking for ways to increase their influence.

An example is the EPA law.  Congress passes a law establishing the EPA
and then lawyers are hired to run the agency that is established.  So far,
well and good--the lawyers are assuring that we have clean air and water.

Now, in the process of cleaning up air and water, the EPA finds for example,
that General Motors is manufacturing an automobile that emits less than
clean air.  General Motors is requested to alter the automobiles they are
manufacturing so that these automobiles will not contribute to less than
clean air.  Likewise, many cities, counties and other suppliers of water
and sewage, are required to alter the process of providing these items to
the general public so that no "dirty" water goes into the streams and
rivers.  Similarly, utility companies are required to change the fuel they
burn in ordler not to create "dirty" air.

Although these goals are very good--what is the cost?  Also--what is the
accountability?  The congress that passed the laws may change, the directors
of the agencies which set up the regulations change--but the costs to the
public goes on and on.

A local example--Several electric companies decided to build a nuclear power
plant near Cincinnati to provide electricity to homes and businesses.  In
complying with nuclear regulatory requirements a plant that originally was
to cost several hundred million dollars ended up costing over four billion
dollars.  At that time, the NRA was still not satisfied, and the estimates
of what it would cost (with no assurance that the plant would ever pass
new requirements) was an additional four billion dollars.  The electric
companies decided that expending four billion more dollars to possibly open
the plant, was an additional risk they didn't wish to pay.  So they converted
the plant to coal.  Who paid for that four billion dollars that went down
the drain--the rich electric companies--of course.

Similar regulatory examples can be quoted--all run by lawyers who are not
responsible to the public.  Examples include the breakup of AT & T (they 
obviously were making too much money--but phone rates haven't come down
either).  Regulatory agencies have repeatedly tried to break up IBM (they
also make too much money).  The result was an increase in the prices IBM
had to charge to pay for their lawyers to go to court against the government
lawyers (who we also pay for).

It's interesting that Japan (which produces automobiles, steel and textiles
cheaper than the U.S. does) has far fewer attorneys per capita.
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:37:37 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <TRIF.92Aug16205733@bike.rad.washington.edu> trif@bike.rad.washington.edu (To Run In Fear) writes:
>
>No, the mother's (and the state's) basis is the legal right of a child to
>support from both its parents.  

Since all "rights" are simply restatements of duties owed by others (and vice 
versa), I find your distinction highly suspect.

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16024 talk.politics.misc:39802 alt.society.civil-liberty:5547
From: tom@vexcel.com (Tom Baltzer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:05:46 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <1992Aug13.152633.11126@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.204722.13549@asuvax.eas.asu.edu> ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra) writes:

		[deletions]
>>
>>     Or anyone else's who can read plain English
>>without rationalizing to suit expedient purposes.
>
>Read: If you don't agree with *my* interpretation then you are either
>      a fool or a knave.

	[Excellent analysis of multiple laws broken in a single incident
	  removed]
>
>And I do not pretend that the matter is simple or obvious.
>
>The only apparent reason for you to consider the legal status of this situation
>to be so simple as to be obvious (to anyone who can read!!) is that you have
>failed to seriously examine and consider the implications of the various
>positions.

  Hear hear Mr. Greenfield.  If the constitution is so damn simple to
  understand, then why the heck did the founding fathers find it so
  important to have a branch of the government who's sole responsibility
  is to interpret that document?


Tom.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16092 talk.politics.misc:40233 alt.society.civil-liberty:5568
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 02:57:30 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug14.220546.12113@vexcel.com> tom@vexcel.com (Tom Baltzer) writes:

>  Hear hear Mr. Greenfield.  If the constitution is so damn simple to
>  understand, then why the heck did the founding fathers find it so
>  important to have a branch of the government who's sole responsibility
>  is to interpret that document?

They didn't.  The Supreme Court's primary role as an interpreter and
enforcer of the Constitution was not anticipated at the time.  It was
taken by the Supreme Court in Marbury vs. Madison.

If you mean the judiciary as a whole, which is a branch, unlike the
Supreme Court, then you're talking nonsense - the judiciary is also
supposed to judge in federal cases.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra)
Subject: Re: [misc.legal] Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: misc.legal
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:47:22 GMT

greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
> >> Double jeopardy is not an issue because they are being tried by
> >> 2 different jurisdictions: the first trial was in the California
> >> state court system and the second in the federal courts. This is
> >> perfectly constitutional.
> >
> >     No, Dave, it is not constitutional.  I believe
> >what you mean to say is that it has been *ruled*
> >constitutional.
> 
> Read:  It doesn't meet *my* interpretation of the Constitution.

     Or anyone else's who can read plain English
without rationalizing to suit expedient purposes.

> What mechanism of law currently allows the federal justice department
> to *prohibit* a local (state) prosecution?
>
> In the absence of any such mechanism, you can hardly suggest that federal
> authorities have the option to prosecute civil rights charges "in the first
> place."

     Prohibit?  Why Mr. Greenfield, no wonder you
don't see anything wrong with double jeopardy:
you're so authoritatively minded!

     But seriously, no one need "prohibit" anything.
The federal and local authorities could easily meet
beforehand and decide upon which strategy and court
would most likely produce a conviction.  I don't
know and don't particularly care what happens if
they can't agree.  It's their problem to work out,
not the defendant's.

     What I maintain they *can't* do is wait and
see how the locals do, and if they get no success,
well heck, just give it another whirl in federal
court.

     Not if the Constitution has any meaning, that
is.

--Starcap'n Ra       {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
                        {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
                                          ^---------------The Wrong Choice
                             internet: kennedy@asuvax.asu.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.environment,fl.general
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Grand Jury Indicts Jacksonville Shipyards, Employee for Discharge
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:49:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.034037.16803@samba.oit.unc.edu> Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
..
>   Indicted along with Jacksonville Shipyards is A. Dix Stephens, age
>47, of Jacksonville, the shipyard's safety and environmental
>director.
...
>   Violations of the Clean Water Act carry a maximum three year term
>of imprisonment, a $250,000 fine for individuals and a $500,000 fine
>for corporations.  Jacksonville Shipyards faces a total of $1 million
>in fines.  Stephens faces a total of 11 years in prison, $750,000 in
>fines, or both.


If we want laws to be effective, we should make them equitable.

Mr. Stephens appears to be a relatively low level employee of what appears
to be a relatively large Corporation.

Mr. Stephens penalty may be 11 years and $750,000. That is a probably a
substantial portion of his net worth and his life expectancy.

Jacksonville Shipyards faces a total of $1,000,000 in fines. That is not
much more than the Stephen's potential fine. It faces no time in prison
or what might be the equivalent no time when all business activities are
stopped.

In other words the penalties on Mr. Stephens are certainly large enough
to discourage him from doing the same thing again. The penalties on
the corporation may be small enough that the corporate officers look at
it as the cost of doing business.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 23:01:23 GMT

John Stuart Mills wrote:

>======================== start ==================================
[...]
>[E]ven if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth;
>unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly
>contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the
>manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension [of] or feeling [for]
>its rational grounds.
>===========================end==========================

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

[...]
>John Stuart Mill is wrong.  The accidental collision of random views
>produces error, not truth; and this network is evidence for that, as is
>the inability of the American populace to know something so basic as
>who, precisely, murdered President Kennedy 30 years ago and for what
>reason.  John Stuart Mill is groping at something which in his inability
>to grasp dialectical logic he will not attain.
[...]
>So Mill is wrong: heat, not light, is generated by these circuses of
>ideas, in which the ideas of the wealthy and powerful meet in unequal
>contest with the ideas of the poor and obscure.
[...]

Suppose you succeed in eliminating the "circus" (what some of us would
call the free marketplace of ideas) because it "produces errors, not
truth".  What better mechanism do you, in your postdialactical wisdom,
propose in its place?

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Saturday, 15 Aug 1992 23:59:18 CDT
From: Noel B. Lorenzana <U38134@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Copyrights: Government research plagarized!

My friend and I have a bet, He says that government information such as
handbooks and pamphlets can be copied without infringing on the govt's
research. And possibly sold for profit. I disagree...

Thanks for any information.

 __     __    __     _______
|  |   |  |  |  |   /   ____)      Univeristy of Illinois
|  |   |  |  |  |  |   /                  at Chicago
|  |   |  |  |  |  |  |
|   ---   |  |  |  |   \____       NOEL B. LORENZANA
 \_______/    \/    \_______)      U38134@UICVM.UIC.EDU




Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: burke@tss.com 
Subject: Alimony in California
Reply-To: burke@tss.com
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:47:03 GMT

Can someone give a layman's description of California law relating to 
alimony?  For example, what criteria are applied in determining when alimony
is awarded, how the amount is determined, etc.  That is assuming a simple
case of alimony not involving children - i.e. spousal support only.  Are
men ever awarded alimony (other than cases of rich/famous women like Joan
Lunden)?
From: thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: How To Really Annoy People
Date: 19 Aug 92 12:34:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Aug19.123406.17394
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Aug18.222130.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.233346.27136@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>>> In <64160@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>>>> 
>>>>>She thinks that the courts have not treated her fairly, and got pissed
>>>>>off at them.  She went and got forms for filing a lien and put liens on
>>>>>the houses of the Judges that have dealt with her, the lawyers, and the
>>>>>sheriff who threw her out.  It only costs $7 to put a lien on someone,
>>>>>and requires no proof that there is a good reason for said lien!
>>
>> Well, there's always contempt of court.  Which in this case is somewhat
>> overt.
>
>Wouldn't another Judge have to impose that?  If the Judge handling her
>other case imposes sanctions for contempt on her, wouldn't that be
>conflict of interest?   === Al Sparks

I don't know.  But it's not a conflict of interest for a judge to rule
me in contempt of court if I call her a "st*p*d fu*ki*g bas*ar*".
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             you can't throw me to the lions -- i'm charlton heston
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.conspiracy
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: INSLAW (Very strange case)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 15:12:52 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

The last and biggest legal subterfuge by the government on the INSLAW
case was that when the case was appealed to the SC by the government
after its latest loss, the SC said the case had been pursued *through
the wrong court system* and the whole thing presumably has to start
again all over at the bottom rung of the legal system.

So much for justice when the government is the transgressor.
-- 
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: mgflax@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:26:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.184336.12971@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>IF living under a government is not voluntary, then you have confessed
>to despair as to the viability of any community whatsoever, including
>hunter/gatherer groups.  

Please explain your logic here.  We're not living in a mythic "social
contract" signed by our forebears; governments have coercive power over
us.  But that power can be wielded fairly or unfairly, democratically or
undemocratically, with a fundamental acknowledgment of individual
liberty or without it.  Why does the involuntary nature of government
make community impossible?  Why do you give up on community so easily?

marshall
-- 
---
------- (c) 1992, Marshall Gene Flax <mgflax@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> -------
----------- 5 Joyce Lane, Woodbury, NY 11797, 516-364-9331,9379  ----------
- c/o Jack Gelfand,Psychology Dept,Princeton U.,NJ 08544,609-258-6739 (w) -
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 22 Aug 92 02:13:45 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug22.012243.29691@Princeton.EDU> mgflax@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.161412.27423@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>When Keith finished talking, I proposed that our little group enact its
>>OWN "hate speech" law, in spite of the Supreme Court, and for the rest
>>of the trip we all avoided both racist and sexist talking or joking.
>>This imporved the already high-quality communication of our patrol and
>>we were proud to climb a couple of very difficult passes and peaks.
>
>Congratulations.  Mutually deciding to talk about A, B, and C instead of
>X, Y, and Z can often be productive.  But why do you characterize your
>agreement as a "law" rather than a "contract"?

This is a verbal quibble.  Given sufficient participation in the town
councils of venues like St Paul, and agreements among citizens become
"contracts" in this overbroad sense; a national election is a "contract"
in this overbroad sense.  A classic contract is two people shaking hands
in a private deal; although of course you can have more than two people,
a contract in a ten man Outward Bound patrol would involve the Cartesian
product of the patrol's members shaking hands (eg., each distinct pair
of members.)  No, our conduct was lawlike in the sense that I acted as
the legislature and proposed a law to a sort of referendum, where it
passed unanimously (although I sensed that some team members were not
completely happy with the idea, they did not choose to state their
objections.)

In reality, the affair was neither "real" law nor "real" contract.  It
merely pointed out some features of a bias situation in a clear and
laboratory setting, not the least of which was the humanity of the
victim, Keith Ware.  The guy's trying to get on Oprah to plug his
Everest climb and I hope and trust he will present some of the ideas
I've relayed second hand.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.travel,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.british
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Subject: Re: US dual citizenship info -- updated version available via FTP
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:06:03 GMT

In article <JIM.92Aug12132113@hunter.cs.strath.ac.uk>, jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) writes:
> In article <1992Aug10.104127.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
> 
>    Isn't there a law on the books that you can't give up your citizenship
>    for the purpose of tax evasion?
> 
> It wouldn't be needed. Most governments use a residency qualification
> as the basis for income taxes, irrespective of someone's citizenship
> or nationality.
> 

With the United States being a notable exception.  They tax U.S.
citizens irregardless of where they reside, unless maybe it's Puerto
Rico, and I don't know how that works, exactly.  === Al Sparks
Newsgroups: misc.legal