HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: need info on marriage laws
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 16:25:23 CST
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

tolleson@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Chuck Tolleson) writes:

> I need some help to settle a bet.  Some states allow marriages
> between first cousins.  I contend that Texas is one of those 
> states that allow this.  Does anyone know for sure?  If not 
> Texas, then what states in the US do allow first cousins to
> still marry without being zapped for incest?  Thanks for any
> help, $20 rides on the answer.
> -- 
 To quote the Texas Penal Code, Sec 25.02 incest is sexual 
intercourse between a person and his/her:
  "(1) his ancestor or descendent by blood or adoption;
   (2) his stepchild or stepparent, while the marriage creating 
that relationship still exists;
   (3) his brother or sister of the whole or half blood or by 
adoption; or
   (4) the children of his brother or sister of the whole or half 
blood or by adoption. "

 Nothing there about cousins, collect your 20 :-)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Bismark's law: The less people know about how sauasges
         and laws are made, the better they'll sleep at night
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:10:11 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Nov19.232937.25927@Princeton.EDU>, 
sbgreene@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Steven Greene) writes:
> Actually, it gets even better (worse?) than that.  As Tribe's petition
> for rehearing pointed out, there was nothing in the record before the
> Supreme Court that indicated the sex of Hardwick's partner.  The Court,
> of course, knew and made that a major point in its decision.  But
> technically, it had no basis in the record on which to make the 
> distinction between homosexual and heterosexual sodomy.

I'd assume that came out at oral argument.

No pun intended, honest.

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
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 03:03:43 GMT

In article <24071@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov22.230615.13593@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)  
>writes:
>> 
>> Please cite your source for your claim that *anyone* in Bowers v. Hardwick
>> argued that "homosexuality was a fundamental right which could not be
>> abridged."
>
>My source is taken from the opinion of the Court.

What makes you think the opinion of the Court is an accurate summary of
the arguments presented in the brief? It is well-established that the
Court's opinion went out of its way to misstate what the issue argued was.

You need to learn to do research before generalizing about what someone
argued at the Supreme Court, my friend.

>Here is how the opinion
>started:
>
>"The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a
>fundamental right upon homosexuality to engage in sodomy and hence 
>invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct
>illegal and have done so for a very long time."

Are you so unclear about the workings of the Supreme Court as to be
unaware that the opinion misstates the argument in this way in order to
justify the conclusion it reaches?

>Further on, he continues:
>
>"Respondent would have us announce a fundamental right to engage in 
>homosexual sodomy."

Respondent would have no such thing. Read the brief.

>Is that evidence enough to show that Hardwick was claiming a fundamental
>right to homosexuality?  Yes, it is true that later in the opinion the
>issue was brought up that Hardwick's privacy was being violated, but this
>issue was merely on the grounds that if homosexuality is a fundamental
>right, then the police have no right to infringe upon his privay when
>engaging in homosexual acts.

If you ever make it to law school, please take the trouble to recognize
that a Supreme Court opinion may not be a reliable source as to what the
arguments were. Only the brief and the transcript of oral argument are
reliable sources.



--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I can solve this Orient Express thing without
mnemonic@eff.org| breaking a sweat. It's that simple."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Hercule Perot
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren)
Subject: New York ruling concerning 'sidebars'
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:35:25 GMT

I heard part of a story on NPR this morning about a judge ruling
that sidebars in court were a violation of an accused's right to 
be present at ALL proceedings of his trial and that the judge
said something about the ruling being retroactive.  This would
mean that previous cases where lawyers had sidebars with the 
judge (just about all of them) could be retried.

Anybody have more info. on all this stuff?

allen
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Law books in electronic form?
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:03:46 GMT

alanlb@bethesda.cs.vt.edu (Alan L. Batongbacal) writes:

>Hi there!  I have a brother who's a lawyer and he wants to know if
>any publisher of law books distributes any of its products in
>electronic form, whether floppy or CD-ROM.  Of particular interest
>would be the large publishers such as West.

>Thanks for any replies!

>alan l. batongbacal

I have never seen West books on CD-ROM. Indeed, for several reasons
I question how willing West would be to put their info in so easily
a copyable medium. Also, note how user friendly West has made WestLaw.
At the final analysis, West is a book publisher, anything that
takes away from book sales is apparently suspect.

Colordo has had for a couple of years its statutes on CD-ROM. I don't
know anyone that has partaken yet. We don't because we deal mostly
in federal law (Patents, trademarks, copyrights). Finally, the MPEP and
its Trademark equivalent are now available from (?) the patent office
on CD ROM.

Bruce E. Hayden
Attorney at Law
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: 4 Q's: Deadly Self-Defense Against Rape
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:08:22 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Nov18.214541.14783@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> 
whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:

>I've been a member of our local Presbyterian church for 2 years now and
>I've never heard either of these positions mentioned, discussed, etc.
>I'm not saying that the upper echelon leadership might not hold these
>views, but I think the statements above are rather wide in scope, to
>say the least.  Guess I'll have to ask my minister what he might know
>about this.  The one thing I'd find very disturbing would be for the
>church to hold to such an extreme position as "opposes the killing of
>anyone, anywhere, for any reason, including defense of others against
>life threatening attack."  [Bill Sohl]

Well, the Bible commands, "Neither shalt thou stand idly by the
blood of thy neighbor."  (Leviticus 19:16b).  That ought to justify
the use of any force necessary, including deadly force, in the
"defense of others against life threatening attack."  But then,
this verse comes from the blood-soaked, vengeance-and-wrath, 
eye-for-eye/tooth-for-tooth "Old Testament," so it may already 
be obsolete in the eyes of the Church.  

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: title insurance
Date: 16 Nov 92 02:10:15 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Marc T. Kaufman, in a message to All on 11-15-92 at 3:07am, said:

MT>|Not necessarily.  They are only obligated to pay damages if the propert
   |is taken, not to defend you against the taking.  My neighbor is suing m
   |for adverse possession of just over 1 acre of my property, which requir
   |payment of taxes on my land, which the title company should have found 
   |it were true, which it is not).  The title company won't help in my def
   |because they know I will win the case and they won't have to pay any cl
   |In their generosity, they have indicated they *might* be willing to pay
   |much as $5000 towards my $80,000 in legal fees.
   |_______________________________________________________________________

               Read your policy.  The standard ALTA policy
               states, "...the Company, at its own cost and with-
               out unreasonable delay, shall provide for the de-
               fense of the insured in litigation in which any
               third party asserts a claim adverse to the title
               or interest as insured...."  The fact that the
               insurer considers the claim to be frivolous does
               not constitute grounds for breach of its duty to
               defend.  I'd complain to your state insurance com-
               missioner.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #11645  As easy as 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:48:59 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov18.024658.5826@panix.com>, lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
> In <1992Nov16.183233.806@athena.cs.uga.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
# #	Actually, the GA sodomy law does not single out same sex
# #couples in the letter of the law.
# 
# This is true, and raises a very interesting point.  Why did the
# Supreme Court opinion in *Bowers v. Hardwick* open with the line: The
# question before us is whether the states may prohibit *homosexual*
# sodomy.  (my paraphrase)?  Even though the statute was
# sex-orientation-neutral, Byron White chose to specifically single out
# homosexual sodomy as subject to state regulation.
# 
# larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 

Because the case before them involved homosexual "sodomy" (within
the peculiar definition of the Georgia statutue)?  Because they
were pissed that a case where no one was in danger of going to
prison was fought through the courts?  The charges were dropped
against the man who was arrested.  The effort (well-
intentioned) to get the Georgia law overturned through the courts,
however, burned off a lot of court time at the lower levels.
Why do I suspect that the Supreme Court just wanted to teach this
guy a lesson about "wasting" their time?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf
Xref: sparky misc.legal:20105 soc.culture.hongkong:14540
From: john@jho.com (John Ho)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.hongkong
Subject: Re: Neighbor's loud stereo
Date: 18 Nov 92 04:21:39 GMT
Organization: Software Programming, Inc., Dallas, Texas USA

daikit@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Daisuke Kitamura) writes:

>LP's may be fading out, but when you reach the top end of both, CD's will
>never reproduce the sound as brilliaintly as a record player! 

I heard this saying before but I never figured out why?  I suppose
the JBLs in my living room are not "fine" enough to make the difference. :(
Can someone enlighten me on this?  There should be a lot of Hi-Fi 
fever fans in SCHK. :)
-- 
John Ho from Dallas, Texas USA. (john@jho.com)   
Xref: sparky misc.legal:20142 talk.politics.misc:60810
From: alvin@netcom.com (Alvin H. White)
Subject: Re: HELP. ACCUSED OF FELONY. ASK FOR JURY TRIAL.
Keywords: CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:07:21 GMT

tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>Why don't you have your attorney handle this?

When I asked my attorney to get me a jury trial he did not do it.

>You are not thinking of defending a drunk driving case in front of 
>a jury without having an attorney, are you?

I was declared indigent by the court, based on the amount of my U.S. Army
salary, and Mr. Arthur Atteridge, Esquire of Salinas California 
was appointed by the court as my council. He has ignored requests to get 
me a jury trial so I don't know what other recourse I have.


alvin

Postal:  Alvin H. White, Gen. Sect.
         G.O.D.S.B.R.A.I.N.
         1505 De Rose Way #66 
         San Jose, CA 95126-4133 USA 

   Tel:  +1 408-286-2794
E-mail:  alvin@netcom.com

======================================================== 
Government Online Database Systems
Bureau for Resource Allocations to Information Networks 
[an idea waiting to happen]

120 West 38 North
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Looking for 1956 AT&T and IBM Consent Decrees
Date: 17 Nov 1992 00:20:54 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu


In 1956 both AT&T and IBM separately settled antitrust suits with consent
decrees.  I've been able to find short articles about these in publications
like Business Week and Fortune; but I'd like to find the text of the
agreements, or better yet a translation from legalese into English.  Our
library has a lot of law books but I don't know how to navigate them,
since they don't seem to have much in the way of indexes.  I asked a
reference librarian but she didn't seem to know much about  finding
things in there either - she pointed me to an index volume, which was
indexed by I guess the name of the case, but there are pages of U.S. vs. IBM
in the index, with no dates.  Help anyone?
-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Ya can argue all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!"
"No it aint!  But ya gotta know the territory!"
        Meredith Willson: "The Music Man"

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sbgreene@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Steven Greene)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:56:21 GMT

In article <24071@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov22.230615.13593@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)  
>writes:
>> Please cite your source for your claim that *anyone* in Bowers v. Hardwick
>> argued that "homosexuality was a fundamental right which could not be
>> abridged."
>
>My source is taken from the opinion of the Court.  Here is how the opinion
>started:
>
>"The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a
>fundamental right upon homosexuality [sic] to engage in sodomy and hence 
>invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct
>illegal and have done so for a very long time."

Oh, please.  Don't believe everything a Supreme Court Justice says.
Justice White framed the issue that way; Hardwick certainly did not.
Blackmun's dissent begins, "This case is no more about a 'fundamental
right to engage in homosexual sodomy,' as the Court purports to declare,
than Stanley was about a fundamental right to watch obscene movies, or
Katz v. United States was about a fundamental right to place interstate
bets from a telephone booth."
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sbgreene@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Steven Greene)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:29:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.144055.27748@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov18.024658.5826@panix.com>, 
>lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) said:
>
>> > Actually, the GA sodomy law does not single out same sex couples
>> > in the letter of the law.  [Terrence Heath]
>>
>> This is true, and raises a very interesting point.  Why did the
>> Supreme Court opinion in *Bowers v. Hardwick* open with the line:
>> The question before us is whether the states may prohibit
>> *homosexual* sodomy.  (my paraphrase)?  Even though the statute was
>> sex-orientation-neutral, Byron White chose to specifically single
>> out homosexual sodomy as subject to state regulation.

Actually, it gets even better (worse?) than that.  As Tribe's petition
for rehearing pointed out, there was nothing in the record before the
Supreme Court that indicated the sex of Hardwick's partner.  The Court,
of course, knew and made that a major point in its decision.  But
technically, it had no basis in the record on which to make the 
distinction between homosexual and heterosexual sodomy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
I hear the distant thunder-hum, Maryland!               Steven Greene
The Old Line Bugle, fife and drum, Maryland!            greene@choice.
She is not dead, nor deaf, nor dumb--                   princeton.edu
Huzza! she spurns the Northern scum!
She breathes! she burns! she'll come! she'll come!    (Time to change
Maryland! My Maryland!                           the state song, no?)
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Name Change in Michigan?
Date: 15 Nov 92 15:43:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1992Nov15.154311.24935
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <1992Nov12.193152.6341@gw.wmich.edu>, 
31babik@gw.wmich.edu said:

> I live in Michigan and am interested in getting my name changed.
> Unfortunately, I don't have even an inkling of where I should begin
> the process.
> 
> I would greatly appreciate it if someone could give me some ideas.

Call up your local state (that is, non-federal) courthouse and ask to
speak to the Clerk of the Civil Court.  Unless it's a small town, you'll
probably get some low level gofer rather than the Clerk him/herself, but
that should be good enough.  Ask him or her how you go about changing
your name legally; he or she should either know the answer or be able to
give you the name and phone number of somebody who does.

(Here in the Boston area, the "White Pages" phone book has a "blue
pages" supplement in the back that contains government listings; it
starts with a two-page "Easy Reference List" that includes a heading
labeled "Courts."  If the phone books in your area are organized the
same way, that should be all the info you need.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky misc.legal:20276 soc.culture.african.american:11414
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Federal Prosecutor's plans in Rodeny King trail leaked to Defense!
Date: 21 Nov 92 22:13:18 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) writes:

>In article <ISBELL.92Nov20085539@panther.ai.mit.edu>, isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
>> According to the TODAY show this morning, the "gameplan" of the
>> federal prosecutors assigned the Rodney King case has been leaked to
>> the defense.
>
>What I don't get is how anyone knew that it had been leaked. Did the
>defense attorney get the data, and then call a press conference to
>announce it? That seems particularly stupid.

Not at all.  He still gets the info, and by coming forward (if he did do
it) he stays out of hot water with the judges and the bar.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sbgreene@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Steven Greene)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:00:38 GMT

In article <24061@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson) writes:
>...there
>was more at issue than if the federal government can regulate a state
>government's legislation regarding two consenting adults.  In fact, the
>petitioner was arguing that homosexuality is Constitutionally legal, and
>thus the state has no right to make legislation regarding the activities
>of homosexuals....
>Instead, the petitioner should have asked that the legislation be stricken
>on grounds that it violated the right to privacy.  If this were the
>argument, the petitioner would have had a better chance of winning.

A few corrections:
1) Bowers, the Attorney General of Georgia, was the petitioner.
2) Hardwick did argue on privacy grounds, as you suggest he should
   have, and still lost.
3) There was nothing in the record that indicated that Hardwick was
   arrested for homosexual sodomy.  Hardwick was arrested for "committing
   the crime of sodomy," not for "committing the crime of sodomy with
   another male."
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Actual lawyers on this group?
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:24:48 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

AZ7408A@auvm.american.edu (Aimee J. Zeltzer) writes:

> 
>   Can I tell you?  My goal in life as I near the end of my law
>   school career is to dissuade any and all creative or intersting types
> who are not anal retentive from going into law.  If you want to be
> a corporate drone, and if you can pay attention to tiny, (indignificant) deta
> s (like periods or commas, or whatever) go into law!  Right now I am working 
>  a patent office and I could just die!!  However, if you like math or drawing
> go for it.  But heed my warning:  It's a lie!! (p.s.  I don't care about typi
>  or spelling--law school has failed with socializing this one!)

Whoa! Take it easy there, Aimee. When you're done with school, you can
become a lawyer, marry a politician, get him elected and then change the
world based on misinformation.

You can go into the wonderful world of family law, impart your own views
and interpretations on the concept of 'fair and equal,' and affect many,
many people.

You could specialize in product liability and leave your mark by making it
law to tell people not to use their false teeth as hemmorrhoid removers,
not to operate large aircraft in school classrooms, or not to use plutonium
as an aphrodesiac.

Sure, it all looks bleak now, but hang on. It's going to get better. It's
the Law.

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: misc.legal