HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 14:22:44 GMT


In article <1992Aug10.221054.16357@panix.com>, 
eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) said:

> how do you solve the problem of deliberate inter-sovereign
> pre-emption under this view of double jeopardy?

  [* * *]

> Does anyone consider this troubling?  (Mike? W.D.Starr?  Any
> thoughts?)  Is it enough to say that public/official outrage will
> force the DA/AUSA not to do such things again?  What if the
> prosecutor's superiors are corrupt, or his neighbors bigots?

Since you made the mistake of asking me (remember all those legends in
which to speak the name of a demon is to summon him? :-), I'll say
this: there is no contradiction between (1) saying that the problem
exists and that a solution is desirable and (2) saying that the
solution currently in place violates the Double Jeopardy clause of the
U.S. Constitution and that if the government wants to "play fair" it
must either develop an alternate solution or amend the Constitution.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 00:12:50 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Keywords: Third party beneficiary

In article <1992Aug15.203618.8723@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>Matt writes:
>>...then
>>that child can be viewed as a third party beneficiary, and it is a 
>>principle of contract law that where there are third party beneficiaries
>>to a contract, the contracting parties are not always free to disregard
>>the interests of those beneficiaries.
>
>Well, I know that third party beneficiaries can have standing to sue in
>the case of a contract breach, but I am unfamiliar with any limitations
>on the actual TERMS of contract based purely on the interests of a third
>party beneficiary. 

Certainly.  For example, Y cannot legally enforce a contract she signs
with X to refuse to fulfill a legal obligation to Z.  If Z sues Y, Y
cannot show the piece of paper signed with X to demonstrate the lack of
existing legal obligation to Z.  And this is precisely on point.  (In
fact, Z might even have a cause of action against X for tortious inter-
ference with contract, but that's another story and kind of stretches the
analogy.)
-- 
             ......................................................
             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
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: National Guard Status was (Re: Equal Rights Amendment)
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:48:17 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <11712@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> Actually, you have it backward, but it's a confusing situation, you
> have a right to be confused.  
> 
>               In  Perpich  v.  Department  of  Defense  (1990),  the
>             U.S. Supreme  Court provided a history of the process by
>             which the  National Guard  was "federalized" in 1916, so
>             as  to  eliminate  questions  of  the  constitutionality  of
>             sending National  Guard  units  abroad.57    National
>             Guardsmen are  both members  of organized  militias of  the
>             various states,  and members  of the  U. S. Army, though not
>             members of both at the same time.  When the President orders
>             a National  Guard unit into federal service, they are no
>             longer members  of the organized militia, but members of the
>             Regular Army.58
> 
>               57 Perpich v. Department of Defense, et. al., 110 S.Ct.
>             2418, 2423 (1990).
>               58 Perpich v. Department of Defense, et. al., 110 S.Ct.
>             2418, 2424 (1990).

I saw a post in soc.history that discussed the political motivations
behind that law.  Basically Theodore Roosevelt was threatening to
organize a military unit to go "over there" (remember this was during
WWI).  He even sent President Wilson a letter saying he was especially
qualified to do so as a former Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

It was hard for his aide's to tell, because Wilson rarely lost his
temper.  One person close to President Wilson indicated that he could
tell the President was furious when he read that letter.  Besides
Roosevelt was Republican, and Wilson a Democrat.  Due to the political
popularity of the former roughrider and President, Wilson was unable
to turn him down personally w/o political repercussions.  That 1916
law was how he solved the quandary he was in.  === Al Sparks
From: trif@bike.rad.washington.edu (To Run In Fear)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 19 Aug 92 12:00:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: bike.TRIF.92Aug19040033
	<BsL96r.4t6@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<TRIF.92Aug16061554@bike.rad.washington.edu>
	<Bt3p7r.I2L@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<TRIF.92Aug16205733@bike.rad.washington.edu>
	<Bt4stG.Az@news.cso.uiuc.ed
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle WA

This debate is beginning to just be hashing over semantics and no longer
about law.  I contend that the legal principle underlying child support
is the child's right to support from both parents.  Mr. Kellmeyer contends
that the legal principle is responsibility and causation of the existence
of the child.  I doubt we will decide this issue here.  We shall see if
Mr. Kellmeyer's prediction of men being given the right to opt out of
child support based on a woman's right to an abortion comes true within
a generation.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.invest.real-estate,soc.culture.caribbean
From: sean@firefly.rain.com (Sean Sheedy)
Subject: Bahamian Attorney Needed
Organization: Firefly Software
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:35:42 GMT

I'm considering purchasing some real estate in the Bahamas, and am looking for
a reputable attorney to represent me.  I'd appreciate any recommendations
(positive or negative) you might have, as well as any other advice you would
like to offer.  I have experience purchasing real estate in the U.S., but
none in a foreign country.

Thanks in advance.

Sean

-- 
Sean Sheedy					sean@firefly.rain.com

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.	-- H.L. Mencken
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:03:07 EST
 <PA146008.243.714182108@utkvm1.utk.edu> <1992Aug19.015046.3591@desire.wright.edu> <l955ltINN9gg@spim.mips.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <l955ltINN9gg@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
> In article <1992Aug19.015046.3591@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> |> In article <PA146008.243.714182108@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
> |> > In article <1992Aug18.015503.3560@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> |> > 
> |> >>	Double jeopardy is being tried in the same court for the same crime
> |> >>(with the same evidence) twice.
> |> >>
> |> >      The Constitution does not make this distinction.  It says simply
> |> > that noone will be twice put in jeapardy of life and limb for the same
> |> > offense.   Just because somebody comes up with new evidence after an
> |> > acquital does not mean you have to have another trial.  Nor can you just
> |> > switch jurisdictions and try again.
> |> 
> |> 	You're not "switching jurisdictions".  There are two separate court
> |> systems, and two separate law systems.
> |> 
> Give it up guys.  The LA Cops are being tried on a new charge and a new
> crime.  It's as if they committed a robbery and a murder at the same
> time.  You can be tried on the two charges independantly.

	Apparently they're trying to argue that each act should result in only
one crime.

	Thus if I take an AK-47 and mow down several dozen people at a
McDonalds, I should only be tried on a single crime for my single act.

	And if that's not their position, they need to explain why their
explanation is different from the state and feds both getting their hands on a
criminal.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: st1ec@rosie.uh.edu (Tse, Oliver)
Subject: Is this Copyright Infringement?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: duplication, copyright
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 06:05:00 GMT

I am an avid model builder and have come into a dilemma of sorts.  The casting
of parts used to duplicate objects is today a major aspect of modeling.  Almost
all modelers do it, and the techniques are well documented in model books and 
magazines.  In addition, the duplication process is simple and inexpensive.

My question is this:  if I wish to build a model requiring 8 duplicate parts,
can I simply purchase one item, create the mold and duplicate it 7 times?  
Can I do this even if I do not sell my creation?  Or does that matter?  What
if I write an article on how I built the model and I indirectly profit 
by gaining recognition from the model building world?

For me, it seems strange that duplication of parts is even permissible.  If
a customer needed 8 parts, then I the seller would expect the customer to buy
8 parts not 1!  I am unsure of what U.S. law says about this(I am also unsure
what Texas law says about this) and would greatly appreciate any comment on
this matter.  Thanks for your responses.  They are greatly appreciated.

Oliver 
st1ec@rosie.uh.edu
From: jharring@banner.prime.com (Joe Harrington)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Advice for first year law student?
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:34:30 GMT
Reply-To: jharring@banner.UUCP (Joe Harrington)
Organization: Prime Computervision, Bedford MA

I'm starting first year of law school at Boston University next
week.  Are there any law students or recent law grads that would
care to share some advice for a first year?  Email please, 
don't waste bandwidth and hundreds if not billions of dollars.

Joe
jharring@prime.com (till Wed 8/26)
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Strict (and Heightened) Scrutiny for Gender Discrimination
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 13 Aug 92 13:22:18 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <1992Aug11.033626.7848@midway.uchicago.edu> 
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>Heightened scrutiny is different than strict scrutiny.  Which is why 
>everything you've posted has been irrelevant to legal reality (leaving
>aside the fact that the vast majority of posts on the thread haven't
>even bothered to attempt to be relevant to legal non-reality).  [Ted Frank]

So far, so good.

>Without an
>ERA, classifications based on gender are not "suspect," but need only
>have a "rational basis" to pass constitutional muster.  [Ted Frank]

Wait a minute.  Words like "suspect" and "strict scrutiny" and "rational
basis" were not written into the XIVth Amendment.  They are constructs
of the Supreme Court.  Mr. Frank's last sentence *used to be* true: 
a classification based on gender were Constitutional if the Court could 
think of some rational basis that the legislature could have had for 
enacting that classification, even if the legislature had not explicitly 
mentioned that basis in the law.  And that's as it should be: men and women 
are quite different, and have had different expectations and fulfilled 
different roles in every society that has ever existed.  Indeed, there 
is something to be said for the idea that a law that treats men and women 
*alike* should have to have some rational basis for doing so.

The concept of "heightened scrutiny" is yet another construct that 
the Supreme Court invented.  They invented it in order to throw out 
perfectly rational gender-based classifications in the absence 
of an ERA.  Therefore, Mr. Frank's last sentence is, unfortunately, 
no longer true.  

"Heightened scrutiny" is not as strict a standard as "strict scrutiny," 
as the cases cited in Mr. Frank's fine article demonstrate, but it is 
nevertheless a big step along the road to a "unisex" society, a trip 
that we may well tear our society apart trying to make but will never 
successfully complete because such a society is too contrary to human 
nature to exist without government control and repression on a scale 
unknown even in Bol'shevik China.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Graffiti Ordnance
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:45:33 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug14.040133.27625@aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
> My city is planning an ordnance that would require property owners to

"Ordinance."  "Ordnance" is what one is tempted to use to discourage
this sort of crap. :-)

> remove graffiti from their property within 24 hours. Penalties for not
> doing so can be $500 fine or 6 months in jail. I strongly object to this
> type of action. It is penalizing a property owner for the failure of the
> city. It seems to me that it is unconstitutional. I might want to keep the
> graffiti as symbolic speech on what I think of my city management.
> 
> What do others think of this ordnance?
> 
> Richard Foy                       Standard Disclaimer

What next, are they going to punish rape victims for not recovering
immediately?

I recognize that graffiti left up tends to encourage more graffiti,
but the solution isn't to punish the victim, but to punish the
"artist."

In Rohnert Park, property owners have taken to cleaning up immediately,
and with a day or two, the EXACT SAME PLACES are marked up.  For those
inclined to whine about the poor, impoverished, oppressed kids who
have no choice but to vandalize someone else's property: Rohnert 
Park is affluent, and 90% white.  Graffiti is a sign that some little
brat wasn't taught to behave, and when they become a big brat, they
STILL don't behave.
-- 
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,ca.general
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Abstract discussion of "civil rights" and "property rights"
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:38:19 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <lairdb.714243886@crash>, lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:
> Ummmm, what's the difference?  It's still an entity, owned by private
> people.  As I said in another part of my message, if it was controlled
> by the government, held in trust for the citizens (which is how I think
> of things like the Park Service, BLM, Department of Streets, etc.) then
> they clearly should not be able to "discriminate".  So-called "public
> utilitites" are a sort of bizarre grey area, but privately owned is
> privately owned.

I'm afraid Greg Hennessy is right about corporations, something I
hadn't considered when I posted last on this thread.  Incorporating a
business, whether publicly, or privately gives the owners, that is the
real people, not the legal entity that is the corporation, certain extra
protections under the law.

The owners are limited in their liability.  If, I go visit my locally
owned mechanic's shop to get my car fixed, and while I'm there looking
at my car, I slip and fall, I sue and get a $1 million judgement.  If
that mechanic isn't incorporated, I can get everything he owns.  On
the face of it, I could even get his house, though there are
bankruptcy/debtor laws that might protect him from that final
indignity.  If, on the other hand, he is incorporated, I would
probably just be able to sue the corporation (and maybe the employee
that caused the accident, if appropriate).  The owner would have to
auction off all the corporation's property to attempt to pay the
judgement, but he would not have to touch his house or privately owned
car.

This protection is extended to public corporations.  If a group of
people are able to bring a public corporation to its knees through a
class-action suit, the lawyers would not be able to keep digging into
shareholders pockets until the judgement is satisfied (though if we
were talking about a partnership, instead, the lawyers could do just
that).

These protections, IMO, give the government moral authority to insist
on their following some public policies, especially discrimination
laws. ==== Al Sparks
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Advice needed: Pregnancy and immigration problems
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:32:30 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

>My wife, a German citizen, is five months pregnant.  Because
>the US does not have a socialized health care system, her
>German social insurance will not cover the pregnancy.  So we
>went to apply for Medicade and foodstamps as we are both
>graduate students and do not have enough money to cover the
>costs of a pregnancy and rasing a child.  The Social and
>-bob crane

Sorry to be crass in your times of trouble, but two questions.

1)  Why didn't you check into all of this before you decided to
have a baby.

2)  If you can't aford the child yourself, why are you having it
in the first place.

I've just had my asbestos underwear dry cleaned, so flame away.

-- 
--Mark
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:14:12 GMT

I've just returned from a two-week Outward Bound mountaineering course
and on that course I had an experience highly relevant to this thread.
I will mention only one other person on the course by name without his
explicit permission because I am certain that he will desire the limited
publicity USENET provides his cause.

Mr. Keith Ware proposes to be the first African-American to climb
Everest in March of 1993; he used this two week super-intensive
"challenge" course as a training ground for his Everest climb.  At
several points during the first part of the expedition, some of the
white climbers made careless comments on racially tense subjects,
including something like "you take your life into your hands when you go
to Oakland [CA]."

Keith found these comments very hurtful in our small and highly stressed
team environment and he said so before our solo.  That is, there is a
careless, unreflective white assumption that the white way of knowing
reflects reality with accuracy.  Some propositions of this way include:
this neighborhood is bad because of individual choices made by its
black and brown residents: crack addiction demonstrates primarily moral
failing rather than a sort of war on the people of the ghetto: the modal
welfare recipient is black rather than (as is the actual case) white:
the modal drug addict is black rather than (as is the actual case)
white.

Keith pointed out to us that in his African-American neighborhood in
Washington DC, people are able to leave their cars unlocked because of
the safety of his streets, a safety enforced by a strong neighborhood
spirit, a spirit missing in many wealthy white neighborhoods.  Keith
spoke at length about the fact that when he owned a Porsche (owing to
his efforts and ability in computer graphics) he was never able to drive
through New Jersey without being stopped and searched by the state
police.  Keith spoke about feeling out of place in both the white world
and in the macho world of the ghetto, and of his idea for climbing Mt.
Everest as a way of demonstrating what setting hard goals means to him.

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.

Nobody prized his "freedom of speech" to such an extent that he was
willing to continue to harass Keith or to downgrade women in our
(all-male) patrol.  I propose that UNLESS one's alienation is already
pathological (eg., one views all government as necessarily alienated
from one's own interests and desires), one will see that the freedom of
our small community to enact an informal hate speech law is exactly
parallel to the freedom of St. Paul MN to improve ITS climate by doing
the same.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:28:05 GMT
Organization: Culturale Elit
Followup-To: misc.legal

In <PA146008.249.714247653@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu sez:
>In article <1992Aug19.015046.3591@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>
>>	If you go on an interstate killing spree, is it double jeopardy to be
>>tried for murder in more than one state?  I think we've made the case for
>>separate court systems.
>
>     If two different murders are commited in two different states, then
>you are tried for the first murder in the state it was commited in,
>then the second murder in the state it was commited in.  You are not tried
>for *both* murders in *both* states.

I think misc.legal readers on both sides of the issue will be
interested in knowing that the above is incorrect.  Under current law,
you can be tried successively in different states for the same
murder.

Suppose X hires two men to kill his wife.  They kidnap her from
Alabama, kill her in Georgia, and dump her body there.  X is indicted
by Georgia under the "malice murder" statute, which carries a possible
death sentence.  X pleads guilty in exchange for a life sentence.
Shortly thereafter, Alabama indicts X on the capital offense of murder
during kidnapping.  At trial, X is convicted, and is sentenced to
death.

Suppose, hell.  Try _Heath v. Alabama_, 474 U.S. 82 (1985) (7-2
decision upholding conviction). 

-- 
blah blah Communism blah blah Berlin wall blah blah school prayer blah blah
slick blah blah Communism blah blah Navy flier blah abortion on demand blah
blah Hillary blah blah Communism blah blah thirty million new j -- er, blah
	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Equal Rights Amendment
Date: 14 Aug 92 07:08:26 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <11732@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> Unfortunately, it wasn't clear that ERA would actually be so limited
> at the national level.  The LANGUAGE was quite clear; unfortunately,
> liberals have a long history of refusing to recognize a difference
> between the government and private companies, and more than a few
> ERA advocates I ran into in the 1970s asserted that it would be used
> to prohibit private discrimination as well.  This is why I went from
> an ERA supporter to an ERA opponent -- it looked like yet another
> opportunity for liberals to interfere in the private actions of
> consenting adults.

Worse, they'd do it by short circuiting the political process (so
called judicial activism), so if we want to throw the rascals out,
there'd be no politician to blame. === Al Sparks
Newsgroups: misc.legal