HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bsm@utrcv1.res.utc.com (Brian S. McCarthy)
Subject: Blacklisted from Banking System for $58.59 overdraft!
Keywords: ChexSystems, Bank, ATM
Organization: United Technologies Research Center
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:33:03 GMT


I tried to open a checking account at a bank near my home last week, and 
found out that I'm on what they call "ChexSystems", which apparently is a 
national blacklist of people who have really bad checking account records.

My (former!) bank put me on this system because of two transactions, within 
a 4 day period, involving a malfunctioning ATM, for a grand total overdraft 
of $58.59, which I paid in full within 10 days of the original incident.

This was the first overdraft in seven years of doing business with that 
bank.  As a matter of fact, it was the first, last and only overdraft in my 
entire life.  All the other financial pecadillos common to the lower middle 
class, I have done.  But I have never, ever in my life, bounced a check.

The bank is now adamant that they will not take me off the system, no 
way.  They say they absolutely do not take people off ChexSystems, ever.  
So I cannot open a checking account at any bank in the United States for 
SIX YEARS!!!  

The bank admits that their ATM was malfunctioning (it was off-line for at 
least seven days), but say it doesn't matter.  They also admit that this 
was the first blemish on my account in seven years.  Again, doesn't matter.  

I could accept if they imposed a reasonable overdraft penalty, but barring 
me from the banking system nationwide for six years is grotesquely 
unreasonable, in my opinion.

My question is:  Are banks limited by any standard of reasonableness in the 
penalties they impose, or are they free to run amok putting people on 
blacklists willy-nilly?  Being unable to open a checking account anywhere in 
the country for six years will definitely cramp one's lifestyle.

Thanks for any information!
---------------------------------------
Any opinions expressed here are mine alone,
and are not those of my employer or anyone else.

Brian McCarthy
United Technologies Research Center
East Hartford, Connecticut
(203)727-7638
bsm@utrc.utc.com
---------------------------------------
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:27:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.021324.31720@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:

>I think what piques Daniel Simon's curiosity (and mine) is
>why in the world Justice Holmes thought that handing out leaflets at
>a recruiting center is anything like shouting "Fire" in a theatre.

He didn't. His point was not the two activities are alike, but simply that
there are limits on freedom of speech. The "Fire!" hypothetical is simply
an illustration of the point. Read the decision.

Incidentally, I think your question is rather different from Daniel
Simon's.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:30:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.191620.11407@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:

>Absolutely.  The testimony might be reliable and it might be unreliable.  But the 
>assertion that "the jury returned a guilt verdict and even though the court
>threw out the verdict because the evidence was tainted this shows North
>was really guilty" is true only if the evidence is reliable.

Who has said this? Mark Eckenweiler hasn't.

What Mark *has* said is that the appellate court decision does *not*
prove that North is *not* guilty. 


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Obsessive ex-spouses..can the madness be stopped?
Date: 5 Jan 93 01:53:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: oregon.4JAN199317531897
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Oregon
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <2935174540.0.wk00191@worldlink.com>,
 "Eddie Kovelan" <wk00191@worldlink.com> writes...
>After four years of dealing with a clinically diagnosed obsessive 
>ex-husband, I am fed up.  My ex has no life and therefore tries to 
>destroy mine by _taking me to court as often as legally possible_ (every 
>six months or so) and threatens to take my son away from me.  I am 
>re-married and have a baby daughter and this constant harrassment by my ex-husband
>is hurting everyone in my family.  My four year old son is hurting the 
>most because he is caught in the middle and the courts do not look out 
>for him.  I have tried all the ways possible to make the courts and 
>other legal authorities see the damage all the battling is doing to my 
>son, but no one can or will put a stop to my ex-husband.  He has _no_ 
>_grounds_ to take my son, in fact, he always gives up the fight at the 
>end.  He just fights to get revenge on me for leaving him four years 
>ago.  He is so obsessed that he _video tapes_ me at every moment possible, 
>he interrogates my son to find out if anything is going on at home, he 
>_has people follow me and look up records_ (credit reports, driving 
>records, etc.) of both my husband and myself.  I fear that he will 
>continue to do this until my son is 18 or I find a way to stop him.  Is 
>there anyone who can help me find a legal way of getting him out of my 
>life as much as possible?  I need legal avenues or advise from those who 
>have experienced or are experiencing a similiar problem and have found 
>ways to eliviate the problem.   [Emphasis added.]

I'm not licensed to practice, so whatever advice I give you should get
confirmed by an attorney.

My first suggestion is to look into malicious prosecution and abuse of process
suits.  With these, you may be able to get an injunction against future
actions, in which case he can be found in contempt if he files another claim on
the same pattern.  Also, if what you say is true, this sounds very much like
intentional infliction of emotional distress.  All you can get for that is
monetary damages usually, but if the videotaping and investigation of your
records are continuing, you may want to try for injunctive relief there also. 
Finally, if he has entered your property to videotape you, you should have a
case for trespass.

Unfortunately, none of these are likely to be permanent solutions.  A more
useful approach may be to determine whether your state has a stalking statute,
and then threaten to have him prosecuted.

To repeat my disclaimer, I am not licensed to practice, and anything I said
should not be relied on without professional consultation.

							Daniel Reitman
From: dittrich@carson.u.washington.edu (Dave Dittrich)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: How to determine legitimacy of company?
Date: 8 Jan 1993 19:59:23 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu


I am posting this for a friend of mine who is considering paying
for a service offered by a company called National Consultants in
Santa Monica, CA (he lives here in Seattle, WA).  The service
involves assistance in applying for citizenship ("Green cards")
through a government sponsored program.  They wanted him to send
money in the next day or two to reserve a place in the lottery,
but that they couldn't tell him for sure when he would find out
the results.  (They did claim an 80% success rate for the $450 fee
they charge).

A representative of the company suggested that he call the Santa
Monica Chamber of Commerce to verify their legitimacy.  He did
this, but the person he spoke to there answered so quickly that,
"yes, they are legitimate," that he felt a little strange.
("Shouldn't they have to look something up, instead of answering
right away?" he thought.)

If you want to *really* check up on the legitimacy of a company that
asks for you to send money quickly, but can't really say when you will
get the results of their service, how can you do this?

If they are running a scam, what agency of the government is tasked with
investigating it?  (I would assume the FBI, since interstate mail is the
means of performing the transaction).

You can respond to me via email (since I don't frequent this newsgroup).
Thanks!
Xref: sparky misc.legal:22246 talk.politics.misc:66819 alt.president.clinton:1451
From: uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 9 Jan 93 00:15:19 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium


>>>tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>>>>mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>>
>>>>>So far, it is only Republican adminstrations that show a disdain
>>>>>for the law and a contempt for the public.  If Clinton acts the same
>>>>>way, I will work to get him out as soon as possible.
>>
                   *  *  *  
>>
>>>>Am I mistaken in recalling that the Kennedy administration admitted to
>>>>planning an assassination attempt on Castro ?
>>>
>>>Huh?  Relevance?  Congress hadn't forbidden this, unlike, say, sending
>>>money to the contras or arms to Iran.

Huh?  Is Tom taking the position that blowing up a foreign head of state
is not illegal in the US?  (Admittedly the murder itself would have happened
in Cuba, but presumably a conspiracy to murder charge would have stuck.)

Or is contempt for criminal law somehow not "contempt for law" in this 
discussion?

[Not to imply that I support Weinberg or North, both of whom seem to be
slime of the first order.]

peter.
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: why has statutory law been replacing common law?
Summary: The fate of British law in Maryland.
Keywords: Alexander's British Statutes
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:17:29 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1i2ncoINNa3k@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu 
(Tim Smith) writes:

>In addition to the U.S. Constitution, you have to look at your state
>constitution and state laws to determined what English law is applicable.

>For example, Code section 1-10 of Virginia says that "The common law of
>England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of
>Rights and Constitution of this State, shall continue in full force within
>the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General
>Assembly."   [Tim Smith]

This is the pattern that Maryland followed until quite recently.
English common law, as it stood on July 4, 1776, remained in force
in Maryland unless superseded by an act of the General Assembly or
modified by the Court of Appeals.  The same thing went for British
statute law in force as of July 4, 1776.

In fact, there was a law book called, _Alexander's British Statutes_,
which kept track of just which British statutes were still in effect
in Maryland.  Like any law book, its publishers kept it up to date
with periodic supplements as things changed over time.  We learned
about _Alexander's British Statutes_ in Law School, not that many
years ago.

Since then, the Maryland General Assembly did a "housecleaning."  
They went through the list of British Statutes.  Those they liked, they
codified as Maryland Statutes in the Maryland Code.  All others were
declared repealed.  So now, _Alexander's British Statutes_ is nothing
but a historical relic.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Movies in the public domain
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 09:18:00 GMT

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

>stachnik@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (George Stachnik) writes:
>>I'm interested in movies that have passed into the public
>>domain.  Does anybody have a list?  I was told recently that
>>nobody owns the copyright to "It's a Wonderful Life", which
>>I found hard to believe.  Can anyone confirm or deny?  Are

>I think one of the wire services carried this story.  They said that some
>lawyer at the studio forgot to file for the extension when the copyright
>expired.

>I bet that lawyer's boss was real annoyed...

Probably what you (he) means is that the lawyer forgot to renew
the copyright. Under the 1909 Copyright Act, after 28 years, the
copyright could be renewed once for another 28 year term. 
(This renewal term was extended to 47 years by the 1976 Act
for works registered under the 1909 Act). Failure to renew
would result in the work entering the public domain.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org
From: mark.schumann@pcohio.wariat.org (Mark Schumann) 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the c
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:58:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PC-OHIO BBS - Cleveland, OH - 216-381-3320
Reply-To: mark.schumann@pcohio.wariat.org (Mark Schumann) 

John F. Haugh II wrote:

!In the Newsweek issue after the election special issue, one writer said
!that it was no wonder Clinton was elected - the media elected him.  I
!remember when people were still amazed that the week after the election
!the media started putting out =good= news about the economy.  I've since
!noticed that there is no more good news being published.  Why?  Because
!too many people caught on to how the media is manipulating the nation.
!So, they are manipulating it again - this time so we don't see that
!Bush was right about the economy being in recovery.  Clever, eh?

The media say the economy is okay, so that proves they're biased in
favor of Clinton.  They say the economy isn't so okay, so that proves
they're biased against Bush.

Yeah.

 * SLMR 2.1a * Purranoia: the fear your cats are up to something.
                                                          
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|       PC-OHIO PCBoard BBS - Cleveland, Ohio - 216-381-3320       |
|   Computer Shopper Best BBS in America - 35 lines USR DS 16800   |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: tpeasant@cipc1.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Tony Peasant)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: subcontractor insurance
Date: 10 Jan 93 16:20:39 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation - Dayton, OH USA

I am considering starting a lawn mowing business this year and would like
to hire a employee. However I dont know about the legal ramifications of
having someone as a employee verses a subcontractor in the case of injury,
insurance or liabilty.  Any advice would be appriciated.

thanks
-- 
Tony Peasant
Tony.Peasant@cipc1.Dayton.NCR.COM
...!uunet!ncrcom!cipc1!tpeasant
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: First Amendment Stuff
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 05:20:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.121455.17475@eff.org>, I wrote:

>As I recall, Hand's actual-incitements test (although, thankfully, not his
>balancing test) was used in formulating the Brandenburg test. It has been
>some time since I read Hand's analysis, I confess.

Ted Frank has offered some mild criticism of my posting, arguing that the
Learned Hand test is different in significant ways from the Brandenburg test.
(For those who've forgotten, the Court ruled in Brandenburg that "clear and
present danger" was no longer the test to be used in deciding whether
government could ban speech; instead, the test is whether the speech is an
incitement to imminent lawless action and likely to produce such action.)

You may imagine, therefore, how heartened I was to read the last line of
the entry on Learned Hand in my new OXFORD COMPANION TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES:

"Eventually the Supreme Court moved away from Schenk and Dennis, and in
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) adopted what many commentators believe is
essentially Learned Hand's approach."

It's nice to know my poor old mind has not quite lapsed into senility just
yet.



--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: billma@utoday.com (Bill Mallon)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Reply-To: billma@utoday.com (Bill Mallon)
Organization: CMP Publications, Inc.
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 02:32:22 GMT

In article <1ia0grINNfdt@agate.berkeley.edu>, wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. 
Tell) writes:
>... Haven't most or all of the Iran-Contra convictions that went to trial
> (like Poindexter's and North's) been overturned on appeal?  Why doesn't
> Walsh give it up already?   
> 
> WFT
> 
Yes, they have. Interesting piece about Walshs persecutions--er, I mean 
proscecutions--in last months Readers Digest. Bottom line is that if he stops 
pushing, we stop feeding him. Nuff said.

I am endeavoring, maam, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit, using stone knives and bearskins. --Spock
Humble Typesetter
From: karl@isgtec.com (Karl Sewlochan)
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
Subject: Re: where do jocks buy jeans?
Date: 9 Jan 93 01:08:59 GMT
Reply-To: karl@isgtec.com <Karl Sewlochan>
Distribution: usa
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc. Mississauga Ont. Canada
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:

: >Now that I have dropped 27 lbs and got my old physique back, I find it
: >hard to buy pants again.  As for dress pants, I'm gonna have to re-acquaint
: >myself with my tailor.  As for casual pants (ie., jeans, khakis, and twills),
: >some brands fit and some don't.  ...

Try Levis Medallion's (sometimes known as either 433's or 633's).
Haven't tried the Levis Loose but it looks like you tried them
to no avail.

--
Karl Sewlochan        ...uunet.ca!isgtec!karl             karl@isgtec.com
ISG Technologies Inc.  3030 Orlando Dr. Mississauga.   Ont.  Can.  L4V 1S8
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Re: I need some help starting out!!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:47:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.173346.23723@Princeton.EDU> biz@soil.Princeton.EDU writes:
>Well the holidays are finally over and I put on a few extra pounds.
>Now I want to lose them along with getting into shape.
>
>My goal:  To turn myself into a bodybuilder type shape 
>
>My idea:  Lift light weights everyday using every (normal) muscle 
>    (ie. chest, arms, shoulder, back, legs, and stomach) for a month
>    to hopefully lose the weight and build a good foundation.  Then lift
>    heavy weights until the goal is achived.

First off, don't expect to lose any _significant_ weight in a month's time.
The first few pounds that you lose will be mostly water weight that can come
back in a hurry.  You _can_ however, expect to lose about a pound a week
of real weight (mostly fat weight) by the use of proper, sensible diet,
roadwork, and moderate strength training.  As for roadwork, about an hour
per day, four days per week (at least) of brisk walking should do it.
Once you feel that you have the excess fat under control, _then and only
then_ do you scale back on the roadwork and go into your weight training
in earnest. As for the weight/strength training, I recommend against training
the same muscle group two days in a row, especially when you are going heavy.
About twice a week is about right, though some muscle groups may need more/less
recovery time.  Make sure that your diet is rich in complex carbs, moderate
in protein, low in fat and sugar, and adequate in dietary fibre.  Don't expect
to remake your body overnight.  These things take time.  You may notice slight
changes in your appearance in six weeks, and your friends/colleagues may
notice changes in 3-4 months.  In less than two years of consistent and
adequately hard training, you can have a new body.  It may take the rest
of your life to approach that last 10% of your potential.

Keith R
>
>Dave Bisignano
From: loszewski_im@hnrc.tufts.edu
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
Subject: Re: where do jocks buy jeans?
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:54:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: USDA HNRC at Tufts University

In article <C0I9Ln.EAE@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mwbg9715@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Wayne Blunier) writes:
> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
> 
>>Now that I have dropped 27 lbs and got my old physique back, I find it
>>hard to buy pants again.  As for dress pants, I'm gonna have to re-acquaint
>>myself with my tailor.  As for casual pants (ie., jeans, khakis, and twills),
>>some brands fit and some don't.  The problem that I have with the ones that
>>_don't fit_ is that they tend to be cut too-tight in the thigh _and_ too
>>big in the waist.  Sound familiar?  I find that casuals by BLUEZONE and
>>BUGLE-BOY tend to fit me pretty well, as do painters/carpenters pants by
>>CARHART.  Now that I have lost my spare tire and butt, LEE, LEVI'S, and
>>WRANGLER jeans simply do not fit.  I had some hope for the new crop of
>>"loose fitting" jeans by LEE and LEVI'S, until I tried some on.  I found
>>a pair that _almost_ fit, except that I could barely get my ankle thru
>>the cuff.  Had I bought them, I would not have been able to wear any kind
>>of boots with them.  (I have cowboy boots and work boots that I like to wear.)
> 
>>What I want to know is where do other wanna-be-jock-types get their
>>jeans from?
> 
>>Keith R
> Lee has several different styles, some are better than others.  If you
> want jeans that fit, but aren't as fancy looking you can try Saint Johns Bay
> or Long Haul.  I think you can get them thru the J.C Pennys.  You can also
> try places like Farm and Fleet.  They have some 'off brands' that may fit
> you.  As for jeans that look nice, like your used to with Lee and Levi you
> aren't going to have a lot of luck.
> 
> Mark B.

I have had the same problem.  I now know why bodybuilders have a hard time 
finding clothes.  After my last competition, my legs have increased greatly
in size due to a new workout approach.  I find that 3/4 of the jeans are too
tight in the thigh in too wide in the waist, or vice versa.  I have literally
gone through hell and back trying to find a pair of jeans that fit.  I finally
found the right pair of Levi's just last week.  I have been wanting to try a 
pair of Guess jeans, but absolutely refuse to pay $60 for a pair of pants.  The
other problem is that when I start dieting down for my next competiton, these
new jeans will be too big for me.  You just can't win!!!

-Rob