HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: moe@netcom.com (Morris Bisted)
Subject: Re: Translation?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:25:47 GMT

In article <Bx7qvr.Ctz@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com writes:
>After scanning the "Lawyerly English" thread, I'm not sure whether
>
>This paragraph is part of a promise to repay a loan:
>
>	The makers, endorsers, and guarantors of this note hereby
>	severally waive presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment,
>	protest and notice of protest.  I sign this note intending
>	hereby to charge my separate estate with its payment.
>
>I'm a native speaker of English, and I know what all these words mean
>individually, but when I string them together I get the impression that
>it's saying "I don't have to pay you back even though I signed this
>note".
>
>Am I out a couple weeks' pay or what?

As I read the first sentance, the language says that the loan maker and all 
other parties ( the person borrowing borrowing the money) etc. declines to take 
advantage of rights regarding request for payment, notice to the 
maker of nonpayment, notice that the maker's attempted payment 
has been dishonored (perhaps by a bank).

As I read the second sentance,  the language indicates that the
maker/signor intends that s/he is responsible for repayment.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV, but I've read
a lot of books on the subject.  Your jurisdiction by statute and caselaw
describes the realm of contractual obligations.  You will need to
avail yourself of this resource to fully determine your rights and
obligations.  Do not consider the above as legal advice. 

morris
>
>thx
>gak
>
>---
>Richard Stueven       AHA# 22584 |----------|
>Internet:            gak@wrs.com |----GO----| Disclaimer: I'm not allowed to
>ATTMAIL: ...!attmail!gakhaus!gak |---SHARX--|             have opinions.
>Cow Palace:            107/H/3-4 |----------|
>
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: What happens to?
Date: 7 Nov 1992 14:29:21 GMT
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
NNTP-Posting-Host: skybridge.scl.cwru.edu

Others said
{football control?}
# However, supposedly some people do worry about this: during Nixon's last
# days, allegedly the Secretary of Defense or some other high official
# quietly told all the people in charge of nukes to run any "unusual"
# orders by him for confirmation before carrying them out.

If fact, I recall that SoD, or maybe S/S made a more overt move.
Tricky Dick gave his speech and resigned, effective ?5? hours later,
and boarded AF1 for the Left Coast. The football did *not* go with
him.......
--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mwhhlaw!tim (Timothy E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: Translation?
Reply-To: uunet!mwhhlaw!tim
Organization: Martin Wade Hartley & Hollingsworth
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:23:23 GMT

> 	The makers, endorsers, and guarantors of this note hereby
> 	severally waive presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment,
> 	protest and notice of protest.  I sign this note intending
> 	hereby to charge my separate estate with its payment.
> 
Translated

	Me, and anybody that signs on the back or front of this note, agree  
	that any one of us can be sued if this note is not paid and you do not  
	have to go through a bunch of old common law fooling around before you  
	sue us.  By the way, if this is a community law state, my half of the  
	marital property is behind this note.

Yes, you have to pay.

--
Tim Hollingsworth
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: setting a corporation
Date: 8 Nov 92 07:16:10 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Dennis G Rears <drears>, in a message to All on 11-06-92 at 11:40pm, said:

DG>|  They have suggested that I form my own corporation.  They said there
   |are many tax advantages.  A major one is that I don't pay myself a
   |salary but just take out profits from the company.  Also, a lot of my
   |current expenses could be charged to the corporation (i.e. additional
   |telephone lines, office space, computers, etc).
   |______________________________________________________________________

               From a federal income tax standpoint, there is
               little difference between operating your consult-
               ing practice as a proprietorship or a corporation. 
               The corporation will generally not provide you
               with any tax benefits to which you would not al-
               ready be entitled simply by filing Schedule C with
               your regular form 1040.  Corporations are expen-
               sive to set up and maintain.  You must respect the
               corporate entity if you expect the IRS and your
               creditors to do so.  The reason most people incor-
               porate is to limit liability or to issue equity
               interests to multiple parties.  You have no par-
               ticular concern with either of these matters and
               should therefore probably not incorporate.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #11645  Nietzche is pietzche, but Sartre is smartre.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: T-Shirts
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:38:29 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

bryan@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

> In article <umN2TB3w165w@gtm-inc.com>, terry@gtm-inc.com (Terry Gerritsen) wr
> > And What About T-Shirts?
> >        In June, an Arizona state court denied a student's request for
> > an injuction against a school policy forbidding the wearing of T-shirts
> > believed to be related to gang identification. The 12-year old plaintiff
> > was sent home for wearing a T-shirt decorated with a drawing of Michael
> > Jordon of the Chicago Bulls basketball team. School policy prohibited
> > the wearing of certain sports team logos that had been adopted by certain 
> > youth gangs as their emblems.
> 
> No, not too extreme. At least not if the boy based his contention on
> the First Amendment. See, that forces the court to weigh the school's
> common law or statutory (I don't know which applies in this case)
> obligations under in loco parentis against a constitutional right. And
> the Constitution should win in such a case unless the school can prove
> that:
> 
> 1. A vital interest is at stake, and that the government has a
> constitutional mandate to protect that interest. (The school can
> probably prove that they have such an interest in preventing gang
> violence on school property).
[..]

I wonder, given the scope of product liabilities in this day and age, if the
boy has an actionable case. If the makers of toasters can be sued for not
telling a potential customer not to make toast in a bathtub full of water,
perhaps the makers of the shirt can be sued for failing to warn potential
buyers they may be targeted as 'gang-supportive' by wearing the shirt.

While the toaster scenario holds possible damages of electrocution, the
the t-shirt holds possible damages of shootings or other gang induced vio-
lence.

In essence, that's what the school is saying, and the court affirmed it.

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
From: thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Harvard (Was: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court)
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:08:46 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov7.210918.15798@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
>>I can only speak about the law schools I know first-hand
>
>So how come you're talking authoritatively about Harvard?

Because I know Harvard first-hand from visiting the school when I was
deciding not to go there?  And have more than a few friends and FOAFs
there?

>For whatever its worth, Harvard has consistently had the most alumni
>sitting as Supreme Court Justices of any law school (by a long shot).

Which is a remarkably accurate indicator of how good a law school was in
the 1920's.  :)
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky misc.legal:19861 talk.politics.misc:59900
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Self-Insured Health Insurance Plans Cancelling Someone
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:09:50 EST
Organization: Penn State University

In article <13146@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) says:
>
>Has anyone who has seen the decision of the appellate court that
>ruled a company could change health plans and thus cut off an AIDS
>patient's coverage, explain the legal reasoning used by the court?
>I can see how a change of plan might affect illnesses that
>started AFTER the plan change, but isn't a health insurance policy
>effectively a contract?  One party to a contract usually doesn't
>have the right to change the terms of the contract without the
>other party's consent.
>
>This seems like a highly questionable decision.

A self-insured employer can modify his/her insurance contract at
any time according to the 1974 ERISA legislation which exempts
self-insured employers from state regulations.  Most health
insurance contracts (both self-insured agreements and purchased)
are guaranteed for only a year.  Thus, the rules can be changed
every 12 months.

The particular case involved a self-insured employer who had a
maximum pay-out to employees under the plan of $1 million dollars per
lifetime.  ERISA allows employers to modify plans especially if it
threatens the business.  The company did so, reduceing the maximum pay-out
for persons with AIDS to $5,000.

Most benefits specialists suggest that such a change would now be illegal
under the ADA.  However, an employer still might be able to change
the policy to create a maximum for all diseases (that apparently would
not be discriminatory.)

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h)
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 21:43:42 GMT

In article <1783@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com writes:
>In article <BxJ9oG.1qM@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu>, akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
>> >1) Justices who might retire in the near future:  Blackmun; White;
>> Justice John Paul Stevens is 72. ...
>> Rehnquist is 68 ...
>> Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is 62
>> ... It's doubtful that any [of the others] would retire during the Clinton
>> administration, even if he serves two terms.
>
>Ah, but suppose Clinton does get to appoint a Chief Justice.  All he would have
>to do is choose Anita Hill, and he would almost certainly get to appoint a
>replacement for Thomas immediately thereafter.

By what logic do you think an Anita Hill appointment would intimidate
Judge Thomas so much that he'd resign?

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
From: thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Harvard (Was: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court)
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:20:45 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov7.210918.15798@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
>In <1992Nov7.151906.15645@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple) writes:
>>>Is there any reason *to* go to Harvard, other than their reputation, which
>>>should help in the job market?
>
>>Well, there is occasionally a good professor there.
>
>Now Ted...  I'm sure that's true with Chicago as well.  Everyone knows
>that profs get tenure for writing, not for teaching.

The tenured professors I've had at Chicago have been uniformly excellent
in both.  As have a number of the non-tenured profs.  Perhaps I've just
been lucky so far.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: Congressional Procedure
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:29:30 GMT

In article <46g602Fg2aXk01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>I need some help finding a citable reference to something I know is law; I
>was hoping someone here could help.

>I understand that, if at the end of a Congress (like this year-end), a
>bill has been introduced but not passed, that the next Congress cannot
>vote on it unless it is reintroduced and the whole thing starts over.
>However, I can't find any statute or rule that says this.  It's barely
>above "common knowledge" (I found a congressional publication that
>alluded to the fact, but which is insufficient for purposes of citation).

>I've checked US Code Title 2 (Congress) and the rules of both the House and
>Senate, and also the Constitution (though I doubt I would have missed
>such a thing for so long in the Constitution).  No luck.

I would suspect that if this isn't in the "peremanent" rules, it may be
decided from session to session.  The newly elected congress is totally
re-elected every two years and thus owes no allegiance to a previous
congress.  As such, at the beginning of a new session, along with the
election of officers, they very well may determine that they won't consider
previously submitted bills.  

They may, also, just ignore the whole situation.  As a totally new body,
there's no reason to presume that they should deal with bills that were
introduced in a previous session but died in committee.  There's a fairly
voluminous number of bills introduced each term and one way the house deals
with this is by assigning them to committees--which then don't report them
out to the floor.
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: question on child sup
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:54:14 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


William E Kline, in a message to All on 11-04-92 at 12:02am, said:

WE>|"Am I required to pay child support if I am not yet legally
   |divorced?"
   |___________________________________________________________

          Every parent is legally obligated to support his or her
          children whether or not the parents are divorced.  If your
          wife applies to a court of competent jurisdiction, she can
          obtain an order requiring you to contribute to their support
          regardless of whether or not you are divorced (and even
          regardless of the pendency of a matrimonial action).


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #11645  Nietzche is pietzche, but Sartre is smartre.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: patstew@oz.plymouth.edu (Pat Steward)
Subject: Re: have phone number, need address
Reply-To: patstew@oz.plymouth.edu (Pat Steward)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 14:18:57 GMT

In article <921104.120059.amiller@almaden.ibm.com> amiller@almaden.ibm.com (Alex Miller) writes:
>I want to take someone to small claims court but I don't know
>their address and they refuse my phone calls.  Small claims
>says I must have a name and address - are there other options?

Assuming you know the person's name (though you didn't specifically
state that), call directory assistance and ask them for the person's
number.  After the recording finishes, stay on the line and tell the
"real" operator who picks up that you just got the person's number
and want to know if you can get the address, too.

This works MOST of the time -- a practice we use a lot to find "lost"
alumni of our college.  I only remember being refused once.
-- 
Pat Martin Steward                          patstew@oz.plymouth.edu
I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is;
I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express senti-
ments that differentiate me from a doormat.       Rebecca West, 1913
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Dead Candidates
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:55:39 GMT


In article <39033@mgweed.ATT.Com>, sgs@mgweed.ATT.Com (Snider) said:

> ...what happens if just a few days before election, George Bush
> dies?  Can you still vote for him?  Does Danny take over as pres and
> then will the VP position be appointed?

United States presidential elections are pretty weird animals since,
technically speaking, the people don't vote for the candidates
themselves but rather for a slate of candidates for the position of
Delegate to the Electoral College, candidates who have promised that
if elected _they_ will vote for Presidential Candidate Smith-or-
whoever when the Electoral College convenes in mid-December.
Accordingly, the death of a presidential candidate shortly before the
election only means that the voters have to decide "Do I believe that
the Electors who were pledged to the Dearly Deceased are going to
choose an alternate candidate to support whom I like?"

(I suspect that if there's enough time before Election Day the dead
candidate's proposed Electors would meet with his running mate, the
party elders, etc., and then publicly announce their new promised
choices for President and Vice President.  Politically speaking, I
can't imagine any viable political party choosing to replace a
deceased Presidential candidate with anyone other than its VP
candidate, not even the GOP with Dan Quayle... to do so would be to
_admit_ that they'd originally chosen a VP candidate that they didn't
think was good enough to be one heartbeat away from the presidency,
and that kind of a blow to a party's credibility could cripple it.)

In other types of elections, ones in which the candidates are voted
for directly by the people, it is possible for dead candidates to win
the popular vote.  What happens next depends upon the relevant local,
state or federal laws, but in most cases the leaders of the winner's
local/state/national political party get together and decide who will
actually fill the office.  Lord only knows what happens when a dead
no-organized-party Independent candidate wins an election...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky misc.legal:19597 alt.politics.elections:22764 alt.politics.clinton:15963
From: bryan@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: The Fedearal Internet Commission (was Re: Censoring information)
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:06:47 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <bill.720823771@castor>, bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
> What you ignore is that in 4 years, a whole lot of people are
> going to have net access, so the news will be out already.  There's
>  no way it will be illegal to post a message on internet that
>  "...." won in New Jersey.  Yep, everyone's always trying to 
> get a hold on information, but that damn noun just isn't physical
> enough.

Why do you assume that internet will remain immune from federal
regulation? I'd guess that, particularly if the fabled fiber-optic
network to our homes becomes a reality, federal regulators will descend
on the internet like a pack of vultures.
 
The Federal Internet Commission? Just because we don't want it to
happen doesn't mean it won't.

-Bryan
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re:    The Socratic Method
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:11:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov13.001153.5676
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

Just last week here at the University of Washington, the classroom that
is used for moot court (e.g., the one that is set up for judges and
attorneys and spectators) was taken over by three judges from the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals, who spent half a day hearing appeals in
front of interested law students.  One of the judges was ill and did not
show up, so only two were actually present.

The method they used to interact with the attorneys was remarkably like
the Socratic method.  Whether the Socratic method is a good teaching
tool or not may be open to question, but it does seem to be something
that attorneys need to learn to deal with.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mwhhlaw!tim (Timothy E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: Can someone explain UUC Filings?
Reply-To: uunet!mwhhlaw!tim
Organization: Martin Wade Hartley & Hollingsworth
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:12:57 GMT

In article <Bx7ryn.9M5@sti.com> westes@sti.com (Will Estes) writes:
> Can someone explain what a UCC filing is, and what rights it might give
> to the person who files one?  I've noticed these on credit reports for
> companies; the UCC is typically filed by someone who is leasing
> equipment.
> 
> What I'm wondering is if the UCC has some general applicability as a
> tool to enforce non-compliance clauses in a software development contract
> (i.e., pertaining to the ownership of "soft" assets).  Or do UCCs only
> apply to tangible assets like a copy machine?

A Uniform Commericial Code ("UCC") financing statement creates no rights in and  
of itself.  It is merely a notice of a proported lien on goods.  The lien must  
be created in some other document and must secure a valid debt.  Originally,  
filing was only done to give notice of a security interest.  The UCC has been  
amended in some states to cover leases of personal property.  "Goods" is a  
broadly defined term and includes accounts and intangibles.

Filing is not required in some cases to perfect a secuirty interest and is not  
sufficient in others.  For example, a security interest in an airplane is  
perfected by filing with the FAA in Tulsa. The filing rules vary from state to  
state, collateral to collateral, debtor to debtor (ie There are special rules  
for farmers.)

The financing statement is a public record and a copy can be obtained upon  
request and payment of a fee.

It might be possible to create a security interest as secuirty for a promise in  
a contract and then perfect that interest by filing.  I seems to me that would  
be of doubtful utility.
__
Tim Hollingsworth
Newsgroups: misc.legal