HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: benoist@netcom.com (Tom Benoist)
Subject: Re: Incorporating in CA
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:42:59 GMT

In article <Bz3sAt.HH8@inews.Intel.COM> vjoshi@td2cad.intel.com (Vivek Joshi) writes:
>
>Hi.  I was wondering what the procedure is for incorporating in California.
>What I would like to find out is the procedure and the associated costs.
>
>Thanks
>Vivek

Get the book "How to Form Your Own California Corporation" by
Attorney Anthony Mancuso.  (Nolo Press)
Nolo also sells a PC program called California Incorporator
for $99 which walks you through setting up a corporation,
then prints out all the forms. (1800-992-6656)

If you do all the paperwork yourself you can save a lot of money.

California charges a Franchise "minimum state tax" of $800 a year.
I believe you pay the minimum tax once when you apply for incorporation
and then once more when you file your 1 quarter returns.  So
you have a $1600 startup cost just for California in the first year.

By the way, does anybody have any of the standard bylaws for a
California corporation in electronic form ?

-Tom Benoist
 benoist@netcom.com


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: robertj@tekgen.bv.tek.com (Robert Jaquiss)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.legal.computing
Subject: INFORMATION WANTED ON SOFTWARE FOR ADOPTION AGENCIES AND/OR LAW OFFICES
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:55:17 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Tektronix, Inc.

Hello:

     I am helping with the set up of a nonproffit adoption agency.  I am looking
for information on software targeted for adoption agencies.  As an alternative,
I would like information on billing systems used by attorneys.  
		Thanks in advance.

		Robert Jaquiss

Internet: robertj@tekgen.bv.tek.com
Xref: sparky misc.legal:21393 misc.legal.computing:2387 sci.edu:1242
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Basic Question about Search Warrants
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:56:50 GMT

Ryan R Robbins <IO20456@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:

>Let's say the police obtain a search warrant to search a house...

>While searching the house for the stolen money, they come across
>a stash of narcotics.

>My question is: If the police don't find any money, can they make
>an arrest and the district attorney bring charges against the
>house's owner for possession of narcotics?

The short answer is "yes."  From Coolidge v. N.H., 403 U.S.443 (1971):
"Where, once an otherwise lawful search is in progress, the police
inadvertantly come upon a piece of evidence [in plain view], it would
be a needless inconvenience, and sometimes dangerous-to the evidence
or to the police themselves-to require them to ignore it until they
have obtained a warrant particularly describing it."

Note that the probable cause standard must be met without further
investigation aimed at the suspect item.  That is, if one searching
for (say) guns, finds a VCR and, suspecting it is stolen, turns it over
to look for the serial number, this exceeds the scope of the warrant
and the VCR will be suppressed, even if the serial number matches
a stolen VCR.  Ariz. v. Hicks, 107 S.Ct. 1140 (1987).  By similar
reasoning, one cannot claim inadvertance if the search could not
possibly have yielded the items named in the warrant.  For example,
one searching for a car cannot seize drugs found in a breadbox, since
a car cannot fit in a breadbox.  Something like that.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller J.D.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Assessing Governmental Interest
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:21:16 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <4f0l02uU2fIm01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com sez:
>For example, if a government passes a law which treats people differently 
>based on race, the law will be struck down as violative of the Equal 
>Protection clause of the 14th Amendment unless the government can show that 
>it (the government) had a compelling governmental interest, and that the 
>regulation was necessary to acheiving that interest.

Point of clarification: this is trivially true if the law on its face
distinguishes on a racial basis.  If, however, a facially neutral law
"treats people differently" in that it affects one racial group more
adversely than another, strict scrutiny may or may not apply.  See
Washington v. Davis, 426 US 229 (1976).

Example: Assume that members of a racial group are disproportionately
likely to use public transit.  A significant fare hike has the effect
of "treat[ing] people differently based on race", but is probably not
EP-violative. 

Terry already knew all this, I'm certain; I just thought a gloss on
the "disparate impact" doctrine would be useful given his phrasing.


>What tests have been prescribed by the federal courts, particularly the U.S. 
>Supreme Court, to determine whether an interest is not legitimate, 
>legitimate, important, substantial, or compelling?  I'd like to emphasise 
>that I'm looking for what doctrine exists, rather than individual opinion as 
>to what interests fit into what categories.

No-one has ever really had to worry about the compelling interest
standard, since the Court has never upheld a law in the face of strict
scrutiny, with the (need I say) questionable exception of _Korematsu_.

On the other hand, you might look at Justice O'Connor's concurrence in
the second _Smith v. Employment Division_ decision (spring 1990),
since she would have upheld Oregon's peyote-use criminal statute even
under application of the strict scrutiny standard.

I should also warn you that trying to discuss equal protection
doctrine intelligently in misc.legal is likely to bring down on your
head mounds of insane drivel from Aaron Hoffmeyer, he of alt.dads-etc
fame.

-- 
			Sold by weight, not by volume.
  Some settling of contents may have occurred during shipment and handling.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: michaelf@psg.com (Michael Fetzer)
Subject: How to find a good/the right attorney?
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 11:19:25 GMT

I'm looking for an attorney in the Portland OR area to collect a debt that 
is owed to my father. I am realizing I don't know thing one about how to 
find the right one in the first place, muchless how to judge whether he is
competent or not.

Does the net community have any suggestions on referral services, personal
experiences, or any info/help/hints at all?

Please mail me at mfetzer@ucsd.edu or post here, either will work great!

Thanks in advance!

Mike

-- 
michaell@psg.com       uunet!m2xenix!michaell
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Interstate Commerce
Date: 17 Dec 92 01:33:38 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Dec16.163145.5036@chpc.org>, rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) 
writes:
> Is it illegal to ship something which is legal in state A to state B
> where it is illegal?
 . . .
> I am wondering because I see many mail order firms offering products
> which are illegal in some states - these mail order houses sometimes,
> but not always, have sale restrictions on certain prodcuts (ie, not
> sold in CA).
> 
> Can anyone point out SPECIFICALLY what laws make the practice of shipping
> "illegal at point of destination" merchandise either legal or illegal?

Federal law may prohibit such interstae shipping.

In any event, if such material were illegal in California, someone who 
xhipped them into California would be subject to at least civil penalties 
under the California long-arm statutes.  I haven't had Criminal Procedure, so 
I can't comment whether an analagous provision exists for criminal penalties.

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: roy@panix.com (Roy Radow)
Subject: Re: Support Groups For Youth
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:58:43 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Keywords: Regeneration; Courage; Desert Stream; White Stone; L.I.F.E.

In <19463@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

>>Roy Radow               roy@panix.com         ...rutgers!cmcl2!panix!roy
>>North American Man/Boy Love Association -For a packet containing a sample
>>Bulletin, publications list and membership information send $1.00 postage
>>to: NAMBLA Info,  Dept.RR,  PO Box 174,  Midtown Station,  NYC NY  10018.

>Holy cow.  Is this for real, or is it an FBI or Postal Inspector plant?

Yes Virginia, since 1978 NAMBLA is very much for real, and one of the 
services that we provide our readers is to expose postal entrappment 
schemes in our Bulletin.

For information feel free to write to the address below.

Yours in Liberation,

Roy

-- 
Roy Radow               roy@panix.com         ...rutgers!cmcl2!panix!roy
North American Man/Boy Love Association -For a packet containing a sample
Bulletin, publications list and membership information send $1.00 postage
to: NAMBLA Info,  Dept.RR,  PO Box 174,  Midtown Station,  NYC NY  10018.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re:  Good Legal Writing
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 03:15:37 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Dec18.212823.10185@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu sez:
>
>My favorite is the case in which a federal judge dismisses a case brought 
>against the devil.  I believe that it was U.S. ex rel. Moyer v. Satan and his 
>Helpers.  Every first-year should read this civil procedure classic.

_United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan & His Staff_, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D.
Pa. 1971).  Then there's always 12 So. 2d 305.

On a different note, students of the War on Drugs may find the recent
decision in _Hamaya v. McElroy_, __ F. Supp. __ (E.D.N.Y. 1992) an
interesting window on just how stupid and outrageous the INS can be.
IMHO, it's also extremely well written.  :)


-- 
			Sold by weight, not by volume.
  Some settling of contents may have occurred during shipment and handling.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: behrens@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eric Behrens)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: bank errors
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:45:07 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College


Assume a bank makes an error in their own favor-- they mislocate funds that
were deposited to a customer's account, for instance-- and the customer
proves the error.

Now assume that some harm came to the account holder because of the bank's
error.  Checks written from that account bounce.

To what extent is the bank legally required to rectify the situation?

1)Obviously, they must credit the account for any overdrawn account fees.
2)If the matter was reported to a credit bureau, must the bank issue a
correction?
3)If the matter has resulted in damage to business relationships with
corporations that received bad checks, does the bank have any obligation to
provide documentation to the effect that the error was theirs, and not that
of the checkwriter?


i.e., when a person deposits money into a bank, to what extent do they do
so "at their own risk?"  Does all responsibility for clearing up the credit
history or fees for (falsely) bounced checks fall upon the consumer?

------------------------------

Eric A. W. Behrens
Behrens@cc.swarthmore.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.environment,rec.backcountry,va.general
From: ndallen@r-node.gts.org (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Va. Game, Fisheries Department Names Law Enforcement Division Head
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:26:19 GMT

Here is a press release from the Virginia Department of Game 
and Inland Fisheries

 Va. Game, Fisheries Department Names Law Enforcement Division Head
 To: State Desk
 Contact: Roy Edwards of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland
          Fisheries, 804-367-1125

   RICHMOND, Dec. 18 -- A 15 year veteran of the Virginia 
Department of Game & Inland Fisheries has been selected to
head the agency's Law Enforcement Division.
   Captain Jeff Uerz, regional law enforcement manager for the
department in Staunton, has been promoted to the position and will
assume his duties as chief of the division immediately, according to
Bud Bristow, department director.  This position carries the rank of
colonel and is responsible for protection of the Commonwealth's fish
and wildlife resources and the enforcement of boating laws.
   "Captain Uerz was selected from an applicant pool of over 125
candidates and he brings outstanding leadership talent and skills to
this key position in the department," said Bristow.
   Uerz began his career as a game warden in Mecklenburg County in
March of 1978.  He was promoted to Sergeant in 1984 and moved to
Chesapeake where he stayed until his promotion to law enforcement
education Lieutenant in 1987.  In this position Uerz was responsible
for supervising the continuing training of department game wardens.
He was promoted to Captain in June, 1992, in charge of Region IV.
   The new colonel was named Wildlife Officer of the Year by three
organizations in 1986; the Southeastern Association of Fish &
Wildlife Agencies, Shikar Safari International and the Virginia
Wildlife Federation.
   Uerz has been instrumental in development of the current game
warden training program and has introduced many present officers to
the Virginia department through his law enforcement academy program.
   His professional education includes the Central Virginia Criminal
Justice Training Academy, U.S. Coast Guard Training Center, F.B.I.
Training School for Instructor Development, Virginia State Police
Academy and additional courses.  Uerz has an associates degree in
wildlife biology and has a life long interest and commitment to our
natural resources.
   He is married and has two children.
 -30-
-- 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Keywords: Guilty
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 17:14:23 GMT

In article <19483@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

>>>degree of reproductive freedom.  Women currently have this freedom, 
>>>why shouldn't men?   [Will Steeves]
>
>If a man wants the kind of reproductive freedom that the ladies and
>girls currently have, he should have been born a girl.

You often post this sort of thing Matt, and in some instances
I even agree with you. But how far are you willing to take it?

Let's invoke Godwin's Law here for a moment.

If my relatives who were carted off to concentration camps in
Hitler's Germany had come to you complaining about certain
social policies of the German government, would you have
replied "If a Jew wants the kind of freedom to come and go
as he pleases that Christians currently have, he should have
been born a Christian"?

I agree with you that it is not the function of governmental
policy to assuage the ENVY and RESENTMENT of everyone who loses
under an existing social system. But you seem to take this to
the extreme that the fact that the losers under this system
are acting out of ENVY and RESENTMENT automatically weakens
their case. I can't imagine why anyone would think this.


-- 
Dave Eisen                               Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU              Home:                (415) 321-5154
       There's something in my library to offend everybody. 
          --- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard)
Subject: Re: Interstate Commerce
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:21:26 GMT

If common sense can't answer the question of shipping illegal items into a 
state, I do not know what can.  Think about it.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Informing others of a company's debt?
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:53:50 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL
Keywords: debt legal

In article <Bz3wvy.I3r@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> schonert@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Juanita Schonert) writes:
>
>I have a question concerning a company's that used to do business
>with us, and we had to take to court concerning a substantial debt.
>
>The company signed a stipulation that they owed the money, and would
>make monthly payments. We have had to go to court for judgment twice
>now to receive those monthly payments. The company owes considerable
>money to us and other sources.
>
>Here is my question. A vendor asked me if I could provide him with
>information on the status of this company with us after he found
>we had done business with them. Th company in debt has not approved 
>this other company checking with us about their financial status.
>
>Can I tell this company about their debt with us and not be taken
>to court for libel or slander against their business?
>
>If I choose to, can I inform other vendors that I know they deal with
>about their debt?
>
>An inside source tells me this company is very near to closing their
>doors and I would hate to see others get taken the way our business
>has. Thanks for any help.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that passing on anything which is a matter
of public record (judgements, etc) is safe.  HOWEVER, make damn certain you 
do not mislead in any way whatsoever, and say less rather than more.  Also
be careful not to disclose "sealed" records; you CAN get in trouble doing
that, as those are not public records any longer!

The key is that in order to libel someone (written) or slander them (spoken)
you must:

1)	Speak (slander) or write (libel) a false statement and disclose it
	to someone else.
2)	If the person is a public figure, you must know it is false and
	speak with disregard for the truth.  If they are not then the fact
	that the statement is false is sufficient.
3)	The statement must cause material harm to the person spoken about.

Since an incorporated firm is a "legal person" this would apply to them as
well.  I don't know how or if a firm would be considered a "public figure";
I would say you'd be safer assuming they are not, and therefore you need to
be more careful.

Therefore, even if the statement causes harm you are "ok" if you can prove
that the statement is true.

Be prepared to prove it however; you could still be sued in any event.

Giving a pointer to the judgement (which the recipient could then look up)
might be safer.

I would consult an attorney on this one.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions

Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:06:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.161208.13030@wolves.Durham.NC.US> woody@wolves.Durham.NC.US (Woody Muller) writes:
>As a paternity-suit father, the non-custodial parent of a boy just
>under 4 years old, I'd like to make a few comments and observations.
>
>First and most important, this discussion is about whether two parties
>can contract to deprive a third party of funds.  Denninger's contract
>would be laughed out of court;  End of story.

Perhaps. But what about the framework where the woman reimburses the man?
Then it's not the CHILD'S funds which are being attached, it's the WOMAN'S
funds, and she should have the right to contract with those funds as she
wishes.

>Second, I disagree with Darcy's assumption that an illegitimate
>childhood is somehow inherently "miserable". 

Well, I didn't "assume" that, nor did I say "inherently". I was making a
generalization, one which I believe to be statistically correct, and 
therefore a valid factor in social policy determination. Do you dispute my 
generalization?

>It's really no different
>then any other divorce-like situation, not that that's so darn great,
>but it's getting pretty darn "normal" in America these days.  And what
>with Mommy and Daddy never married, there's actually a lot LESS excess
>baggage and animosity left over from a failed relationship.  Darcy's
>notion of "reducing misery" by taking away illegitimate kids' money
>is bizarre in the extreme.

I have never proposed "taking away" the money of existing illegitimate
kids, Mr. Muller. In fact, when questioned, I have always advocated a
"grandfathering in" of the paternity child support reforms I and others
have proposed. As for future illegitimate children, their mother knew
what to expect when she made her choices, or, at least, her ignorance
of the law is no excuse. So if you have to lay the wreath of blame at
anyone's door, perhaps you should consider laying it at hers. 

>Third, seeing these cold and heartless "abort or you're on your own"
>ideas being kicked around has brought me back around to the conclusion
>that the current system of strict paternity liability really isn't so
>bad.  

Sounds like you want to punish men more than women for their "fornication". 
And here I thought Rosenblatt was the only crypto-traditionalist in our 
midst...

>Finally, I have seen no mention of the upside of a paternity suit --
>the child itself.  Even (perhaps especially) in "visitation" doses,
>a kid is a wonderful thing to have.  Mine costs me $4800/yr, plus some
>travel and expenses, and it's well worth it for a lifetime friendship.

Visitation is a poor substitute for a real family situation. I'm surprised
that you, who gushes righteous sympathy for children, would rather see 
fatherhood become just a weekend thing instead of a full-time commitment.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: misc.legal,dc.general
From: ndallen@r-node.gts.org (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Brookings Institution to Release Report on Civil Jury System Monday
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 07:55:50 GMT

I thought you might want to see this press release from the Brookings
Institution. For further information, contact the Brookings Institution
directly, not me.

 Brookings Institution to Release Report on Civil Jury System Monday
 To: National Desk
 Contact: Lisa Faust of the Brookings Institution, 202-797-6105

   News Advisory:

   The media are invited to a luncheon briefing at 12:30 p.m. Monday,
Dec. 21, at the Brookings Institution to announce the release of
"Charting a Future for the Civil Jury System," a report prepared by
the Brookings Institution and the American Bar Association.
   The report recommends ways that the civil jury system in the
United States might be improved.
   Robert Litan, senior fellow in economic studies at Brookings, and
G. Marc Whitehead of the American Bar Association Litigation Section,
will present an overview of the report's recommendations on America's
jury trial procedures, followed by remarks from Louise LaMothe, chair
of the ABA Litigation Section.  The discussion will be introduced by
R. William Ide III, president-elect of the American Bar Association.
   For more information or to attend, contact the office of public
affairs at 202-797-6105 by Friday, Dec. 18.
 -30-


-- 
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.bio,alt.activism,rec.backcountry
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Government to Grant Swift Endangered Species Act Protection to Hundreds of Imperiled Species
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:36:04 GMT

It would be interesting to know if any of these species are indicator
species and if so, what ecosystem they represent.
-- 
==============================================================================

	Dean Myerson	(dingo in boulder)	(dean@vexcel.com)