HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard)
Subject: Re: What's in a big law library?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:30:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.154209.19854@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) w
rites:

[discussion of what law libraries have]

>
>I can only tell you what NYU has, which seems like more than enough.
>(You tell me what size category it's in; I dunno.)
>
>Yes on all state digests and parallel reporters.  Yes on multiple
>copies, especially of USCA/USC/USCS, US/S Ct, and F Supp/F2d.  (Is
>this proper Maroon form, Ted? :)  Issues of practically every law
>review.
>

Actually, it's USC/USCA/USCS, US/S Ct/L Ed, etc.            :)

Dennis P.
     Servant of The Book
Newsgroups: misc.legal,justice.usa,misc.headlines,sc.general,alt.activism
From: trev@well.sf.ca.us (Trevor Zion Bauknight)
Subject: Re: South Carolina Man, Corporation Charged With Bid Rigging
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 04:47:32 GMT

>   WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 -- The U.S. Department of Justice
>said a federal grand jury in Columbia, S.C., today returned a
>four-count indictment against Edgar Allen Spears and Young's Food
>Stores Inc., both of Sumter, S.C., for participating in a conspiracy
...

Oh my god.  This is a huge blow to me, and no, I'm not kidding.
I grew up in Sumter...went to a Young's store almost every day...
(they're everywhere there, one is within sight of another) drank
Sumter Dairies milk throughout my school years.  All tainted...
This is terrible...  Wow...
-30-
 
Trevor Bauknight         trev@well.sf.ca.us       Jes' Grew Carriers
 
                                                     +-----------+
                                                     | _> ###    |
                  go Gamecocks...                    |     |     |
                                                     +-----------+
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Date: 23 Nov 92 08:59:54
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: panther.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu's message of Sun, 22 Nov 1992 22:34:46 GMT

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|In article <24067@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu writes:
|>You obviously did not read my post clearly enough.  I said that I was in
|>agreement with the Supreme Court in the case in question because the Appellee
|>argued that homosexuality was a fundamental right which could not be abridged.
|>They rightly ruled that they could find no where in the Constitution where it
|>stated that the right to homosexuality could not be abridged.  And, if I were
|>deciding the case, I would give the same decision if asked the same question.

|Here's a hypothetical.

|Can Georgia constitutionally ban heterosexual sex?  

Good question.  Pardon me whilst I ramble.  I'm no constitutional
scholar but I play one on TV....

It's clear they can *restrict* it (cannot be done in the middle of the
street, no prostitution).  And various courts have upheld bans against
oral sex (sodomy) between consenting hets.

I suppose *if* one can find no "right" to homosexual sex in the
constitution *and* one accepts that this means it can be banned then
one could ban het sex in a similar way....

An argument that folks should be able to reproduce, even if one could
massage that out of the constitution in a way that still disallows
homo-sex wouldn't work because one does not *require* sex to
reproduce.  Just a syringe, a petri dish and a few other things....

I know, will have a 24 hour waiting period before conception....
Parental consent seems reasonable.....

This is fun :)

I bet this has come up in some form or another before.  Anyone have
any pointers?





--
Peace.
"Let me give you a word on the philosophy of reforms.  The whole history of
 the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her
 august claims have been born of struggle...If there is no struggle, there
 is no progress.  Those who profess to  favor freedom and yet deprecate
 agitation, are men who want crops without plowing the ground.  They want
 rain without thunder and lightning.  They want the ocean without the
 awful roar of its many waters.  The struggle may be a moral one; or it may
 be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a
 struggle.  Power concedes nothing without a demand.  It never did and never
 will."
                           Frederick Douglass
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-
From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Censoring information , Is it possible tomorrow?
Date: 18 Nov 92 08:28:44 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Gordon Burditt

>	Here's another alternative: Two-day voting (Saturday thru Sunday).
>	This avoids the pre-work after-work crush at the polling place
>	resulting from workday voting; it provides plenty of opportunity for
>	west coasters (including those in Alaska and Hawaii) to get their
>	votes in before east coast counting begins; it even avoids the

Texas tried it.  Early Voting (formerly called Absentee Voting) was allowed
for a couple of weeks before the normal election day.  I didn't get all
the details, but weekend hours were included.  Qualifications for
Early Voting were essentially that you were a registered voter and wanted 
to vote now.  The news reported long lines at some locations for Early 
Voting (since turnout was high, I suspect there would have been a real
problem on election day if everyone had to vote then).  There were reports 
of HOW MANY people were voting, but no vote counts until the evening of 
the actual election day.

I didn't get all the statistics, but I thought it was a good idea
that should be repeated.

						Gordon L. Burditt
						sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: C599143@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Matthew Q Keeler de la Mancha)
Subject: Postal concern
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 23:56:31 CST

Can anyone tell me what the law says (or how to find out) about sending
an alcoholic beverage (champaign) through the mail from one state to
another (MO->NY)?
Thank you very much,
c599143@mizzou1.missouri.edu
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Supporting children
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:03:25 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <19384@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
> Rather, the current law lacks respect both for unbridled sexual freedom and 
>for "attempted gender equality."

	Actually, what the law fails to provide is NOT equal protection to men
and women, but equal protection to married men and divorced men:  You can't 
force a (married) man to provide X dollars for his children.  The legally required 
minimum is clothes and some food.  You don't _have_ to buy toys, or send them
to college, or carry life insurance. 

	But that changes when you get divorced.  Suddenly, you are legally required
to maintain the children (and their custodial parent!) in a certain style, and to
carry insurance, and to pay for their college.  *That's* the injustice:  child
support should be limited to what it costs to support the child, and any extra
should be a gift of love rather than the coercion of the State.

	It's got nothing to do with sluts, Matt.  
Xref: sparky misc.legal:20252 soc.culture.african.american:11394
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Federal Prosecutor's plans in Rodeny King trail leaked to Defense!
Date: 21 Nov 1992 04:14:11 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) says:

>
>What I don't get is how anyone knew that it had been leaked. Did the
>defense attorney get the data, and then call a press conference to
>announce it? That seems particularly stupid.

NPR was saying today that the actual leak occurred two months ago. The
defense team sat on it for that long.
-- 
         I just know that something good is gonna happen
         I don't know when,
         But just saying it could even make it happen ...      _o_
                                                                |<
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 21:20:19 GMT

In article <13311@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#Mr. Smith, being a homosexual 

Clayton, do you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a
homosexual? 

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:06:15 GMT

In article <24067@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu writes:

>You obviously did not read my post clearly enough.  I said that I was in
>agreement with the Supreme Court in the case in question because the Appellee
>argued that homosexuality was a fundamental right which could not be abridged.

Please cite your source for your claim that *anyone* in Bowers v. Hardwick
argued that "homosexuality was a fundamental right which could not be
abridged."

I don't find anything like this argument in the brief.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I can solve this Orient Express thing without
mnemonic@eff.org| breaking a sweat. It's that simple."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Hercule Perot
From: judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Date: 22 Nov 92 22:13:28 GMT
Reply-To: judson@watserv.ucr.edu

In article <1992Nov21.205217.5415@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)  
writes:
> In article <24061@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu writes:
> 
> >However, the petitioner did not ask the right question.  He
> >wanted the Court to rule that homosexuality is a Constitutional right,
> >and the Court could not find any basis for this and ruled against him.
> >Instead, the petitioner should have asked that the legislation be stricken
> >on grounds that it violated the right to privacy.  If this were the
> >argument, the petitioner would have had a better chance of winning.
> 
> What makes you think that the petitioner *didn't* ask the question
> you think he should have asked? What you're writing here seems to have
> no connection to the petitioner's brief in Bowers v. Hardwick.

O.K., it was my mistake in that I incorectly labeled Hardwick as the
petitioner; he was the appellee.  However, my argument is still valid.

--
"It takes a big man to cry.
but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
				Jack Handy


judson@watserv.ucr.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: gsmith@clio.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 16:12:35 GMT

In article <69689@cup.portal.com> edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward
chungfan kwok) writes:

>Of course, one can argue that there is no indication whether the
>court's analysis would substantially be the same in the context of
>unmarried heterosexuals.

It has since become clear that it would be.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:38:27 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov21.212019.21465@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> In article <13311@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #Mr. Smith, being a homosexual 
# 
# Clayton, do you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a
# homosexual? 
# 
# -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia

No.  But Mr. Smith is a homosexual, as he is quite willing to admit.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bmiller@lunatix.uucp (Barry Miller)
Subject: Re: Law books in electronic form?
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix. -KY- (606) 253-1481 
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:51:18 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Alan L. Batongbacal (alanlb@bethesda.cs.vt.edu) wrote:
: Hi there!  I have a brother who's a lawyer and he wants to know if
: any publisher of law books distributes any of its products in
: electronic form, whether floppy or CD-ROM.  Of particular interest
: would be the large publishers such as West.
: 
: Thanks for any replies!
: 
: alan l. batongbaca

Alan --

West does publish several libraries in CD-ROM form.  We use two
libraries (Tax and Bankruptcy) at our firm, and the response has
generally been pretty good.  They have several more libraries,
including environmental law, governement contracts, and others I
can't remember right now.  They do not publish their larger sets,
such as the Federal Reporter -- the second series of that set is
near 1000 volumes right now, compared with 150 or so for the
Bankruptcy Reporter.  The bankruptcy CD-ROM set requires 5 disks
(although it includes other material besides case law), so you
can imagine how many disks it would take for the Federal
Reporter.

Tell your brother to call 1-800-937-8529.  This is Westlaw's
customer service line, but they should be able to give him the
number for CD-ROM.  I understand there is some friction between
the Westlaw people and the CD-ROM division, so if the Westlaw
people won't give you CD-ROM's number, e-mail me.  I'll get the
CD-ROM number at work.

One other thing -- our subscription price to the libraries
includes a free Westlaw uplink to update those libraries.  In
other words, we can call Westlaw through the CD-ROM interface
program to update our tax and bankruptcy research, and we are not
charged on-line time.  This gives us the ability to fix our
research costs in those areas.

Good luck to your brother.  I hope they have a library he can
use.

--Barry
l
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: 4 Q's: Deadly Self-Defense Against Rape
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:26:51 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov13.200443.14525@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:
# In regard to attempted rape isn't a ddiscusion of the risk of AIDS going off
# on a tangent?  An important tangent to be sure, but still not at the heart
# of the issue.
# 
# Isn't deadly assault, though defined somewhat differently in different states,
# always defined as something tho the effect of:  assault which is likely to 
# cause death or grievous injury.  Don't all states permit a victim to use
# deadly force to repell an deadly attack.

I have seen the claim made (and I don't know if it is true or not)
that in New Jersey, you are required to leave your residence rather
than use deadly force against an attacker.  Only when you have no
possible escape can deadly force be used.  Can in anyone in Nazi
Jersey confirm this by checking your state's criminal code?

# Rape is grevious injury.  Hence, is not deadly force directed against an
# attacker while htey are attempting rape permitted throughout the US?

It should be, but there are a lot of people in America (liberals)
who seem to think that rape is preferable to dead rapists.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: title insurance
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:06:01 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Nov16.211625.6057@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, dsc@gemini.tmc.edu 
(Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:
> In article <1992Nov14.1297.20231@execnet> "hilary miller" 
> <hilary.miller@execnet.com> writes:
> >...
> >          your hypothetical does not correctly state the law relating
> >          to forfeitures -- the title of a drug dealer is not void ab
> >          initio, it is merely forfeitable once the government takes
> >          certain statutory actions.  It may take them only against the
> >          criminal and *his* property, not against a subsequent BFP.
>            ^^^^^^^
> 	   Shouldn't this be 'the accused' rather than 'the criminal'.

Right, for two reasons:

1) the subject person is never convicted of anything;
2) forfeiture is a civil proceeding.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: traffic accident -- s
Date: 21 Nov 92 07:12:06 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Brian Gordon, in a message to All on 11-19-92 at 8:45pm, said:

BG>|A vehicle I own was hit by a driver making a U-turn.  It all seemed cut
   |dried until the investigator/adjuster from the other driver's insurance
   |called to say they were only willing to pay 50% of the damage ...
   |_______________________________________________________________________

          *Every* insurance company offers 50% of your property damage
          claim if their insured is at fault!   If you want more,
          you're gonna have to sue.  They're figuring you won't.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #11645  ASCII stupid question - get a stupid ANSI
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: alvin@netcom.com (Alvin H. White)
Subject: HELP. ACCUSED OF FELONY. ASK FOR JURY TRIAL.
Summary: I seek a jury trial.
Keywords: CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:43:09 GMT


HELP! ACCUSED FELON. ASK for JURY TRIAL.

I was accused of a felony violation of California Vehicle Code
Section 23101 FELONY DRUNK DRIVING in the Monterey County 
Superior Court in Salinas, California.

I was a natural born citizen of the United States and a member
of the United States Army at the time of the alleged violation.

Thus I should be fully subject to the provisions and protections
of the Laws and Constitution of the United States, the State of
California and the jurisdiction in which the infamous crime was
alleged to have occurred.

I was present at the scene of the alleged crime.

To the best of my knowledge and belief I did not commit such a 
crime.

To the best of my knowledge and belief no such crime occurred at
the time and place.

I hereby enter a plea of "Not Guilty."

I hereby, humbly and respectfully, request a trial by jury as
mentioned in the Constitution of The United States of America.

As I have been unable to obtain such jury trial by prior efforts
I seek public assistance to be able to exercise such rights.

I ask as witness to this REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL the readership
of the Internet newsgroup misc.legal.

In the City of San Jose, California, United States of America
hereby, Sworn and Affirmed this 19th day of NOVEMBER in the year
of our LORD JESUS CHRIST one thousand nine hundred and ninty two. 

alvin

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

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

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

120 West 38 North
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Excusable Homicide and Artificial Insemination!?
Date: 21 Nov 92 01:18:37 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

One comes across the strangest things while doing legal research.  For
our Basic Legal Skills class, we are writing a memo on a self-defense
case in Washington.  Naturally, one ends up looking at section 9A.16.030
of the Revised Code of Washinton ("Homicide--When Excusable").

I'm looking in West's annotated version.  One of the the things West
gives is references to relevant law review articles.  For this statute,
they give one reference, _Artificial insemination: its place in Washington
Law_ 32 Wash.L.Rev 280 (1957).

Does this strike anyone else as strange?  Does anyone else have any
amusing examples of strange places one has been directed to while
researching?

--Tim Smith
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:45:21 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov22.223446.4225@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <24067@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu writes:
# #You obviously did not read my post clearly enough.  I said that I was in
# #agreement with the Supreme Court in the case in question because the Appellee
# #argued that homosexuality was a fundamental right which could not be abridged.
# #They rightly ruled that they could find no where in the Constitution where it
# #stated that the right to homosexuality could not be abridged.  And, if I were
# #deciding the case, I would give the same decision if asked the same question.
# 
# Here's a hypothetical.
# 
# Can Georgia constitutionally ban heterosexual sex?  
# -- 
# ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 

Not between a married couple.  In light of the past decisions of 
the Supreme Court, I wouldn't say FOR SURE that they couldn't
ban it between an unmarried couple.  The Bill of Rights was not
a limitation on state governments doing dumb things until the
14th Amendment, and even afterwards, it only limits state 
governments in some areas.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.