HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
X-To: MATTHEW ROSENBLATT
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 05:22:00 GMT

matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes...
MR> In article <1992Nov27.015005.13665@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org
MR> (Will Steeves) writes:

MR> >I apologise if you consider this insulting, but I must also say that I did
MR> >in fact take the cited text as being somewhat insulting (as if to imply tha
MR> >Pro-Male Choice posters "don't care about children," . . .  [Will Steeves]

MR> I don't have to imply anything.  I'll come right out and insult the
MR> "Pro-Male-Choice" posters and say that they don't care about any unwanted
MR> children they may conceive, nor about anything else except being able
MR> to enjoy sex without having to worry about the consquences.

MR> >. . . although I believe that I
MR> >have seen you blasting people who said similar things to Pro-Women's Choice
MR> >posters), and to some degree hypocritical for the two reasons which I cited

MR> Maybe Mr. Steeves won't see Mr. Fitch blasting the "Pro-Women's Choice"
MR> posters, but I'll come right out and blast them by saying that they, too,
MR> don't care about any unwanted children they may conceive, nor about
MR> anything else except being able to enjoy sex without having to worry
MR> about the consquences.  In other words, they're no better than the
MR> "Pro-Male-Choice" posters.

MR> As soon as the new Administration takes office, it will legalize the
MR> importation of "RU-486" into the United States.  When that happens,
MR> the drug will inevitably become available (on the black market) to men
MR> as well as to women.  Then, there won't have to be any silly mumbo-jumbo
MR> like a "Pre-Sex Contract."  The man who wants to weasel out of supporting
MR> the child he has conceived will just grind the pill up and sneak it into
MR> his girl friend's salad or drink when she's not looking.  The next day,
MR> she'll have a "miscarriage," without ever knowing what killed her fetus.
MR> He'll have his "Male Choice," all right.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is rather ironic, wouldn't you say...?

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * All right, I'll have the dead unjugged rabbit fish.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: Interstate Commerce
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:07:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.222126.11975@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes:
>If common sense can't answer the question of shipping illegal items into a 
>state, I do not know what can.  Think about it.

OK,  if I (in Maryland, where I presume it is legal to own locksmithing tools)
mail such tools to someone in California (where I presume said ownership is
illegal) have I broken California law without ever setting foot in California?

I am perfectly willing to believe that I have not.  It seems to me that no
state should have the authority to govern the actions of others outside of
its borders.  Indeed, I have a friend who is no longer receiving credit for
interest earned on money held in escrow for a mortgage on his house, because
the note was sold to a company which is incorporated in a state that does
not impose such a requirement.  His house is still in Maryland. 

Now, I would presume that the individual in California who receives the lock-
smithing tools is liable for criminal prosecution if:

1) He accepts the package, knowing what is in it.

or

2) He retains possesion of the tools, after becoming aware that they have
come into his posession.

I also assume that he is not liable for prosecution if he disposes of the
tools by turning them over to someone allowed to posses them, at his
earliest opportunity, or destroys them, or some such.

This is just comon sense, so it might not be relevent.

How about comments from people who actually know what they are talking about,
and are not just blowing smoke?
--
dsc@gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov  
 |  Regards,         |   Hughes STX                |    Code 926.9 GSFC        |
 |  Doug Caprette    |   Lanham, Maryland          |    Greenbelt, MD  20771   |
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no way to peace; peace is the way." -- Gandhi
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: "It depends" (was: Cars, tape recorders, and the police...)
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:31:37 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Dec11.162952.19044@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu 
(William December Starr) writes:
> Back in my first year at law school, almost on the first day, I was
> told that every question of law has the same answer: "It depends."

And of course, every law professor's next question is, "On what?"

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,soc.culture.usa
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Keywords: Guilty
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:54:17 GMT

In article <19483@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.210620.8318@netcom.com> aldridge@netcom.com 
>(Jacquelyn Aldridge) writes:
>
>>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>>>It's not that simple, Lana.  *David* may not want children (perhaps never),
>>>but a vasectomy might be a bit TOO extreme, especially if he should decide 
>>>in the future that he wants to have a family.
>
>>>Indeed, as I was explaining to Larry Billings, asking Freedom of Choice For
>>>Men supporters to go out and have vasectomies makes about as much sense as
>>>telling women who don't want to get pregnant, to get a tubal ligation.
>
>>>These operations are more or less *irreversible*, so rather than force 
>>>people who don't to be parents RIGHT NOW, into a situation where they will 
>>>NEVER	become parents, why not try to offer men and women a comfortable 
>>>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.

Gee, let's see how this "reasoning" works, eh?

"If a black man wants the kind of employment and social advantages that
 white men currently have, he should have been born a white man"

"If a jew wants the kind of employment and social advantages that gentiles
 currently have, he or she should have been born a gentile"

"If a Bosnian wants the kind of freedom from 'ethnic cleansing' that non-
 Bosnians have, he or she should have been born a non-Bosnian"

"If a Somalian wants the kind of food that non-Somalians currently have, he
 or she should have been born a non-Somalian"

Works real well, eh, Rosenblatt?

A bigot is a bigot is a bigot.

								- Kevin
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Father
Summary: German Epigraph
Keywords: Two Legs Good, Three Legs Bad...
Date: 14 Dec 92 14:31:09 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1ge2cdINNlqn@gap.caltech.edu> 
peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>It's not a dearth of procreation that's bugging this
>group.  It's a reluctance to pay for their progeny.
>[Michal Leah Peri]

Or, as the epigrapher Wilhelm Busch put it:

   "Vater werden ist nicht schwer,
    Vater sein dagegen sehr."

("Becoming a father is not hard; *being* a father is,
  on the contrary, very much so.")


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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Adverse Possession
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:23:14 GMT

In article <kaufman.724783182@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> kaufman@CS.Stanford.EDU writes:
>>The knowledge requirement that Mr. Kaufman suggests is required for
>>a prescriptive easement doesn't sound correct--the law doesn't traditionally
>>favor intentional trespass over good faith mistake.  A prescriptive
>>easement has the same requirements as adverse possession, at any rate. 

It turns out that states split on this: a majority of states don't distinguish
between good faith mistake and intentional adverse possession; a minority
follow the "Maine doctrine," which holds that a good faith mistake will not
be adverse.  The Maine doctrine's been criticized for precisely my reasoning,
FWIW.

>In CA, the requirements for adverse possession (title to my land) require
>the same basic elements as an easement by prescription.  That is, 5 years
>of open and notorious use, with the knowledge that you are using another's
>land, and with the landowners's knowledge that you are using it -- i.e.
>running across someone's property in the dead of night doesn't count.  If
>you are using the land with permission of the property owner, even if he
>didn't know it was his land, you can't accrue time towards prescriptive use.

Perhaps I'm defining permission a bit more narrowly than you are.  That
doesn't make me right, though.

>Adverse possession requires, in addition, that you have paid taxes on the
>land in question for 5 years.  The 5 years doesn't have to be the immediately
>preceeding 5 years, there can be breaks.

I suspect this is California-specific.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Attorney v. Lawyer
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 06:45:11 GMT

In article <BzKEJK.D2q@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:

>There is no universal agreement on a distinction between the terms,
>and for most purposes I think they can be regarded as meaning the
>same thing.  But, for what it is worth, one of my professors gave
>me this answer:  A lawyer is anyone with a law degree, an attorney
>is anyone with a license to practice law.  By his definition, which
>I have always liked, neither is a subset of the other.

It has always seemed apparent to me that "attorney" is what lawyers call
each other, as well as what a non-lawyer calls his lawyer when he wants to
make that lawyer sound more high-powered and highfalutin.


--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: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.entrepeneurs
Subject: Re: Informing others of a company's debt?
Keywords: debt legal
Date: 12 Dec 92 18:03:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Dec12.180304.5138
Organization: Western Washington University

schonert@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Juanita Schonert) writes:

>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?

	A friend told me about an identical situation recently.
Some bums owed her company lots of money, kept promising, then finaly
went banko and opened up under another name.  (He may have signed a
personal gar. so there could be some hope of squeezing him for something
but that's a different matter)  They stupidly put down her company as
a "reference".   Whenever she gets called to provide a credit "reference",
she just says what bums they are and that they are currenly on the lam
and owning.
	I don't expect them to get too much credit anywhere.  Ha ha ha.

			Jim Del Vecchio

(Names may have been changed to protect the guilty.  For example,
"my friend", may actualy mean "my auto mechanic", or "my grandfather's
pastor" so don't bother to investigate this, even if it sounds like libel.)
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: How to find info on issued patents?
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:58:28 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <Bz5zzF.KsC@vcd.hp.com>, egurney@vcd.hp.com (Ed J. Gurney) writes:
> What is the best way to get copies of patents that have already been
> issued?  Is there some electronic method available, or do you have to
> order copies directly from the Patent Office?  I have a list of potential
> patents I'd like to look at, but I don't want to pay for them if they
> wouldn't be useful -- is there a way to get the name and/or an abstract
> of a patent some way?

There are patent depository libraries located throughout the U.S..  If you 
call the patent office, they should be able to give you the location of the 
one nearest you.

After typing the above, I just noticed that you're posting from Vancouver, or 
at least from a Vancouver system.  Of course, the US Patent Office doesn't 
maintain any patent depositories outside US territory.  And now that I 
realize you're posting from Canada, I'm not sure that you're even interested 
in _US_ patents.

Nonetheless, I'll post, just because others might not know of the patent 
depository library resource.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:21272 soc.men:21033 soc.women:21390 soc.singles:33657
From: keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:32:34 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: California-Nevada Methodist Homes

In article <1992Dec9.161208.13030@wolves.Durham.NC.US> woody@wolves.Durham.NC.US (Woody Muller) writes:
>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.

I had to ask about the $4800 a year figure.  That works out to a
flat $400 a month.  Now, I have always thought it was rediculous
that a court grants a spouse an amount of "child support" that is
the same every month.  Some of the amounts I've seen are really
outrageous, being more than enough the raise the youngun on.  What 
I'd like to see is a system whereby the parties involved split the
costs of raising a child 50-50.  The person having custody would 
keep track of receipts, and once a month would meet with the other
parent, and ask for their half of the expenses.  This would be more
realistic and fairer to the person not having custody of the youngun.
It is an unfair thing to say, but most of the time the mother has
custody, and the father is ordered to pay support.  After paying 
the wife alimony and child support, the poor man usually has to sleep 
under bridges and eat out of garbage cans because he doesn't have
enough left to live on.  I think there needs to be more equity in
paying child support.
--Keith
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Assessing Governmental Interest
Summary: What doctrines assess the level of a governmental interest?
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:01:28 GMT
Expires: 30 Jan 93 23:00:00 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

Many constitutional tests turn on whether a state or federal government has 
the appropriate level of interest in regulating a particular subject.  
Examples include Equal Protection, Substantive Due Process, and state 
regulation of interstate commerce.  

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.

Other doctrine calls for legitimate governmental interests; important 
governmental interests; substantial governmental interests; and, as with 
Equal Protection, compelling governmental interests.

Now, my question:

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.

I should have asked this earlier, since the question didn't occur to me until 
midway through my Constitutional Law final exam last night :-), but I'm still 
interested.

Any input?

BTW, I'm posting an identical question on the Law Student mailing list; if 
anyone expresses any interest in the responses, I'll post any significant 
replies to this newsgroup.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Traffic Court question...
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:22:41 GMT
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu

rmhadley@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Bob Hadley) writes:

>	If anyone has had personal experience with the situation of 
>(unknowingly) driving on an expired license, and has some advice for how
>to handle the traffic court situation I would appreciate it.  I.E. is it
>worth having a lawyer, etc.  The license in question was about 2 months
>expired at the time of the incident, and the RMV did not have the
>correct address, so no reminder notice was issued.  Thanks in advance. 

I'm going to regret this...

Consider paying the fine and apologizing.

You didn't know that it was your birthday ?  If DLs don't expire on your
birthday in your state then pardon my assumption.

"No reminder notice was issued" try the twinkie defense, your mother fed
you junk food as a child.  You honestly think it is the RMV's job to
keep your address current and to issue periodic reminders ?

Please send me money <hey maybe this will work <heh>>.

tom
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re:  Good Legal Writing
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:38:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.002623.7194@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>Actually, the case was U.S. ex rel. Mayer v. Satan and His Staff.
>>>Actually, it's U.S. ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, 54 F.R.F. 282
>>>(W.D.Pa. 1971).
>>Actually, it's 54 FRD 282 (W D Pa 1971).
>>
>>Ted "note the punctuation savings achieved by the Maroonbook" Frank
>
>But note the vast decline in the grade I will receive in Basic Legal
>Skills if I use the Maroonbook when the instructor asked for Bluebook!

He or she obviously needs to be shown The One True Way. 

>Thus, it is Bluebook I shall be memorizing over Winter break rather
>than Maroonbook...

Advantage #373 of Maroonbook over Bluebook: no memorization necessary.
Any "Uniform System of Citation" that requires the efforts of a winter
break to learn is hardly "uniform."  At any rate, the Bluebook is only
encouraging the monopoly of West Publishing.

>--Tim Smith

Ted "Gerry Masoudi wannabe" Frank
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: Privacy Act?
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:41:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Devil's Advocate

In <1992Dec18.210914.546@news.wesleyan.edu> RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg) writes:

>I vaguely remember learning (in the mid70's) something about a Federal Privacy
>Act, which guaranteed a person access to files about himself or herself. 
>Unfortunately, my aging brain does not quite recall what I learned about it. 
>Does anyone know what I'm talking about?  Is it still in effect?

Yes.  


  Does it apply
>only to files maintained by governmental agencies, or does it apply to files
>maintained by private organizations as well?  

Only to government files.  It both prohibits unauthorized release of
information which the government has about you, as well as giving you
a right to get copies of your files.  (This complements the Freedom of
Information Act, which gives you the right to get access to most
government files which aren't "private").


>The reason I'm wondering at this particular moment is that I'm wondering if I
>have any right to access to the Insurance Co.s' big database which they all
>share. I think it may contain some inaccurate information about me and I would
>like to find out if it does.

The privacy act doesn't cover this.  But there may be other (federal
or state) laws which do.

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egurney@vcd.hp.com (Ed J. Gurney)
Subject: How to find info on issued patents?
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:06:51 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]
Followup-To: poster

What is the best way to get copies of patents that have already been
issued?  Is there some electronic method available, or do you have to
order copies directly from the Patent Office?  I have a list of potential
patents I'd like to look at, but I don't want to pay for them if they
wouldn't be useful -- is there a way to get the name and/or an abstract
of a patent some way?

Any info on this would be appreciated -- phone numbers, addresses, 
libraries, etc.

Thanks and regards,
Ed

--
Ed J. Gurney  N8FPW       Hewlett-Packard Company      Vancouver Division
egurney@vcd.hp.com                       #include <standard-disclaimer.h>
"Failures are divided into two classes-- those who thought and never did,
      and those who did and never thought."     John Charles Salak
Xref: sparky misc.legal:21358 misc.legal.computing:2383
Newsgroups: misc.legal

Colby Beck:
> Since
> Article  I sec. 8 gives Congress  the power to arm the  Militia, Congress
> could then enact strict gun-control legislation and only allow weapons
> which would be used only during Militia training.

Article I, section 8 gives Congress the power to arm the militia.
Amendment 2 recognizes the right of the people to arm themselves.
Nothing in the Constitution gives Congress the right to disarm the
people.

Therefore, Congress could mandate that every citizen be issued a firearm
and demonstrate a minimum level of ability with said firearm, but
Congress doesn't have the power to take away other firearms citizens may
already possess.

- Steve Kao
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re:  Good Legal Writing
Date: 19 Dec 92 06:36:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec19.063603.5214
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

>>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.
>
>Actually, the case was U.S. ex rel. Mayer v. Satan and His Staff.

Actually, it's U.S. ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, 54 F.R.F. 282
(W.D.Pa. 1971).

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal