HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:50:04 GMT

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>Even those who
>never have heard the words "jury nullification" may turn out to be jurors
>who nullify.

Mike is absolutely right, and his point should also give pause to those
who refer to the "jury's right to nullify."  A jury has the right to
acquit, and a defendant has the right to be free of a second prosecution
for the same offense in the same jurisdiction.  These rules yield the
result that a jury may knowingly acquit someone that their oaths oblige
them to convict, with permanent effect.

The "right" to nullify is a side effect.  Whether it is a feature or a bug
is uncertain.  But, the characterization of a juror as a "nullification
believer" is, respectfully, to gild the truth:  A juror who nullifies
is, by definition, a juror who breaks her oath; a liar.  One who would
do so knowingly ("I take this oath, but I don't mean it") has less place
on a jury than Mike's jurors above ("I meant that oath, but now I just
can't keep it").  The former (nullification believer) is a dangerously
arrogant phony.  The latter (true nullifier) is an honest humanist.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: legality of a name change
Organization: Clark University
Date: 10 SEP 92 19:08:47 GMT

Some friends of mine, and I were wondering if it woukld be legal for someone 
to change their first name to "Doctor", or if that constitutes some sort of 
fraud.

Anyone know?

					Loren Finkelstein
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:57:42 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Sep14.022342.3272@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) 
writes:
> In article <c1zC02YN21Wm01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com 
> (Terry Carroll) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep12.153952.19740@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike 
Godwin) 
> >writes:
> >> I don't know what you mean by "a believer in jury nullification." Jury
> >> nullification is a fact, not a belief. 
> >
> >Well, so is capital punishment, but when people say "I don't believe in 
> >capital punishment", their statement still conveys a meaning.
> 
> But the statement "I don't believe in capital punishment" means a 
> conscious choice about a criminal-justice policy. Jury nullification,
> in contrast, is simply an *effect* caused by the prohibition against
> retrying acquitted defendants. 

My assumption is that a reference to a "belief in jury nullification" is to 
be interpreted as meaning "a belief that jury nullification is a Good Thing".  
That's how I interpreted the original comment, and it parsed well that way.  

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: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hornbooks
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:01:41 GMT

In article <65570@cup.portal.com> edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok) writes:
>Don't forget "Criminal Law" by Lafave and Israel and "American Constitutional
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Law" by Lawrence Tribe.

The Criminal Law hornbook you're thinking of is by LaFave and Scott;
LaFave and Israel wrote the hornbook on Criminal Procedure.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17190 alt.politics.correct:5331
From: gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Racism in America (Re: Ed babbles again)
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:53:57 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corp., Belmont CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <2925495942.0.p00098@mail.psi.net> p00098@mail.psi.net (Jones M Murphy Jr) writes:
>And CNN didn't disavow Pat Buchanan when he said, "When I was a boy 
>there were no racial problems. The races were segregated".

Who is CNN to disavow anybody? Their job is reporting the news, not
political activism. You could argue that the Republican party should
disavow Buchanan, just as you could argue that the Democratic party
should disavow Jesse Jackson; CNN's job is to cover anything that's
newsworthy, and I maintain that anyone who captures over 10% of the
primary votes of a major political party is newsworthy, agree with
them or no.


>[...]
>George "Willie Horton" Bush. 

Hmm. It was recently observed (I forget by whom) that when
conservatives see Willie Horton they see a criminal, but when liberals
see Willie Horton they see a black. Which is the racist attitude? The
one that judges the man by his criminal record, or the one that judges
him by his color?

                                    Cordially,

                                          -g
From: rdj@adpgate.UUCP (Richard Johnson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Entrapment? (Was Landlords Must Evict...)
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:09:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: curly.1558
Distribution: na
Organization: ADP Dealer Services R&D, Portland, OR

Let's see:

If I DON'T rent the apartment, it's a city violation and possibly a civil-
rights violation.

If I DO rent the apartment, then the city takes it.

Is this some form of entrapment?
-- 
Richard Johnson   (rdj%adpgate.uucp@apple.com)   (richard@agora.rain.com)
When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced.  Strive so that when 
you leave this world, you rejoice and the world cries.  --- Indian proverb
Newsgroups: misc.legal,fl.general,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.german,soc.culture.polish,alt.activism
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: U.S. Justice Department Moves to Revoke Citizenship of Accused Nazi Guard
Organization: Echo Beach
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:06:22 GMT

Here is  a press release from the U.S. Justice Department.
 Justice Department Moves to Revoke Citizenship of Accused Nazi Guard
 To: National Desk
 Contact: U.S. Department of Justice, Public Affairs, 202-514-2007

   WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Department of
Justice announced today it has filed a complaint to revoke the
citizenship of Anton Bless, a recent resident of Lecanto, Fla., who
is accused of concealing his service in the SS as a Nazi
concentration camp guard during World War II.
   The department said it had been informed by Bless' attorney that
Bless fled the United States after being told the complaint was to
be filed and does not plan to return to this country.
   The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia by the criminal Division's Office of Special
Investigations (OSI) and the U.S. Attorney's Office.  The
department alleges that Bless, 67, a retired machinist, joined the
Waffen-SS (Armed-SS) in 1942 and served in the SS-Totenkopf
Sturmbann (SS Death's Head Battalion) in the infamous Auschwitz
camp system in Nazi-occupied Poland at two of the Auschwitz
subcamps, including the Buna/Monowitz subcamp.
   The complaint said Bless' service at the Auschwitz camp system
as a guard in the Waffen-SS -- an organization adjudged as criminal
in 1946 by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg,
Germany -- constituted assistance in the Nazi program of
persecution based on race, religion, political opinion and national
origin.
   Following the end of World War II, the complaint said, Bless
concealed his service as an SS guard at the Auschwitz camp system
from U.S. government officials at the following times:
   1. In 1956, when he successfully entered the United States from
Salzburg, Austria, under the Refugee Relief Act of 1953; and
   2. In 1964, when he successfully applied for naturalized U.S.
citizenship.
   Neal M. Sher, director of OSI, said concentration and death camp
guards were "an integral part of the Nazi apparatus of mass
persecution."
   Sher said the initiation of proceedings to denaturalize Bless
was a product of OSI's ongoing efforts to identify and take legal
action against former participants in Nazi persecution who reside
in the United States.  To date, 42 Nazi persecutors have been
stripped of U.S. citizenship as a result of OSI's investigations
and prosecutions, and 30 persons have been removed from the United
States.
 -30-

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:18:36 GMT

In article <BuMwuy.A7L@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com
(Stevens R Miller) writes:

>Now, to be clear, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure *do* require
>an oath; they just don't specify it's contents.  This, apparently, has
>been left to local districts to define.  Probably, an oath must at
>least satisfy the Sixth Amendment "impartial jury" requirement.  All
>oaths I found (I saw several state oaths) required a commitment to 
>truth.  So I argue that if, as all judges do, a juror is asked if she can 
                                                                       ^^^
>follow the law as the judge gives it to her, answers "yes," and then who
>nullifies, then that juror has violated her oath.

I *can* follow the law as the judge gives it, I just choose not to.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Fort Wayne: Landlords Must Evict Drug-Dealing Tenants
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:54:21 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>I've heard that New York has come up with a program to solve this problem.
>They seize the abandonded buildings for back taxes.  Fix them up, at city
>expense, and then give them to various city approved charities to operate.
>BTW, these charities also don't have to pay taxes.  (Guess who's taxes
>get to go up to cover the shortfall.)

New York says no one's do.  The city encourages charity operation
over city run social services because the charities usually run
more efficiently than the city does.  If the city took over these
services itself, it would have to raise taxes to provide the same
level of service.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
From: mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:29:33 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <19156@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <BuCMqu.Aur@lerami.lerctr.org> merlin@lerami.lerctr.org 
>(David Hayes) writes:
>>He got a very unpleasant visit from NSA a few days later.  [David Hayes]
>
>If there really is a law against sending encrypted messages out of the 
>country, it shouldn't be surprising that the NSA would be the ones to
>enforce that law.  Maybe they thought this guy was some sort of spy
>trying to transmit American defense secrets to his spymaster behind 
>the Iron Curtain in Moscow or Peiping.  If they don't check him out,
>they're not doing their job.

I'm suprised nobody has asked this question earlier, but just exactly
how did the NSA know this company was sending encrypted messages out
of the country? Actually, I already know the answer, having read the
_Puzzle Palace_, but it still strikes me as odd that nobody mentioned
this earlier. Maybe we have all come to expect this kind of behaviour
from our government. Sigh!

-- 
Michael Wang
mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Ed babbles again
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:10:51 GMT

In article <2925495942.0.p00098@mail.psi.net> "Jones M Murphy Jr"
<p00098@mail.psi.net> writes:
>FROM:   Citecheck Hell <thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu>

> He [Ed Koch] has referred to other black opponents as 
>"schwartzers", a Yiddish/German equivalent of "nigger".

Except that it isn't.  It means "black", and is less pejorative than
"nigger".

>>It took Jackson eight years to get around to apologizing, and he
>>still hasn't disavowed people like Farrakhan.
>>
>And CNN didn't disavow Pat Buchanan when he said, "When I was a boy 
>there were no racial problems. The races were segregated".

CNN is a news network.  If you were to accuse a politician of not
disavowing Buchanan for that remark, your accusation would have some
meaning.

>I didn't care for Jesse's Hymietown remark. I thought it was shallow and 
>racist. However, it's par for the course in the country that elected 
>George "Willie Horton" Bush.

Funny how some people care that Willie Horton was a convicted
criminal, and others care about his race.  (I though the first ads
about him didn't even show his picture or mention his race; who
brought that up initially?)

> You are a hypocrite to single that out and 
>not to put it in it's sleazy context.

So you consider attacking a criminal (who happens to be black) for
being a criminal is similar to attacking all members of a religion for
being members of that religion?  Not only that, you feel it is
necessary to mention the attack on the criminal whenever the attack on
the religion is mentioned?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Seizures, stops and searches (was: Political Parties in the U.S.)
Keywords: Sniffer dogs; Heroin; Cocaine
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:05:21 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <3635@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:

>	The Maryland cops use profiles and stop-and-search as harrassment
>tools against "the wrong kind of people", making reactionary fear mongers
>whose idea of truth,justice, and freedom is "freedom to impose MY truth
>on *you* in the name of justice" very happy, but making the rest of us
>worry for the future of America.   [Wharf Rat]

The Court of Appeals, which is Maryland's highest court, ruled only
a few weeks ago that it unconstitutional for the Maryland police to
do this.  It may take a while for this to filter down to the various
Maryland State Police barracks, but once they start having cases 
thrown out of court, they will get the message.  That, after all,
is the whole purpose of the "exclusionary rule" -- a rule which
I support.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: legality of a name changea
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 22:26:16 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <65691@cup.portal.com> <BuFqzL.ILG@world.std.com>

>My advice would be to find another lawyer, since I would be disqualified from
>representing John by the Columbia Professional Code of Ethics, Rule 1.9(a)
>(based on the ABA Model Rules, Rule 1.9(a)):  "A lawyer who has formerly
>represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person
>in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests
>are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former
>client consents after consultation."  (Unless you think Doctor Smith would
>give me permission to represent John in his lawsuit against her?)
>
>
Well done, Larry.  You spotted the conflict of interest.  However, you are
a little short on the analysis.  How are the matters the same or substantially
related
From: mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Drug dogs used in public schools
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:21:31 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <XTN2qB1w164w@csiatl.Gwinnett.COM> olga@csiatl.Gwinnett.COM (olga from the volga) writes:
>I don't get this one.  My landlord is not allowed just to walk in my 
>apartment and rummage through my personal belongings and search everything 
>I own.  This was established by the Supreme Court.

Minors have less rights than adults. Minors in schools have even fewer
rights. For example, high school newspapers have more restrictive
first admendment rights than regular newspapers (or college ones for
that matter). This is just another example of this.

-- 
Michael Wang
mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of
Date: 15 Sep 92 22:40:20 GMT
 <1992Sep15.031609.10447@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
 <1992Sep14.210523.1@acad3.alaska.edu> 
 <1992Sep15.153014.18137@linus.mitre.org>  <BuMwuy.A7L@world.std.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <BuMwuy.A7L@world.std.com>
srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:

> So I argue that if, as all judges do, a juror is asked if she can 
> follow the law as the judge gives it to her, answers "yes," and then who
> nullifies, then that juror has violated her oath.

Thank you for trying to find the answer to my question.  Can you flesh
out what you mean here?  Can you give me some sample wording for the
question that "all judges" ask of a juror?  My motivation for asking
this is that my ability to take such an oath would rely heavily on it's
wording.

And of course, once we have a sample oath, I'm still interested in
exactly how nullifying violates that oath.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fort Wayne: Landlords Must Evict Drug-Dealing Tenants
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:34:19 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Sep7.163003.12618@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> markr@mot.com (Mark) writes:

>Why do you think someone will buy the property from the city if
>the original owner didn't find it profitable to continue owning
>it ?

If the price that they pay for it is low enough, they will be able to
rent it at city approved rates and still cover the mortgage.

This doesn't prevent the new owner from being screwed by the city some
time in the future.  But some people are dumb enough to take the gamble.

>Over 100,000 apartments in New York City have been abandoned this
>way.

I've heard that New York has come up with a program to solve this problem.
They seize the abandonded buildings for back taxes.  Fix them up, at city
expense, and then give them to various city approved charities to operate.
BTW, these charities also don't have to pay taxes.  (Guess who's taxes
get to go up to cover the shortfall.)

A leader of one of these charities was recently quoted as saying
"If New York's landlors are in trouble, it's their own fault.  Rent
regulations have little or nothing to do with it.  There are a lot of
owners who don't know what they are doing.  They can't even add or
subtract."

I imagine these private landlords would be in a lot less trouble if they
also did not have to worry about meeting a mortgage or paying taxes.


>Mark
-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Skinhead speech protected, Supreme Court says (was: Re: Fuck You
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:33:34 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep12.021547.1223@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> But according to the arguments of Ted "Tedster" Frank, Charles "Goofus"
> Perez, Henry "Jackanapes" Schaffer, and Chris "Knucklehead" Morton, Adolf
> is a noble citizen exercising his right of free speech, is he not?

Noble?  No, just a citizen.  About as "noble" as Ed Nilges' use
of free speech.  I don't like it, but that's not a good enough reason
to bring in liberal government to shut him up.

> Criticising poor Adolf creates a "chilling effect" on his freedom

There is a big difference between "criticising" and locking some up
in jail, or fining them $500/word.

> of speech and as such should not be done.  Booting him off the net would
> violate, would it not, Adolf's First Amendment rights.

If the GOVERNMENT did it, or the GOVERNMENT operated USENET, it would
certainly be a violation.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
There can be no peace as long as AB 2601 lives.
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: How do Copyrights effect satires/parodies?
Date: 10 Sep 92 06:49:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Sep6.090117.26532@news.columbia.edu>, ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
> A few days ago I read a news item that some music group had been told by
> a judge to pay royalties to another group whose song or music it had
> "parodied".  If I remember right the judge said that this music group had
> gained financial benefit (income, sales, whatever) from the reproduction
> of the original work so it should have to pay for it.
> 
Makes sense to me.  Wierd Al Yankovitch pays royalties to Michael
Jackson for his song parady, _Beat It_.  === Al "I'm wierd too" Sparks
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship