HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: What happens to?
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 11:09:28 GMT

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>If by your question you meant "Is the power to launch nuclear missiles
>removed from a losing incumbent President due to the fear that he
>might decide to blow up the world in a fit of pique?" the answer, as
>far as I know, is no.

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

--Tim Smith
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Say it ain't so.
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:01:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov13.000109.4509
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

In article <92317.111706U16244@uicvm.uic.edu> U16244@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>>It is a sicko idea and another good example of what is wrong with the
>>cultural diversity that liberals are stuffing down our throats.  However,
>Only you can come up with the idea that cultural diversity is something sick.

He didn't say cultural diversity is sick.  He said that cultural diversity
being forced is sick.

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky misc.legal:19664 alt.drugs:18007 talk.politics.drugs:7376
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: jurisdiction argument
Date: 8 Nov 92 04:56:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Nov8.045602.5019
Organization: Western Washington University



>andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson) writes:
>>I'm unsure if this has been discussed on the net before (if it is, and anyone
>>Essentially, what it boils down to, is that for most Americans, it cannot
>>be proved that the Constitution has jurisdiction over them.  One can, thus,
>>challenge the judge/prosecutor to produce evidence to produce evidence that
>>the Constitution has jurisdiction over him, and -- supposedly, EVERY TIME
>>this defense has been applied, the court backed down and dropped all charges.

More like every time this was brought up the court vanished into
purple dust.  

Get real, if it was that easy, don't you think everyone would know 
it by now?
Xref: sparky misc.legal:19700 soc.culture.hongkong:14094
From: edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.hongkong
Subject: public access to usenet
Date: Mon,  9 Nov 92 09:58:26 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)


Can anyone point to a service in the San Jose, CA area which would allow me 
to send and receive mail over the internet, and access to misc.legal and
soc.culture.hongkong?  A email reply is appreciated.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:19827 talk.politics.misc:59750
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Self-Insured Health Insurance Plans Cancelling Someone
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:27:10 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

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

	If I was the worker, I'd certainly be suing for breach of (employment)
contract.

	That, or tell them I've unilateraly decided to change my terms of
employement--I'll work 1 hour per week and they pay me the same.

:)

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bryan@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Cable TV Rules
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:55:40 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <3NOV199209411619@utrcv1>, wjm@utrcv1 (Bill) writes:
> I have a question regarding cable TV rules.
[bulk of post deleted]

Yes, charging an extra fee for an extra set (esp., as you note, if you
only use one at a time) seems unfair.

Here's how the law stands (with standard disclaimer about how I'm not
a lawyer and advise you to consult an actual attorney before bringing
legal action):

The 'point of contact' between cable operators and the legal system is
almost exclusively at the local level, esp. since the Cable Policy Act
of 1984. However, there's a wild card at the moment: the Cable
Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992. Section 10(d)(1) says
that, "The [FCC], within 180 days after the date of enactment of this
subsection, shall, after notice and opportunity for comment, issue
rules that establish customer service standards that insure all
customers are fairly served." We're still within the 180-day period.

Now, this may seem like a golden opportunity to stick it to the
companies which have abused their customers with unfair policies. But
if the talk from alt.cable.re-regulate is correct, that's probably not
going to happen. The suggestion is that the FCC is most likely to
adopt standards already used by cable industry organizations. So
customer service may not really improve that much, particularly
regarding practices regarded as okay by the industry as a whole (and I
think the extra line charge falls into that category).

You have another option: as I mentioned at the outset, cable
franchises are primarily regulated at the local level, and their
franchise agreement with your local government comes up for renewal
from time to time. So you can try getting your local government to
force the franchisee to meet your demands, but your guess is as good
as mine about how effective that would be. Also note that the same
customer service section of the aforementioned bill (this time section
10(e)) allows your local operator to appeal any local regulation more
stringent than the federal standard. So even if you got it passed, the
FCC would have the power to shoot it down if it's "not in the public
interest." 

That may be more than you wanted, and if so I'm sorry to have bored
you. But I hope I gave you at least some picture of what you're up
against.

-Bryan
From: bryan@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Dead Candidates
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:29:50 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

Since we're on the subject of dead candidates...

What would happen if some fanatic blew up both Bill Clinton and Al
Gore? Would the College then have to pick a candidate out of thin air?

-Bryan
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: USA President's power to pardon
Summary: I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night.
Keywords: State law; Federal law
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:11:57 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Nov10.004206.20529@rchland.ibm.com>
jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:

>In article <1992Nov9.022427.13618@cs.ucla.edu>, 
>pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:

>|> According to Article II, Section 2, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of
>|> the United States of America, "the president ... shall have power to
>|> grant ... pardons".
>|> 
>|> What's the justification for this power? Should the USA Constitution 
>|> be amended to rescind this power?   [Brad Pierce]

>There is none.  I think the founding fathers thought the
>president was going to be more like a monarch.  [Jared Dahl]

Question:  Does the President's power extend to pardons for State
offenses, or can he pardon only offenses against Federal law?

The reason I ask is that I once read that after the State of Utah
had condemned union organizer Joe Hill to death for murder, President
Woodrow Wilson was among those who wrote to the Governor of Utah asking
him to pardon Mr. Hill, or commute his sentence, or something like
that.  (The Governor didn't, and Hill was shot by a firing squad.)  
Now, if the President of the United States has the power to pardon 
offenses against State law (such as murder), why did President Wilson 
have to *ask* the Governor of Utah to pardon Joe Hill?  Why couldn't
he do it himself?

If the President does *not* have the power to pardon offenses against
(say) State banking laws, then the New York County (Manhattan) prosecutor 
can go after assorted figures in the Banco Nazionale di Lavoro scandal
for violating New York State law, and the President will not be able
to pardon those figures before or after prosecution.  Similarly, the
President would not be able to pardon Operation Rescue protesters
convicted of violating State laws and injunctions in the course of
their protests.  (Not that President Bush would ever do such a thing;
his advice to the protesters was to "obey the law.")

So, which is it?

>It's what Bush is going to use to set Wienberger free.
>
>Convienient, isn't it?   [Jared Dahl]

Wait till the Jewish lobby, which poured a bundle into Bill Clinton's
recent campaign, convinces him to use his Presidential pardon power 
to free Mr. Weinberger's nemesis, Jonathan Pollard.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (All this)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Congressional Procedure
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:44:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Nov10.004428.18531
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <46g602Fg2aXk01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>I understand that, if at the end of a Congress (like this year-end), a
>bill has been introduced but not passed, that the next Congress cannot
>vote on it unless it is reintroduced and the whole thing starts over.
>However, I can't find any statute or rule that says this.  It's barely
>above "common knowledge" (I found a congressional publication that
>alluded to the fact, but which is insufficient for purposes of citation).
>
>I've checked US Code Title 2 (Congress) and the rules of both the House and
>Senate, and also the Constitution (though I doubt I would have missed
>such a thing for so long in the Constitution).  No luck.
>
>Can anyone point me to a citable reference to this effect?

You may wish to see if there's a reference in The Pocket Veto Case, 279 US
655 (1929).  (I haven't looked at it, but I know it exists.)
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lsg001@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Graham Wilson)
Subject: German case
Organization: Legal Department - Coventry University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:15:14 GMT



** I gather that  a case in Germany has caused some considerable debate
   with regard to morality and the law. I belive it involves a woman
   who although Brain dead is being kept alive on a life support machine
   until her few week old fetus can be born.

   Does anyone have any information on this case ?

   Thanks


   

-- 
         *********************************************************
         *      Graham Wilson      *  lsg001@cck.coventry.ac.uk  *
         *     LL.B.  Law  III     *     Coventry  University    *
         *********************************************************
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: why so much to imprison someone?
Keywords: XIIIth Amendment
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:49:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1dfarfINN8ej
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
NNTP-Posting-Host: skybridge.scl.cwru.edu

Others said

# The XIIIth Amendment explicitly permits slavery "as punishment
# for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."  A
# recent column in the _Washington Afro-American_ newspaper told of
# how the Federal prison system has set up an outfit (its name ends
# in "-COR") to sell the products of convict labor on the open market.


Err,
That's UNICOR. It has an interesting history. It was established after
Elenoir {boy, I sure can't spell today...} Roosevelt toured Lewisburg
FCI and wondered why the inmates had so little to occupy their time.

UNICOR actually competes very little on the open market, mainly cuz
there are too many complaints if they do. Its big job is manufacture of
99% of the furniture used in USG offices, followed by USG printing
work.

I think if the innmate chooses not to work at a UNICOR job, he or she
gets a facilty one, such as pushing a broom or pulling weeds. Since the
UNICOR jobs pay something like 10x the facilty ones, they are typically
sought-after. Note that no one gets rich at either; top buck is a few
dollars a day, but then hey, your housing *IS* furnished, as are your
meals ;-} And commuting is a piece of cake - no more gas tanker fires
on the Beltway to worry about.....


--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: The *real* face of Jury Nullification
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 07:44:33 GMT

Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>> If the law is truly morally untenable, the jury will nullify *without*
>> being told that they can.  [Tim Smith]
>
>I don't understand what you're saying here.  Are you proposing we
>somehow legislate that it is ok for juries to nullify some laws, but
>not others?  Are you arguing for nullification or against it?  Or are
>you trying to find some middle ground?

Yes, a middle ground, which is what we have now.  Juries can nullify with
impunity, *BUT* they aren't told that they can do this.

This provides the balance that prevents the jury from abusing nullification.
To be nullified, the law has to cause a jury (actually, part of a jury)
to say to itself "To heck with our oath -- convicting this person would
be wrong, and we won't do it!"

Our laws are made by legislatures that we elect, and there are at least
three ways for bad laws to be removed: the legislature can repeal them,
the courts can rule them unconstitutional or interpret away the bad
parts, and the police can refuse to enforce them.  Nullification should
only be used where this process fails.  What is the test for failure?
I claim that the test should be that the law is so unreasonable that
a jury will violate an oath rather than enforce it, and this only works
if the jury is not told that it can nullify -- it has to figure it out
for itself.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mwhhlaw!tim (Timothy E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: Supreme Ct. Insurance non-ruling
Reply-To: uunet!mwhhlaw!tim
Organization: Martin Wade Hartley & Hollingsworth
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:42:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.140917.14721@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert  
D. Silverman) writes:
> In article <1992Nov10.214019.29062@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  
ddaye@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David C Daye) writes:
> >Yesterday the Supreme Ct. refused to hear a case in which an employer had
> >changed health insurance plans after an employee had begun submitting
> >claims for treatment of AIDS.  The effect on the employee, as I under-
> >stand it, was to reduce his coverage from $1,000,000 to $5,000 for his
> >disease (lifetime max).
> >
> >My wife, a former insurance claims adjuster, contends that since the former
> >insurance co. had been paid for coverage, and since a claim had been filed
> >under that policy, the former co. should have been liable for treating
> >the disease. 
> >
> >She's convinced that the courts have effectively allowed insurance co.s
> >to renig on services they've promised and contracted to provide,
> >any time they deem it costly to do so.  If so, this has implications
> >far beyond the AIDS population.
> >

I know it is bad form in misc.legal to let facts get in the way of opinions,
but, there was no insurance company involved.  The plan was "self funded."

Seems to me there are two choices here.  One; employer is forced to pay
millions of dollars of cost.  The case involved a relatively small
employer.  The employer would probably go out of business and a 100 or
so people would lose their jobs.  Second choice.  One employee slides into
poverty because of medical cost.  Eventually qualifies for Social Security
disability and other programs.  You and I as taxpayers pick up the cost of
medical treatment.

I am not heartless about this area.  I have counselled HIV positive clients
(pro bono).  The best I have come up with from a legal stand point is to 
get them into "proverty" status as quickly as possible. (I would appreciate
other suggestions) However, it doesnot seem to me to be in the best interest of  
all of us to force a small employer to to the full financial hit first.

By the way, the tenor of the posts imply that if an insurance company pays
the treatment is "free."  Reminds me of an actual event at a public meeting on
the savings and loan problem.  A man stood up and said that the taxpayers
should not have to bear the cost of the bailout.  He was asked who should
pay the cost and replied "the government should."

--
Tim Hollingsworth
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re:    The Socratic Method
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:05:30 GMT


In article <1992Nov13.001153.5676@u.washington.edu>, 
tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) said:

> Just last week here at the University of Washington, the classroom
> that is used for moot court... was taken over by three judges from
> the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, who spent half a day hearing
> appeals in front of interested law students.  One of the judges was
> ill and did not show up, so only two were actually present.
>
> The method they used to interact with the attorneys was remarkably
> like the Socratic method.  Whether the Socratic method is a good
> teaching tool or not may be open to question, but it does seem to be
> something that attorneys need to learn to deal with.

Hmmm.  I don't really know the Socratic Method first-hand, since the
Northeastern University School of Law doesn't use it (NUSL prides
itself on, among other things, not running its classes, not even the
1L's, like boot camps), but my understanding is that the idea behind
it is that the teacher, who already knows what the right answers are
(or at least knows what he thinks they are), uses iterative
questioning to help the student use the information and brainpower he
has to figure out the answers for himself.

On the other hand, what little I've seen of courtroom procedure looked
more like cases of the judge, who _didn't_ necessarily know what point
the attorney was trying to make, using iterative questioning to force
the attorney (who, presumably, _did_ know what he thought the "right
answer" was) to make it sufficiently clear and succinct for the judge
to know what's going on and make a ruling on it.

(I suppose that judges from time to time engage in a little SM (a
little alt.sex.bondage pun there, folks, heh heh heh) for the purpose
of leading a slightly bewildered attorney to recognize the bogosity of
his (the attorney's) initial position or argument, but I don't think
that that's the norm.  Take all of this with the caveat that I'm still
just a law student, with very limited exposure to the real world of
courtroom life.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: ddsokol@unix.amherst.edu (D. DANIEL SOKOL)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: truth and condifenciality
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:28:51 GMT
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

What is regarded as a higher value in the legal system today:
	Truth or Confidentiality?  Which one holds the moral high ground and
which one do most contemporary legal theorists believe in?

Danny Sokol-Amherst College
DDSOKOL@Amherst.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.int-property
From: dichter@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Carl Dichter)
Subject: Re: Trademark vs. Service Mark
Organization: SPS
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:26:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.052102.2624@panix.com>, oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:
|> In <92309.123850MBADBH@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> David B. Horvath, CDP <MBADBH@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:
|> 
|> >What is the difference between a Trademark {tm} and Servicemark {sm}?
|> >Are they both offered by the PTO?  Can something be registered as a {tm} *and*
|> >a {sm}?
|> 
|> A trademark covers goods.  A service mark covers services.  You can 
|> apply to register either with the US Patent and Trademark Office.
|> Yes, it sometimes happens that a registered mark relates to both goods 
|> and services, and is thus both a TM and a SM.

Thanks for clearing that up (other) Carl.

As a sorry example: McDonalds registered the phrase "You'll love
the change" as a Service Mark.

----------------------
Carl R. Dichter               "iwannanugui"
Motorola ASIC Division
email: dichter@chdasic.sps.mot.com
/*
** "People who never make mistakes work for people who dare to."
*/
From: bkt@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Barrie Trinkle)
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Organization: Image Analysis Systems Group, JPL
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 02:18:13 GMT

pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

>In article <1992Nov13.080701.15087@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>Uh, excuse me, but isn't Anita Hill a right-wing Republican?  Why on
>>earth would Bill Clinton appoint her to anything?
>>
>>--Tim Smith


>Good point. This whole 'Anita Hill to the EEOC/Supreme Court etc.' thing
>is just another one of those fantastic nightmare scenarios that the
>Republicans are beating themselves over the head with since the election.

At the time of the Thomas confirmation hearings, Anita Hill was described
in the press as a Reagan Republican.  However, she apparently had a change
of heart at some point, because a few months ago (on "60 Minutes") she 
was asked her political affiliation and she said she was a Democrat.

That said, I agree that it's basically a ridiculous scenario.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
..nothing is so fatal to maidenly delicacy of speech as the run of 
a good library.
				Robertson Davies, _Tempest Tost_
From: judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Incorporation of the bill of rights
Date: 8 Nov 92 00:28:34 GMT

I would like to know if anyone has any comments regarding the incorporation
of the bill of rights to the states.
Who thinks that the justices who incorporated certain rights in the bill
of rights did so based on personal opinion rather than constitutionally?
Or, who thinks that the first incorporation case (Slaughter house case)
was not decided properly by the justices, in regards to incorporation?


--


judson@watserv.ucr.edu