HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Once more into the breach, dear friends (was: Re Ed babbles again
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: Life, liberty, property
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:29:16 GMT

In article <19165@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.063733.25098@Princeton.EDU> 
>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>>. . . Lesseee, the sysop has Sacred Property Rights and bozo...NOT.
>>Sacred Property Rights to "her" computer (actually the property of a
>>large corporation), devil a doubt where the Green Ants Dream.  Sacred
>>Property Rights not mentioned in the Constitution, . . . [Ed Nilges]
>
>     ". . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, 
>      liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
>                   -- U. S. Const., Amendment XIV, Section 1.
>
>
>					-- Matt Rosenblatt
>                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

Read it again, Matt.  It conditions property on the due process of law,
and so makes it indeed possible for a legislature to subordinate
property rights to other considerations.  Contrast the language of the
First Amendment, which performs the reverse subordination in its
language of "Congress [and by extension any other US lawmaker group]
shall make no law...".  

Amendment XIV makes it possible for a Socialist legislature to
nationalize the auto industry for if a [constitutionally valid] law is
passed depriving the "legal person" Ford Motor Company of its property,
then that's "due process."  Amendment I PROHIBITS the "due process" from
getting started in its very wording.

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:49:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.005040.25967@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
>Colonial juries did practice jury nullification,  a fact well know by the
>writers and adopters of the U.S. Constitution.

On the other hand, colonial juries were often associates of all of the
parties involved.  We live in more complicated times now.
-- 
           .........................................................
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
         here i sit looking for a warming smile in a house of cold wit
From: jaffray@oreo.berkeley.edu (Alan Jaffray)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Handling SSN parasite
Date: 11 Sep 1992 18:54:17 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Reply-To: jaffray@zippy.sonoma.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: oreo.berkeley.edu

(my apologies if there is a more appropriate place for this, but misc.legal
was the only non-privacy group that the SSN FAQ was posted to...)

I'm moving to Chicago, and while establishing phone service with
Illinois Bell, they decided to check my credit.  This seems reasonable,
to make sure I'm not going to make $3000 of calls then run away, or 
something like that.

However, they use my Social Security Number to check my credit with, and
apparently someone else is listed with that credit bureau, using my SSN.
He's in San Francisco, and quite possibly an immigrant (judging by the
sound of his name).  

My question is, how much of a problem can this be for me?  The droid at
the SSA told me that it's not a problem until he does something nasty using
my number as ID, which seems ridiculous.  (oh, that bomb under your bed
isn't a problem, it hasn't exploded, has it?) :-)

It looks like my alternatives are to either change my SSN (causing me 
hassle with the IRS in the future over having previous records in a 
different SSN), or go through the hassle of proving to every other
bureaucrat that this SSN is really mine (either show them my card,
or get them to call SSA).  But direct action (somehow *making* this guy
stop using it) comes to mind... not sure if it's practical...

Anyway, comments from someone who actually *knows* something about
the system would be appreciated.  Thanks.

-- Alan

P.S. I have no credit history, so losing former credit records is not 
     a problem...
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:25:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.173909.27856@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.005114.10338@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>|> It's not that simple. Assuming that one of the jurors knows someone who
>|> was a violent crime victim--don't forget that the jury is screened for
>|> prejudice during voir dire--he or she will have been explicitly instructed
>|> not to let his or her own knowledge shape the verdict, and to rely only on
>|> the facts and law as presented in the trial. The jurors swear an oath to
>|> abide by this restriction.
>|> 
>|> Note that this is a separate issue from that of jury nullification.
>|> 
>Jury nullification says the jury determines the facts and judges the law.  The
>question of whether "to rely only on the facts and law as presented in the trial"
>is the issue of jury nullification.
>
>Or so I thought.  You're the lawyer Mike.  What did I miss?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Could you be more specific
as to what about my posting confuses you, or as to how your question
relates to my posting?

As for the meaning of "jury nullification," see Sec. 21.1(g) of LaFave
and Israel's CRIMINAL PROCEDURE:

"(g) Jury Nullification. Except in a few states where a constitutional
provision provdes that in criminal cases the jury shall be entitled to
determine both the law and the facts, the function of the jury is commonly
said to be that of ascertaining the facts and then applying the law, as
stated by the judge, to those facts. Indeed, it is not at all unusual for
a jury in a criminal case to be instructed that it has the 'duty' to
proceed in such a fashion. But it is nonetheless true that a jury in a
criminal case has the power to acquit even when its findings as to the
facts, if literally applied to the law as stated by the judge, would have
resulted in a conviction. This is because a jury verdict of not guilty is
not subject to reversal or to review in any manner whatsoever. On
occasion, juries exercise this power by acquitting defendants who are
charged with violating an unpopular law and defendants otherwise viewed
sympathetically.
     "This practice, usually referred to as jury nullification, would seem
to be a part of the right to jury trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
At least, the language which the Supreme Court has used to describe that
right appears to encompass the nullification process...."



--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 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: jcr@mbunix.mitre.org (Rogers)
Subject: Being a Lawyer: what's it like?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:02:14 GMT

I'm considering new career paths and am curious about law. But it seems
difficult to find info on what it's like to actually work as a lawyer
(I'm skeptical of TV & movies). I've read Turow's "One L" and am currently
partway through "Broken Contract". But those only tell me about law
school (Harvard in particular), not practice. Law school sounds fas-
cinating, but so was my previous schooling -- I need to know whether
I'll like what comes AFTER the education. Also, how easy is it to
practice the kind of law you like, and how lucrative are the various
fields? (Yes, that is ONE consideration.)

I'd appreciate whatever you can tell me, firsthand or book references.

Books I currently have: "Lawyers on Trial" and "Courtroom Crusaders."

Respond by E-mail or post.

Thanks,
       -- Jeff R.
          jcr@mbunix.mitre.org

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Subject: Re: Juridiscations, patents and such
Originator: tt@tarzan.math.jyu.fi
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:57:23 GMT

In article <65728@cup.portal.com> edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok) writes:


>>Craig Cryptographer, an U.S. citizen living in USA, logs in to a
>>machine in Finland, and writes, edits, tests, runs and finishes a
>>package of cryptographic software while logged on to the machine.  The
>>machine's mass storage is in Finland, while Craig uses a virtual
>>terminal connection (rlogin) to log into the machine in Finland.  The
>>cryptographic software never enters USA, exists in USA or is run in
>>USA

>By creating a functional copy of the cryptographic software, Craig
>Cartographer exported software to finland, and thereby possibly violated
>export laws.

Hmm.  How does the hypothetical scenario legally differ from
Craig's coming over to Finland to write the software?
Just leaving USA with the ability to write export-controlled
software cannot be illegal ... or as USA considers its jurisdiction
to cover other countries, maybe it's illegal by US laws to create
such software anywhere, and any country that allows it is
liable to a visit by the marines?
--
Tapani Tarvainen    (tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Tort Reform (was: Number of Lawyers)
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 14:03:54 GMT


In article <8968@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, 
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) said:

> > Of course you can say society should require people to tolerate
> > certain behavior, but is that fair?

> We already do that in a fair number of cases.  The guy several cubes
> down from me has just horrendous breath.  (He has been known to kill
> several small plants. ;^)) Should I be allowed to sue him for pain
> and sufferring?

To give a serious answer to a silly question, yes.  Everybody should
be allowed to sue anybody for anything.  Of course, everybody should
also be "allowed" to have their case dismissed as frivolous and to be
subjected to sanctions, including civil fines, for bringing frivolous
suits, but no one should be prevented by law from suing in the first
place.

Just my opinion, of course.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Keywords: Ash nazg Cthulhu w'gahnagl fh'tagn burzum-ishi krimpatul.
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:45:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.160500.20039@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>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.
>
>It would "surprise" the hell out of me, Matthew; the NSA is not a
>law-enforcement agency any more than, say, the Census Bureau is.

How about the FDA?  At least I wouldn't have thought the FDA is a
law-enforcement agency, but the report

"TERRORIST ACTIVITY BY THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA)
  On May 6, 1992, FDA agents, backed up by local Kent, Washington
police, raided the clinic of Jonathan Wright, MD, one of the world's
most respected authorities on nutritional medicine.  THey broke down
the door, entered with guns drawn, tore telephone lines out of the
wall and proceede for the next twelve hours to remove boxes full of
materials (including computers and charts) from the clinic.  The
search warrant the FDA has was for certain "misbranded" drugs,
including high quality preservative-free injectable vitamin B-complex"

did surprise me.  Has the FDA had such powers from the start, does it
have them now, when it got them?  Who gives such powers, and is there
a fundamental difference in FDA vs. Census Bureau or NSA, ie. is there
anything stopping the NSA or Census Bureau starting commando attacks
against someone doing something they don't like?

//Jyrki
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: legality of a name change
Date: 12 Sep 92 16:30:25 GMT
    <1992Sep11.032537.5760@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky

cfaks@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Alice Sanders) writes:
>lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>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.
>
>I knew someone once who was actually named "Doctor".  I don't think it
>would be any kind of fraud.  People are named things like "Princess".  I
>knew OF a guy once named "Mister".  Maybe if you change your name so that
>"M.D." or "Ph.D." appears at the end, then that might be fraud.


Such a case (changing my name to "Wes Morgan Ph.D.", for example) would
only be fraud if:
	- I used the 'new name' to mislead, and
	- I did not actually hold a Ph.D.

A candidate for Kentucky State Treasurer discovered that he could not
include his CPA certification on the ballot.  Since he believed that
his certification would make a difference in the election, he changed
his legal name to "David Mead CPA"; it appeared as such on the ballot.

I believe that there is some limit to the number of times you can change
your name (or some minimum time period before it can be changed again), so
my state tax refund check is signed "David Mead CPA".  It's kind of funny.....

--Wes

-- 
MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
morgan@ms.uky.edu   | Engineering  Computing |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net 
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:33:41 GMT

ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
#
#If something is written against Prophet Muhammad, it is literature;

So why put a $4,000,000 prize on the writer's head? But, seriosuly,
you don't seem to be able to distinguish between protecting
one's freedom to write and supporting what he writes.

#agsinst Blacks, it is free speech;

Document your claim that writing against Blacks is tolerated
more than writing against Jews.

#against Christianity, it is an opinion

Ditto.

#but anything written against one Jewish person is anti-Semitism!!

Well that would make all Jews antisemites, won't it?

-Danny Keren.



Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Original Intent
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:20:54 GMT

In article <12155@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.132451.3016@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>> Can you provide some evidence that original intent is of much relevance?
>
>The alternative is the "what do we want it to mean today" approach
>to which liberals are so prone.

I don't think this is *the* alternative at all. It is certain that the
Framers did not anticipate Usenet, and the First Amendment mentions only
freedom of speech and of the press, not telecommunications. We can't say
that protection of this discussion here, Clayton, was part of the
"original intent" of the First Amendment. But at the same time,
interpreting the First Amendment to protect this discussion (as I do) does
not reflect a "what do we want it to mean today" approach. It's an
extrapolation from what we can reasonably, and with justification, say is
the interest protected by the First Amendment: freedom of discourse.

>Either the Bill of Rights reflects
>some transcendent values, or we might as we just scrap it, and
>trust the majority to make the right decisions.

Can't you see that eliciting those "transcendent values" is doing
something far more than determining "original intent"? 



--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
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Seizures, stops and searches (was: Political Parties in the U.S.)
Keywords: Sniffer dogs; Heroin; Cocaine
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:38:22 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <19148@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>stereotype.  But good law-enforcement professionals don't need
>such an unfair (and now, unconstitutional) procedure.  [...]
>In other words, the Police usually know what they're doing, 
>and they won't waste *their own* time detaining a motorist 

	I'm afraid that's not true.  One of the worst sections of any Grateful
Dead tour is the trek between Virginia and New Jersey on I95.  See, those
guys stop and search _anyone_ who "looks like they have drugs", with
"looks like they have drugs" defined as "car with Grateful Dead stickers on
it/passengers with long hair/suspicious actions (such as looking away when
passing a patrol car you didn't even see in the first place)".

	And, yes, I know _you_ think that all long haired people with stickers
on their cars *are* dope fiends, but not only is that not true, but not
everyone driving I95 on that particular day is a Deadhead:  I know at least
one couple of Born Again Jesus Freaks who have long hair, and one college
student who bought a used car with those evil stickers already in place.

	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.

					"Better head back to Tennessee"
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Trademarks in phone numbers
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 02:08:56 GMT

ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) writes:

>1-800-IBM-DISK and has since changed the lettering.  Is there
>legal precedent for a phone number to be considered a trademark?

Well, there is good precedent for not granting a copyright in the
phone numbers listed in a phonebook, since they lack the requisite
originality.  However, I think you're asking the wrong question.
IBM-DISK is problematic not because IBM has a trademark in the
telephone number it represents, but because IBM has a trademark in
the letters "IBM."  Using those letters in any context that could
confuse a person into thinking IBM was involved would violate IBM's
rights in that trademark, whether that use is to proxy an untrademarked
phone number, or anything else.

-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:30:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.210523.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
:In article <1992Sep15.031609.10447@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
:> In article <BuKMFI.8n8@world.std.com>
:> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
:> 
:>> 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
 
stuff deleted....

:> 
:> Exactly what oath is it that the "arrogant phonies" break?  And exactly
:> how do they break it?
:
:Good point.  As a start, can someone post the oath a federal juror takes?

Aren't oaths that are made under duress not legally binding?

If juries have the right to nullify and I am forced to take an oath
saying that I will not practice that right, am I not taking that
oath under duress? I am essentially forced to take an oath that I will
give away a right.  If I do not take that oath I will not be allowed to
practice that right. [by being excused from serving because I am aware of
my right].

Seems like a Catch-22.

Of course one could agree to decide on facts alone, but if one were
to simply vote to acquit without giving a reason, [i.e. without admitting
that you are exercizing your right to nullify] what can the prosecution do?
--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.sex.bondage
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: The Loss of Innocence
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:02:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.144521.180@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> ...
>>In article <191d0lINNojc@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> taa2@po.CWRU.Edu (Tamara A. Adrine-Davis) writes:
>> ...  Among the letters that
>>I received in response to the post were some pretty wonderful words of
>>encouragement and understanding.   ...
>
>Your tolerance is to be applauded.  The only thing I'd say here is that
>this SEEMS to imply what to me is the common American notion that all
>beliefs, no matter how vile, are equivalent, a notion that is used to
>systematically disempower.   ...

  Once again Ed Nilges shows that he can't distinguish between
form and content.  While this leads him into major error, he doesn't
care as long as he can whine about how bad everyone else is.

>  >There was one that I'll just paraphrase that
>>mentions that Usenet is a forum for free speech 
>
>Is it?  Or is it a powerful computer network in which it is easiest for
>administrators to allow what appears to be the "right" of free speech in
>order to enable the important technical traffic to flow unimpeded?  It
>would be a lot more expensive to hire moderators, ...

  No, it wouldn't be more expensive - I'm sure that the wanna-be-censors
like Ed Nilges would work for free.  Trusting Ed Nigles as a moderator
is almost as laughable as trusting his analysis of what is usenet
and its origin.  (Has he posted a correction or retraction yet?)
Rather one must admire the foresight of these powerful usenet
administrators (like Jim and Tom :-) who arranged things so that all 
of our postings did not have to get approved by wanna-be-censors
before being presented to the readership.

>Excellent.  See you around.

  Just a little comment - please note that Ed Nigles has assumed "the
white mans' burden" and encourages minorities (and other disempowered
groups) to post - but only for as long as they behave in a manner which
Ed considers appropriate for minorities/disempowered groups.  If you
have the temerity to act as *you* see fit, or in any way to stop
behaving as Ed sees fit for the noble savage or simple primitive -
then *ZAP* you'll find you have stepped outside poor frantic Ed's 
limits and you no longer will be favored with his simpering compliments.

--henry schaffer  n c state univ