HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Tort Reform (was: Number of Lawyers)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:22:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.175134.23190@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.154230.22809@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>>[I]f you think that the tort system should be reformed, what
>>do you think the new, reformed system should look like?
>
>How about having punative damages acrue to the state, rather than to the 
>plaintiff?  

Not a bad suggestion at first glance, until...

1) What happens when the defendant *is* the state?

2) Why would a plaintiff bother asking for punitive damages at all?  Much
   less the plaintiff's lawyer, who's presumably working on a contingent
   fee.

3) Doesn't this create a state interest that should be protected by government
   attorneys?  Especially given (2), it would only be a matter of time
   before the government would insist on having its attorneys handle 
   collections of punitive awards -- satellite litigation, and there are
   suddenly two plaintiffs where there was only one before -- seems like
   an *increase* in litigation to me.
-- 
           .........................................................
          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: ca566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Holloway)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: HELP! Judge scared of computers
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:11:31 GMT
Reply-To: ca566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Holloway)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


Does anyone know if something called a Bill of Particulars can be used in
small claims court?  Can a motion be filed in small claims court?  Does
anyone know how it works in New York State.  My information is that there
areno bills of particulars or motions to be made in small claims.

I'm trying to recover my money from the seller of a nonfunctional
motherboardwho isn't going to honor the terms of his warranty.  The
defendant brought a
lawyer to court with him (I'm a graduate student, can't afford one).  When
thecase was called the lawyer quickly gets up there first, tells the judge
thatthe case involves computers and is very complex and that it should be
put in
civil court.  Then the judge and the lawyer had a little discussion that
resulted in the case being set back a month and the judge telling me that I
have to compile with the lawyer's bill of particulars.  At no time am I
allowed to even begin to argue my case.  I did not agree to any of the
decisions.

This bill is a LONG list of frivilous demands, some of which I
either can not, or will not compile with, even if I felt it necessary to
respond to it at all.  Some of the demands are obvious attempts to confuse
theissue further and make the case even more "complicated" (such as "What
virusdetection software did you have running?" and "What bulletin board
systems do
you have access to?").  The case is really
just a very simple nonfunctional product/breach of warranty situation.  The
lawyer seems to have been very successful at scaring the judge away by
uttering the word "computer".

Any help is greatly needed.

Thanks
Mike
-- 
E-mail: mhollowa@ccmail.sunysb.edu (mail to freenet is forwarded)
phone:  (516)444-3612
I would claim to speak for my university but no one is likely to
believe it.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Clair George's trial a mistrial!!
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:19:00 GMT

In article <ART.92Aug30202803@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:

>But it's still illegal and therefore tainted.

You seem to be confused about the significance of the word "tainted"
in the jurisprudence of the exclusionary rule. "Tainted" does not mean
unreliable. Evidence gathered in violation of someone's Fourth or Fifth
Amendment rights may well be *very* reliable. It's not excluded because
it's unreliable; it's excluded in order to force the government to gather
its reliable evidence *in the proper way*.

>But that's the point, the jury is given evidence that is not really
>evidence, therefore they are deceived.

You seem to be making up evidence law as you go along. Nice trick if you
can get away with it. But nowhere in evidence law is there grounds for
your implication here that excludable evidence "is not really evidence."
*Of course* it's evidence--it's just not admissible.

(This is where you get confused about my use of the word "just" and ask
me if I think it's okay to torture North. I just wanted to be helpful
here and give you your cue.)

>"Well, hereabouts you're supposed to be 100% guilty."

North was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on three counts. What's
your point?

>No, I haven't but so what it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that
>the charges on which the jury voted guilty were the least of those
>raised.

Really? To me they seemed the most concrete. 

>I sure don't understand what you mean about significance.  Did North
>actually arrange the weapons shipments and use the profits to fund the
>Contras?  Of course, he's admitted it.  So what?  If it was a crime why
>didn't the Gov't take care to safeguard his rights?

You seem to be unfamiliar with the efforts the prosecution team made to
safeguard North's rights. Read Toobin's book, then come back and tell us
how the government failed to take such care.


--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,alt.censorship
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: What is an intellectual?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 17:52:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.075733.23255@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>>
>>I'd be curious where and when you saw it (and how much older than the
>>TV brains on the net you are), given that the routine was from the turn
>>of the century, before World War I.
>
>See what I mean, Ed? You have *got* to do the hard work it takes
>to stay on top of the facts and to know when to *hold* your tongue.
>Instead, you wag it entirely too much as you try to imitate an
>intellectual, and you end up flat on your face. You have *got* to
>stop being an intellectual lazeabout.

No, Charles, I don't see.  I don't pretend to be an intellectual;
instead I'm an American citizen who last time I checked had both the
right and duty to speak out re the Supreme Court. However, I am certain
that most intellectuals would be surprised that they had a duty to be
Trivial Pursuit types:


     Jean Paul Sartre: Mind, properly understood, has no ontology,
     for it is found to express itself in action, even as Stan Musial
     had no ontological "talent" but instead expressed his "talent"
     completely on the field of American football.

     Charley and the Tedster: Jean Paul, you scumsucking idiot, Stan
     Musial played baseball!  You is no intellectual, dat's for sure!


Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:30:55 GMT

In article <2A9D3CE0.17246@orion.oac.uci.edu>, cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
> 
> Ed Nilges writes
> > Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
> > >>> I suggest that discussants in this thread follow the lead of Israel and
> > >>> inject some sense in the discussion.  The defense of Kuwait and the
> > >>> abandonment of Bosnia-Herzegovina means that international politics is
> > >>> under the control of a dollar elite, not the Elders of Zion.
> > >>> Sherheryar, do you mean to say that Jews set our media's agenda, or an
> > >>> amoral elite comprised of scum of all persuasions?
> > >>> 
> > >>Absolutely the latter!   I was not even going to reply to
> > >>such a stupidly drawn conclusion.  Thanks for clearing my name.
> > >	So I ask you, are these guys the Gallagher and Shean of the Politically
> > >Correct, or what?  Who says vaudeville is dead?  It LIVES!
> > >"Absolutely, Mr. Gallagher?"
> > >"Positively Mr. Shean!"
> > 
> > Your racism is showing, for you have revived the 19th century vaudeville
> > portrayal of Irish names as intrinsically laff-producing in a disgusting
> > attempt to marginalize Sherheryar, who you, as a racist, found amusing
> > and marginal because of an Arabic sounding name.  His dignity (for I
> > assume that it is he who replied in the >> zone above, given your clumsy
> > elision of needed information) puts you to shame.  
> 
> I think in at least one matter I believe we have done Mr Nilges an injustice.
> He actually does have a sense of self irony.

Who is this "we"?  Does it comprise of any minority or woman?  Ofcourse not.
I guess the old white boy network is always and unconditionally united!  And 
correct of course! (Just in case, the last sentence was sarcastic!)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:21:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.153659.25832@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.144939.19461@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>>	BTW, your ignorance is showing.  Mr Shean spoke with a noticeable
>
>I happily plead guilty to ignorance of racist humor, Chuck.
>
>>Germanic accent. I've got some of the recordings.  Gallagher had no accent to
>
>Gallagher is an Irish name.  And Germans were funny during the same
>historic period in which Irish were funny: from the 1830s to about the
>1920s.  A thriving, self-conscious and highly democratic German American
[history of anti-German prejudice circa WW I deleed]

>
>I'm ignorant of racist trivia (do you also have the full set of Amos 'n
>Andy videos to add to your yuks?)  You, however, need education in the
>history of your country and its sad record of abusing immigrants.
>
	I notice you deleted the part where I pointed out that G&Ss humor
wasn't particularly ethnic.  I guess that would have gotten in the way of
yet another round of personal invective, eh?
	And I don't need any education in the nation's history of abusing
immigrants, buster.  My dad was born in Italy and my mother's parents in
Ukraine.  This moral superiority routine of yours is getting pretty tiresome.


Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   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
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16802 alt.censorship:7317
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:09:43 GMT

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

[...]
>The lack of solidarity, the terminal uniqueness, of the repeated attacks
>on me merely because of oddball views points up the decadence of a
>technically-educated segment of the populace, the segment with netnews
>access, more than anything else.
[...]

I take the success (in my opinion) of *verbal* attacks on
your *views* as evidence that a free marketplace of ideas can work.

[...]
>I remain convinced that the net needs moderated rather than unmoderated
>groups and I would regard the position of moderator as more onerous than
>anything else.  Peter Neumann does an excellent job of running
>comp.risks without preferring one set of views over another and indeed
>the unmoderated groups are the most inimical to that dialog that is a
>necessary part of free speech, since the unmoderated groups devolve most
>rapidly to flamefestivals.
[...]

I note that you call not for begining of moderated forums (for as you
point out, they already exist), but to an elimination of unmoderated
forums. No thanks.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,rec.arts.movies
From: wkm1@nestor.uucp (24102-messer)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 16:45:48 GMT
Summary: marx brothers


in reference to your article on the marx brothers....
they were playing poker one night, and someone at the game decided
to give them nicknames, ending in 'o'....groucho because of his demeanor,
chicko, because he was always chasing girls, harpo for obvious reasons,
zippo (changed to zeppo after they realized it was after a chimp act)..
gummo was named because of the gum-soled shoes he used to wear.




Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sherman@unx.sas.com (Chris Sherman)
Subject: How do I properly write a 'note'?
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:40:15 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.

I have roommates from the most gruesome sewers of Hell!!!

Setup:
I am the landlord and resident, and all utilities are in my name.  I got my
three tenants to sign a formal 4 page rental contract that had all kinds of
neat rental-type language.  One of the bits of language said that all
utilities owed must be paid in full before moving out.

Two of them haven't paid utilities in a very long time.  One even ran up an
outrageous (> $600) phone bill.  Both have jobs, now, but they are not
high-paying jobs.  I really do believe that if they could pay me off if
they could, but in the one case, I question how hard he is trying.  Now
they want to move out, and I have two (maybe more?) options:

1)  Take them to court using the rental contract as the tool to get them
    to pay.  Using this option, I will probably not be paid in full, but
    (I'm guessing that) I'll destroy their credit ratings for the next
    decade.  I would rather have the money, though.

2)  Get them to sign a note.  If they fail to pay on the note, then I
    feel that I'll have an even better position to sue them in court,
    because then the amount will be cast in stone, where above, I'll
    have to prove the amount by providing all the utility bills, etc.
    Using all that documentation in court could be messy and less clear
    cut, though I do have the bills.


So, which is the better option?  I'm guessing 2) for the reasons stated
above, but I've never done this before, so I need some "I've been there"
type advice.

If 2) is the best choice, what should the note say?  I don't have an 
attorney, and I don't really want to hire one for something this simple.
Are there 'forms' that I can use that has all the legal language, and I
just fill in the blanks?  Where can they be found?

Or can the note just be a "I will pay Chris Sherman $100 a month for x
months until the entire amount, y, has been paid.  Otherwise, I'm aware
that all hell will break lose," or something like that?

Thanx for any help!!! 

(Even short statements about what to look out for are eagerly accepted!)

-- 
     ____/     /     /     __  /    _  _/    ____/
    /         /     /     /   /      /     /          Chris Sherman
   /         ___   /        _/      /          /
 _____/   __/   __/   __/ _\    _____/   _____/           sherman@unx.sas.com
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Number of Lawyers
Date: 28 Aug 92 03:08:27 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Aug25.223540.9460@mwhhlaw.uucp> mwhhlaw!tim (Timothy E. Hollingsworth) writes:

> In the most recent issue of the ABA Journal, Ray August, an Assoicate
>Professor from Washington State University, provides myth cracking
>data about the number of lawyers in the various countries of the
>world.  Surprise! The US probably does not have 70% of the world's
>lawyers.  Actually, the percentage is something more like 9.4%.

What the article says is that in most other countries, people who are
called "lawyers" are actually a very small subset of legal providers,
whereas in the U.S., you have to be a lawyer to provide most legal
services.  Thus, for example, in Holland there is a position called
"Avocaat." A person with this title is entitled to argue before
appellate courts.  There are only 2,000 in the whole country.  But
there are many more  "legal providers" who may appear at trial courts
and administrative agencies, and give legal advice.

In Japan, to become a lawyer, you graduate from law school and then
you apply to a special institute.  Only 1,000 are admitted every year,
and only graduates of this institute may practice commercially.  But
all the other law school graduates end up being hired by corporate
legal departments to do essentially what American corporate lawyers
do.

The article gives a number of other examples.  And when the author
adds up all the "legal providers" (lawyers or not) in each country,
the U.S. isn't even in the top 20 per capita, and is BEHIND JAPAN!


-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:12:54 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Aug26.182942.4893@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.174235.12399@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>Of course, rights and separation of powers are a check upon democracy.
>My point is that you can emphasize bogus rights to the destruction of
>democracy.  This is what the National Rifle Association does, in a
>country in which the majority would prefer to see some form of gun

Whether the majority is right is a matter of personal opinion, whichever 
side the majority is on.  I find it hard to believe that the right to
own a gun threatens the destruction of democracy.

>control.  And the Supreme Court's care for the rights of Viktora
>directly thwarted the democratic will of St Paul, NOT to safeguard a
>minority, but to protect a sick white racist.  

Sick white racists are (hopefully) a minority.

	 George Tucker        tucker@tcville.hac.com
What is the world's largest government subsidy to agriculture,
terrorism, speedboat manufacturing, organized crime, and prison
construction?
From: bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:54:45 EST
Organization: Logicon Technical Services, Inc.

In article <1992Aug21.212125.9297@island.COM>, guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
> In article <1992Aug19.015046.3591@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>	You're not "switching jurisdictions".  There are two separate court
>>systems, and two separate law systems.
>>
>>	If you go on an interstate killing spree, is it double jeopardy to be
>>tried for murder in more than one state?  I think we've made the case for
>>separate court systems.
> 
> A better analogy would be if I shot a man in Nevada while I was
> standing in California.  Would it be double jeopardy to try me in
> both California and Nevada for the Murder ?  I think that it would
> be.  I think that any reasonable person would conclude the same.

	Hmmm.  Interesting situation.  But would not the above also be a
violation of Federal laws against intrastate use of firearms for criminal
activity?

	As far as which state to be tried in, I  would say Nevada, as that's
where the standing of the victim would be.  (Okay, no pun intended, really!)

Brett--------------------------------------------------------------------------
	"Why the courts don't tell a husband who has been living off his wife
to go out and get a job is beyond my comprehension."--Joan Lunden
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mwhhlaw!tim (Timothy E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: Endorsing checks for deposit via ink stamp?
Reply-To: uunet!mwhhlaw!tim
Organization: Martin Wade Hartley & Hollingsworth
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:44:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.003400.13033@cs.ucla.edu> wales@cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales)  
writes:
> Is it permissible for an individual to endorse checks for deposit via
> an ink stamp with his name, bank name and account number, and the words
> "FOR DEPOSIT ONLY"?
> 
> Businesses seem to do this all the time; but what about individuals?
> 
> If individuals are in fact permitted to do this, why is it that banks
> always tell customers to =sign= checks when depositing them?

Because it is easier to train the tellers to have one rule than learn  
exceptions.  Under the Uniform Commericial Code (UCC) as adopted in most  
states, your bank has the right to supply your indorsement on any item if the  
indorsement is required for collection of the item.  UCC Sec. 4-205.  Your  
bank, which is the "collecting" bank in this situation, may be concerned that  
your lack of signature means that you can not be held liable as an indorser  
under UCC 3-414.  However, UCC 3-417(2) makes it clear that when you deposit  
the item with your bank, even without indorsement, you make several promises to  
the bank about the item.  In addition, UCC 4-212 allows the bank to charge back  
your account if the item is timely "bounced."

The "for deposit only" language is a restrictive indorsement.  It means "I  
really, really want the amount of this check put in my account."  Usually this  
comes up in the following kind of case.  Trusted Bookeeper (TB) takes the daily  
receipts from the business to the bank.  All the items are restrictively  
indorsed.  TB gets her old friend, the teller, to cash one of the checks.  The  
usual story is the business needs petty cash. TB takes off for the islands.   
The bank is on the hook for failing to follow the restrictive indorsement.  Ah  
so, you say.  The business should always restrictively indorse.  Not necessary  
so.  If there had been no indorsement, the TB would not be a holder of the  
check and could not transfer (actually negotiate) it to the bank.  Since a  
thief can pass no title, the business can demand the check back from the bank.  
Again, the bank loses, but the banks hate it and will fight you on this one. 

My rule--if you are giving a check to a TB to deposit, restrictively indorse.   
If you are going yourself, don't indorse at all.

--
Tim Hollingsworth