HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin)
Subject: Re: JD != "lawyer" (was: What a Problem!!!)
Organization: Stanford Law School, Stanford University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 19:23:44 GMT

In article <4caD023Y25yE01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>[...]
>Now, if someone gets a JD in May, takes the Bar in June, and is told they 
>passed in November, at what point is it correct to say that that person is a 
>lawyer?  When she took the exam (after all, she's done all she can to satisfy 
>the requirements at that point), or getting the results?

   Actually, there's one big formality left.  After passing the bar
exam, you still have to be certified to the Supreme Court of the
state.  I'm not sure exactly what the process is, but it involves
appearing in court and taking some sort of oath.  And, of course, it
can't be done before you get notice that you've passed.  _Then_ you're
a proper attorney.

			-Gary
-- 
|Gary Brainin                     |BITNET: garygm%leland.stanford.edu@stanford|
|garygm@leland.stanford.edu       |UUCP: ...decwrl!leland.stanford.edu!garygm |
|"...the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right |
|most valued by civilized men."    Olmstead v. U.S. (Brandeis, J., dissenting)|
From: xepama@usbk03.bk5001.chevron.com (Parker Mann)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Liens - Advice needed
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:33:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: chevron

I am living in California and am two days from closing
the sale of my previous residence in Texas.  Today I 
found out that there is a lien against that property.
 
The lien was put on my house a month after I bought it,
not for anything I had done but because the previous
owner had not paid his final city water bill.  No notice
of the action was sent to me and given the time frame
involved, it looks like I have no choice but to pay 
the $95 in order to complete the sale.  The city says
they "don't go to court for such small amounts of
money".

Aside from being angered to the point of incoherence, I
have some questions:

Why is it legal for the municipality to act against my
property for something someone else did?

Is there any *practical* legal recourse I can take?  The
deadbeat who sold me the house is in New Mexico.

I still have water service in my name at the property.
What sort of credit trouble do I risk if I deduct the
cost of releasing the lien from my final bill?

What can I do do prevent this happening again?  I mave a
lot with my job and have never had as a requirement of
sale that money be withheld from seller to ensure payment
of future bills.

Any advice is appreciated (actually, just venting my
spleen helps).

Thanks.
-- 
Parker Mann                xepama@usbk03.bk5001.chevron.com
Chevron Petroleum Technology Company, Bakersfield, CA.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18470 alt.censorship:8027 misc.headlines:6571
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's freedom of speech
Date: 10 Oct 92 13:05:19 GMT
	<1992Oct7.131302.4326@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>
	<9505@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
	<komarimf.718648269@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu's message of 9 Oct 92 16:31:09 GMT

komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski) writes:
|True, but when will you get the chance to go on SNL and say that to millions
|of people??  She's just turned into a loudmouthed @#^@#$% that can't sing 
|anymore.  And yes..I have heard her earlier stuff and like it.

Not to get off the subject, but why do you think she suddenly can't
sing anymore?
--
Peace.
         "Sex between a man and a woman can be wonderful,
          provided you get between the right man and the right woman"
	                           --Woody Allen
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification -- The Power is a Right
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 11:44:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.064117.2603@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:

>I have no problem accepting criticism.

Then why can't you accept this one?

>His postings reek of ambiguity,  sometimes
>reaching the point of outright error.

Please cite an example of "outright error."



--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I can solve this Orient Express thing without
mnemonic@eff.org| breaking a sweat. It's that simple."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Hercule Perot
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Men & elves
Keywords: Act xxi of 1850 [the 'Lex Loci Act']
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:08:58 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <19308@smoke.brl.mil>, matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
> In article <12609@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <3864@unisql.UUCP>, wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
# ## 	My definition of evil is an act that causes unwanted harm and/or pain 
# ## to another for the sake of profit, pleasure, or amusement.  By my 
# ## [wharfie]
# 
# #That qualifies as my definition as well.  [Clayton Cramer]
# 
# ## definition Ted Bundy was an evil man, but two guys giving each other 
# ## oral sex aren't.  [wharfie]
# 
# #You know someone that does define it as evil?  I don't.  I know people
# #that define it as sin, I know people that define it as being repulsive.
# #[Clayton Cramer]
# 
# Abomination?
# 
# #(I define it as both, but that's not a good reason to pass laws 
# #against it).  [Clayton Cramer]
# 
# How 'bout "failure to pay taxes"?  That's not "evil," nor even 
# "repulsive," although those Bibles that have the "Render unto Caesar" 
# verse in them may well call non-payment of taxes "sin."  Something
# does not have to be "evil" for us to pass laws against it.

Very true.  But wharfie wanted to know if evil really existed, or
was just a superstitious idea.

# 					-- Matt Rosenblatt
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: olga@csiatl.Gwinnett.COM (olga from the volga)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: 10 Oct 92 22:13:28 GMT

mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes:

> 
> 	
> 	Peter writes :
> 
> 	" It strikes me as completely
> 	bizarre that men talk about being taken advantage of in this regard.  As
> 	we have (statistically) larger disposable incomes than women, we can
> 	afford these payments with much less pain than women.  To suggest that
> 	the woman somehow gets off totally free in this scenario strikes me as
> 	out of touch to the point of offensive."
> 
> -------------------
> 
> 	Peter....  you display total misconception regarding this issue...
> 	It's to be expected I guess, since the idea of parenting
> 	rights for men is very new.  It takes awhile for society to begin
> 	to see the issue clearly.... look how long it has been taking
> 	to see clearly the problems that women have faced....
> 
> 	Brifly, it's not about men being "taken advantage of", nor is it
> 	about women getting off "totally free".  It is not about statistics
> 	or "disposable income".  It is about principles.  It is about
> 	a whole class of individuals being held responsible for something
> 	they have no choices in.  If everyone had no choices about becoming
> 	a parent, then there would be no problem... but women in this
> 	country enjoy the benefit of choices along with their responsibilities.
> 	Men are only given responsibilities.


BULL! you don't want the responsibilities, wear a condom next time! 
Not to wear one and depend on the woman to be responsible for 
birth control is *YOUR* choice.  Its also *YOUR* choice to sleep with 
her.



> 
> 	It is known as inequity.  It is gender-based.  It is sexist, and
> 	probably unconstitutional.
> 
> 	If a woman gets pregnant, she has legal options.... men do not.
> 	They are along for the ride.
> 
> 	Analogy... if a man chooses to move around the world as he
> 	pursues career choices, should his wife be legally required to
> 	accompany him?  After all, she made the "choice" of marrying him.
> 
> 	-Mike-


olga@csiatl.gwinnett
YOW!
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Question on new Federal Reserve Bank study in Boston
Date: 10 Oct 92 13:03:26 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory


What are the legal remedies in a situation like this?

-----
info taken from the Boston Globe Friday October 9 1992:

"Study shows racial bias in lending"

A landmark study released Thursday shows that banks in Greater Boston
discriminate against Black and Hispanic mortage applicants, offering
the most damning evidence to date of racial hurdles facing minority
homebuyers.

The study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Bostn concluded that
minorities are roughly 60% more likely to be denied a mortage than
whites even when they are equally creditworthy.

Bankers have criticizes similar reports in the past for not taking
into account important financial factors in lending decisions, but
industry leaders accepted the new study.

The new report, the first of its kind in the nation considers 39
criteria that go into mortage decisions, such as credit and employment
history, total debt and net worth.  Bankers said that the absence of
those factors from earlier reports made conclusions suspect.

Although the study focused on Greater Boston, the authors said they had
no reason to beleive the findings would be different elsewhere in the
country. 

Researchers found that *80%* of all applicants, regardless of race,
have some flaw that could disqualify them.  That means it is in the
hands of individual bankers to decide whether the bulk of would-be
homebuyers receive loans.

"Given the same imperfections, whites seem to enjoy a general
assumption of creditworthiness that Black and Hispanic applicants do
not" said Alicia Munnell who presented the report along with the
president of the Boston Fed, Richard Syron.
-----

Well.
--
Peace.
         "Sex between a man and a woman can be wonderful,
          provided you get between the right man and the right woman"
	                           --Woody Allen
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-
From: eric@npri6.npri.com (Eric Williams)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: VA Inheritance Tax
Keywords: Tax
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:05:17 GMT
Distribution: va
Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA

(Hope the limited distribution sticks...)
Can anyone out there email me a very brief summary of the Virginia
State Inheritance Tax rules? I know Federal doesn't start 'til
$600K, but I'm not sure about VA. Thanks in advance!

-------- eric@npri.com ---------- or ---------- ...uunet!uupsi!npri6!eric -----
           Cartoons will ruin your brain--look what happened to mine!           
Eric C. Williams/ NPRI/ Alexandria, VA/ USA/ (703) 683-9090/ Usual disclaimers.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18558 talk.politics.misc:51261 talk.politics.theory:4514
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification -- The Power is a Right
Summary: reply to email please--news is dumped frequently
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:01:59 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Oct8.062458.1693@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.220311.5378@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>>
>>I think you fail to see that an action undertaken for moral reasons
>>is done within the psychological framework of it not only 
>>being right to do so, but also that there is an overriding 
>>right to act rightly.  Right?
>
>I think you fail to see that not every juror who votes to nullify is
>in fact a nullificationist (one who claims the right to nullify).
>Few, in fact, give much thought to the general issue of nullification.

I am quite aware of this fact, and have said so here several times.
I think you are simply avoiding the issue.

If we exclude those cases where the jury is simply biassed in favor
of the defense, and wouldnt convict under any circumstances, then this 
leaves jurors who are wrestling with ethics.  Whether or not they are aware
of the broad issue of nullification, they are having to justify their 
verdict to themselves based on a comparison of the written law to the 
dictates of their own consciences.

I am still waiting for someone to show me how this exercise of a moral
decision within the framework of a legal power is anything less than a 
moral right, WHETHER IT IS EXPLICITLY CLAIMED OR NOT.


--Al Date

Marrou / Lord EXCLUDED from the debates.  This is a travesty.
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Can't I start a business in this town?
Date: 12 Oct 92 01:20:58 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:

> In article <14250006@hpmwmat.sr.hp.com> mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) 
> >	In reference to laws regulating what types of business may
> >	be allowed to 'do business':
> >
> >	I am considering running a 'paintball' business in my town.
> >	This is a game where people shoot paint-pellets from air-guns
> >	in an 'adult' game of "tag".
[...]

> [...]
> It would seem to me, based on the legal advice our township
> attorney has discussed with us, that banning "paint ball" would
> have to be based on reasonable goals for the public good.  For
> me, I can't see anything benefiting the public by banning a 
> business that people are willing to spend money on.  Banning
> "paint ball" just because they (the supervisors) don't like
> the sport/game wouldn't be an easily defendable position if
> it went to court.

I have heard of town banning certain business --not the X rated places,
but businesses which engage in 'dangerous' activities. "Gotcha," known
also as 'paintball' is one of those I've heard of being banned. Another
is the new rage, bungee jumping.

Paintball has been banned, as I've heard, I have no cites, on the same
basis as BB guns and other projectile firing devices. They apparently
relied on existing ordinances against BB guns (whatever) to base their
restriction.

Bungee jumping has me confused, though. Towns with no bans on parachute
jumping, hang gliding, or other height-related activities have said no
to bungee.

As a strictly personal opinion, I believe ordinances like this to be
well beyond the scope of what government should restrict.

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
From: sasbmt@jjoyce.unx.sas.com (Bruce Tindall)
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History (was: Presidential UL's)
Originator: sasbmt@jjoyce.unx.sas.com
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:19:42 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <adams.718656959@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>Wasn't the assassination of Lincoln part of a larger conspiracy to kill a
>number of Northern government figures, including Scty. Seward?

Yes, Vice President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William
Seward were intended victims.  Seward was wounded but not killed.
The guy assigned to kill Johnson stopped off in the hotel barroom.

If Johnson had been killed, the next president would have been
the president pro tem of the Senate, Lafayette Sabine Foster, a
moderate Republican from Connecticut.  

William Manchester dismisses the plot as "hardly a plot at all by
European standards," and describes it as a bunch of impressionable
losers led by actor John Wilkes Booth, who was nothing more than 
"an Oswald with charm." 


-- 
Bruce Tindall, Core Testing Mgr., SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C. 27513
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
From: sasbmt@jjoyce.unx.sas.com (Bruce Tindall)
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History
Originator: sasbmt@jjoyce.unx.sas.com
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:50:31 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


Some scholars have pondered how to extend the succession way beyond
the current VP/Congressional_leaders/Cabinet list in case of a very
big disaster.  One proposal has been to list the Governors, in order
of the populations of their states (Gov. of California first, then
Gov. of New York, etc.), in case the whole Cabinet goes to meet its
cabinetmaker.

The theory is that you'd have a long list of people who have 
experience as the Chief Executive Of Something Big.  And they'd be
geographically dispersed, so some of them would survive.  

For a fictional account of what could happen in a very limited
nuclear war under the current succession system, see "Warday",
co-authored by Streiber (the wonderful fellow who brought us 
"Communion" and  other "aliens have visited me" books).  One slight
"bug" in his book:  the war day was Oct. 28, 1988, yet the whole
government was wiped out in Washington.  In fact, because that day
was about a week before an election, a large part of the government
would have been out on the hustings campaigning, and thus would 
have survived.  (In the book, "only" 3 cities and 2 Dakotas 
were vaporized.)

-- 
Bruce Tindall, Core Testing Mgr., SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C. 27513
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
From: jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer)
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's freedom of speech
Keywords: Those croppies who will not lie down
Organization: Wegmans Transaction Services
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:33:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.054011.2337@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>As I get ready to leave Princeton and cease posting from this location,
>I won't refrain from (1) saying hip hip hurrah for Sinead's performance
>on Saturday Night Live, and (2) reflecting that the logic of the modal
>net "libertarian" position on freedom of speech would PREVENT Sinead from
>speaking.  For the "libertarian" systematically winds up with a strong
>view of property rights (including rights acquired by force and fraud)
>such that the "right" of freedom of speech disappears, to be replaced by
>the PRIVILEGE, always exercised on what turns out to be some man's
>property.
>
........
>
>And, of course, Sinead made her protest on air time which most
>libertarians will argue was (surprise) private property, to be disposed
>of by NBC and not by Sinead.  

As a libertarian, I agree that NBC was under no obligation to allow Sinead
to speak, any more than they are obliged to allow me to speak.  They let
her speak and they regretted it.  Too bad for NBC, that is a risk they took.
If SNL weren't "Live", they certainly would have had the right not to air
the segment.  Sinead (like Madonna with the Pepsi commercial) of course
took the risk of being less popular with future hosts (or sponsors).

My logic certainly doesn't prevent Sinead from speaking, or those who wish
to listen.  It only states that other people should not be forced to pay
for Sinead's privilege.

Jens
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: property/future interests formal syntax help
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:19:10 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct13.032754.25848@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
> In article <1992Oct13.023231.29666@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) 
> writes:
> >In article <1992Oct11.201213.12787@rosevax.rosemount.com> 
> craig@bunsen.rosemount.com (Craig Taylor) writes:
> >>I am currently taking Property and I'm more than a little
> >>confused by what seems to be use of undefined words in
> >>future interest problems.  
> >>
> >><text deleted>
> >>I am definitely looking for black letter solutions here, 
> >>preferably in some formal syntax.  I did not have this problem
> >>in contracts, civil procedure or torts last year.
> >
> >This is a common problem for law students, but there is a cheap and
> >very effective fix: Buy the Law-In-A-Flash flashcard set for Future
> >Interests. After one or two passes through these cards, you will know
> >future interests cold.
> 
> Future interests is definitely the one subject that can only be learned
> by lots of practice.  I second the law-in-a-flash rec,

I third.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: pimentel@earrth.enet.dec.com (John Pimentel)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Roe vs. Wade for men
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:00:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


If I understand this thread correctly, the law of the land states that
abortions are legal.  A woman can now legally seek and obtain an abortion
without regard to the man in this "relation" objecting.  If this same woman, 
however, decides that she is going keep the fetus, and the man does not, 
the question is can the man seek and obtain the abortion?

Well the law of the land states that abortions are legal, so I would
quess that a man can get the court to get the fetus aborted.

So then does Roe v. Wade only cover the woman's right to choose abortion?

A man in this situation should be able to go into a courthouse and either
obtain the abortion as guaranteed by the constitution or at the very least
an injunction against the woman from ever seeking any monetary value for
the decision that she makes without regard to his desires in this matter.
Afterall, she wants the child so let her raise the child on her own, provided
she can afford the child.  (But that opens the doors to the state coming
in and either obtaining an abortion or at the very least an injunction
against the woman from ever seeking any monetary value for the decision
she makes without regard to the wishes of the state).

With all that said, I wonder how many women throughout the country will
stop "unprotected" sexual activity if this becomes also the law of the 
land, when they know they can't either pick and choose the financial partner
or become a "welfare mother"?  

Do the words "A great many!" come to mind?

Then I wonder how long abortion will remain as the law of the land?

How about "Not long!"?

Thus I suppose if you want your cake and eat it too, might as well have the
icing on the cake.

Just for the record, I'm against abortion.  
=============================================================================
-- John Pimentel

The opinions expressed are my own.  No rights are granted to take them out of
context nor do they represent the views of my employer, whomever it might be
for the moment.
=============================================================================
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18294 rec.arts.books:17938