HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re: student loans AND responsibility.
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 07:39:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.182550.2277@nova.sarnoff.com> jms@vision.sarnoff.com writes:
>In article 23059@linus.mitre.org, bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>In article 23059@linus.mitre.org, bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>>In article <4154@novavax.UUCP> vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro) writes:
>>:Hi,
>>:
>>:A friend of mine ows about 10,000 dollars plus interest on a 
>>:guaranteed student loan. He graduated and has a job, a condo, and
>>:a year old baby, and can't afford the $140/month payment. He tried
>> 
>>Oh? He had enough money to buy a condo, but not enough to pay his
>>debts and obligations to others?
>>
>>His debts and obligations to others comes FIRST, before he buys
>>things for himself. If he couldn't afford to pay his bills, then he
>>should have had enough responsibility to WAIT to have a child until
>>such time as he could AFFORD it.
>> 
>>If his finances are so tight that he can't afford an extra $140/month,
>>then he probably over-reached his means when he bought the condo.
>>
>>My heart bleeds peanut butter. This person deserves whatever they do
>>to him. 
>>--
>>Bob Silverman
>
>There is no way you can be a recent graduate, unless your parants paid
>your way.  Your too insensitive to realize how much damage Reaganomics
>did to the American standard of living. You better save up to bail out
>your own children. They will not be able to make it on their own.

Bull.  Lower your standard of living until you can pay off your debts and
provide food and shelter for yourself and your family.  That means not
buying the new stereo system, the TV, the VCR, the new car and all those
other consumer goods after graduating.

Most importantly, don't blame others for your problems.

Mark

Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification -- The Power is a Right
Organization: SPS
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:21:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.220311.5378@clipper.ingr.com>, ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct3.002739.8491@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct2.184621.6085@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
|> >
|> >>>I said nothing about moral grounds.
|> >>
|> >>So on what grounds do you suspect that juries decide to acquit people
|> >>in spite of the law and the facts?  Extraterrestrial intervention?
|> >
|> >I have already answered this question, as any careful reader would know.
|> 
|> Any careful readers out there care to enlighten me?  Where is Ed Nilges? 

There are at least three careful readers here (Tony Davis, Al Date, & myself)
who think that Mike has a problem with ambiguous and inaccurate postings.  Mike
also has difficulty accepting criticism and admitting error.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt-dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.couples
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: What a Problem!!!
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:24:11 GMT

noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>This is good.  Mike flames me for "flaming" someone else - implying that
>by flaming, I am an asshole.  This is very good.

>And people can't understand why I am so concerned about the lack of
>logic displayed by so many people in the legal profession.

And I can't understand why Aaron generalizes one act by one lawyer
into a concern about "so many people in the legal profession."
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		Electronic Frontier Foundation Member 932
				Republican National Committee Member 90050367
				Amateur Radio Station WA4LDA
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: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 11:47:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.012136.26384@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:

>There are at least three careful readers here (Tony Davis, Al Date, & myself)
>who think that Mike has a problem with ambiguous and inaccurate postings.

So far as I can tell, the three of you have not been saying the same
thing. I suspect someone like Tony Davis would be troubled at your
decision to lump him with you.  

Even if you all *did* agree on your criticisms of me, it wouldn't have any
more weight than the fact that (far more than three) people share the same
belief that Lyndon LaRouche is the candidate of choice in 1992.

I deny having been "inaccurate" in any of the postings of mine you have
criticized. 

>Mike
>also has difficulty accepting criticism and admitting error.

The business about difficulty in admitting error seems to be projection on
your part. Like many people, you tend to see your own flaws in others.

I do indeed have difficulty admitting error when I'm not, in fact, in
error. When someone does catch me in an error, however (as when Mark
Eckenweiler notes that I've cited the wrong federal forfeiture statute), I
readily admit it. It's inconceivable to you, it seems, but I did not
"admit error" in response to your postings last month because, in fact, it
was you who were in error. 


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: JD != "lawyer" (was: What a Problem!!!)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:34:24 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?

Before I received the results from my first bar exam (I passed), I was
scrupulous in correcting people who called me "a lawyer."

I cannot say with assurance, however, that my particular scruple on this
score is a widely held one.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: johnscar@microsoft.com (John Scarborough)
Subject: Re: Hypnosis-enhanced testimony
Date: 08 Oct 92 00:28:38 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

  

I forgot to request that answers be sent to me directly.

Thanks.


John Scarborough
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18639 alt.abortion.inequity:4436
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:51:18 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Oct12.102950.26136@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett) writes:
>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes in response to 
>olga@csiatl.Gwinnett.COM (olga from the volga):
>
>I find it difficult to believe that any serious feminist would support
>the notion that women, with statistically smaller incomes, ought to be
>saddled with the ENTIRE cost of the raising of children.  

They should consider that, before they make the decision to carry the child
to term.

>That certainly
>doesn't involve equality; it certainly doesn't involve liberation.  

I would strongly disagree. True liberation requires that women receive both
the same privileges *AND* responsibilities as men, within the limits that
biology imposes. To get a responsibility without the corresponding privelege,
is to be exploited, but to get privelege without the corresponding 
responsibility (as is the case with the current paternity child-support 
laws, IMHO) is to foster a dependence. The former is more visible and easily
assailable; the latter is more subtle, but ultimately more detrimental to
the cause of liberation.

>At
>least not for the woman.  I note that it does involve liberation for the
>man, who can essentially fuck and run.

I don't believe that anyone here is seriously suggesting that a man should 
be completely immune from responsibility, Peter. At the very least, he should 
help pay for the abortion. If he was negligent, say, if he didn't bother with 
birth control AT ALL, then perhaps there would be room for assessing a hefty 
measure of child support. The problem with the current system is that it 
defeats the usual system of incentives and disincentives by simply treating 
EVERY man as equally liable, and EVERY woman as having limited liability, 
regardless of the circumstances of conception. This backfires in many cases, 
both because it encourages motherhood-minded women to trap men via lies and 
deception, and it fosters a defeatist "it's a crapshoot anyway, so why bother 
with a condom?" attitude in many men. The result: lots of illegitimate 
children. In short, the current laws are IMPRACTICAL, in addition to being 
out-and-out inequitable. They actually make things WORSE than having no laws 
at all, IMHO (since in the absence of statutes, I'd expect the woman could 
still sue the man for support in the civil courts, where there would be ample 
opportunity to make INTELLIGENT liability determinations).

								- Kevin
From: pimentel@earrth.enet.dec.com (John Pimentel)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: 27th amendment
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:13:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: sousa.1949
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Oct9.205444.19096@cbnews.cb.att.com>, ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet) writes...
>The amendment was proposed March 4, 1989.

The amendment was proposed around the early 1800's, and that it was recently
adopted by a majority of the states.  The author was the president.

>Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
=============================================================================
-- 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.
=============================================================================
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: How Can I Really Annoy Someone?
Date: 15 Oct 92 03:59:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

>>Well, sit down and figure out what you can afford to pay since you clearly
>>have intent to commit intentional infliction of emotional distress.
>
>Is inflicting emotional distress really a tort?  (Think of all the
>jilted lovers who would have cause for action.)

I've wondered about this too. It is probably just as well that one
can't sue for romance-related pain-and-suffering: where would it
ever stop?
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18666 alt.folklore.urban:25699
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:40:55 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
: mikkelson%rwtms2.decnet@consrt.rockwell.com (snopes) writes:
: > This does bring up an interesting question, though.  In case of
: > nuclear attack or something that wipes out a large number of high
: > officials, what is the line of succession? 

> Vice-President
> Speaker of the House
> President pro tempore of the Senate
> Secretary of State
> Secretary of the Treasury
> Secretary of Defense
...

But what if one of them wasn't born a 'merkin?

--Scott "it's not a bug, it's a feature" Cromar
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.parents-teens,alt.activism
From: jms@vision.sarnoff.com (Jerry Shapiro x2420)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: student loans
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:17:34 GMT
Reply-To: jms@vision.sarnoff.com
Organization: David Sarnoff Research Center

In article 4154@novavax.UUCP, vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro) writes:
>Hi,
>
>A friend of mine ows about 10,000 dollars plus interest on a 
>guaranteed student loan. He graduated and has a job, a condo, and
>a year old baby, and can't afford the $140/month payment. He tried
>calling the people at Student Loan Services and he talked to them.
>He wanted to try and get the monthly payments reduced to about 80,90,
>or 100 dollars/month, but they would not work with him. So, they
>sent the loan info to the Guarantor (State of Florida) and he is
>in a default status, even though he wants to pay the thing back.
>He tried to get help from the County Credit Counseling service,
>but they said they could not help with student loans. He wanted
>to get in touch with whoever the Guarantor is, but was told by
>Student Loan Services that he can't call them, he has to wait
>until they call him. Now he's all worried about what's going to
>be done to him, etc. Can anyone shed light on what can be done to him,
>if he's going to lose his home, get his wages garnished? He wants
>to pay the loan back, but he can barely make ends meet now.
>
>Thanks!
>
>
>
>Nicholas


This happened to a friend of mine. Essentially, the cost of defaulting
will be added to the principal (it was 1/3 of the principal for my
friend). Then they will try to work out a payment plan that he can
handle. If they can't come up with a plan that he can manage, they will
sue him, essentially to get in line ahead of his other creditors even
if it forces him into backruptcy. Student loans are rarely dischargable
under bankruptcy.  He should make every effort to work it out with
them. With guaranteed student loans the note holder has no incentive to
be reasonable, because principal and interest are guaranteed. The
Guarantor may be more willing to bargain, but he's already facing a
much bigger principal.  Hopefully the home is held jointly with someone
else (like the mother of his child) so they couldn't touch that. Maybe
there is some other way to cut expenses. Has he tried: Selling his car
and buying a cheaper, perhaps used, one; moonlighting; taking in
borders; Garage Sale of all personal property?

He should see if there is anyway to save his credit. If there is,
he should get rid of the condo and payoff the loan. If not, might as well
hang onto the condo, he won't have good credit for 5 years anyway, and try to
work from there.

This is scary stuff, my sympathy goes out to him.

Jerry
Disclaimer: Use my opinions at your own risk
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: taped conversations
Date: 11 Oct 92 16:15:17 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Herman Diller, in a message to Hilary Miller on 10-09-92 at 8:59am, said:

HD>|My question is still the same, I am a police officer (lt) and I was tap
   |one of my men after referring him for disciplinary action.  The taped
   |conversation was made about 4 months after the initial disciplinary act
   |I do not remember the conversation, and his lawyer is now accusing me o
   |perjury and being a political puppet.  My question is again can a perso
   |tape a conversation with the intent to obtain desired answers to be use
   |later date (7 months after the taping one year after the incident) even
   |one person knows that the conversation is taped?
   |_______________________________________________________________________

          Herman, give me a call at (203) 622-6262 and let's talk about
          this.  Your post raises a number of issues, and begs a number
          of questions, that cannot (and probably should not) be dealt
          with in this medium.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  Old bankers never die; they just lose interest.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18655 alt.folklore.urban:25676
From: brewer@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (marmoset)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:25:37 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


>> nuclear attack or something that wipes out a large number of high
>> officials, what is the line of succession? 
>

Bunch of high officials deleted

>Secretary of Education
>Secretary of Veterans Affairs
>

I was told by someone (and I want to say that it was Mr. Pennypacker (no lie) 
my 7th and 8th grade social studies teacher) that the line of succession went
clear down to the Postmaster General.  Was he just plain full o' it?



--

marmoset
"green bottles!"
"BROWN BOTTLES!"
From: edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 11:31:27 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>> 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.
>

Both the statements above strike me as rather odd.  I should hope that 
both parties in a reproduction-inducing act are exercising choice in their 
participation, and therefore each ought to assume the appropriate 
responsibilities.  Neither one can claim that there is no choice. 
On the other hand, a man not wearing protection in such an act should be 
readily apparent to the woman, I should think.  May be the woman in such
a situation, for her own protection, should consider saying "wait a minute
mister." It's hard to argue that the responsibility rests primarily or
solely on any one side.
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: resposibilities of so
Date: 10 Oct 92 12:25:27 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Mike Wohlgemuth, in a message to All on 10-09-92 at 5:09am, said:

MW>|I recently gave a local pest control company a key to my
   |house so they could spray while I wasn't there.  After the
   |first time they used it, my neighbor found the key in the
   |street with a tag attached which had my address on it.  He
   |brought it back, so nothing was stolen, but I don't really
   |feel like paying for someone to leave my key in the street.
   |Am I able to withhold payment, and if so, how much can I
   |withhold? (I owe them for several visits.)
   |___________________________________________________________

               No.  You can mail your check with a nasty letter,
               though.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  Hell hath no fury like the lawyer of woman scorned
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Homicide charges filed wrt sale of a home, guilty verdict
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:15:56 GMT


If you can believe what you read on the net, in article
<1992Oct12.220044.27165@athena.mit.edu>,
wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) said:

> This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.

No, actually, what I said was a bit longer than that.  _I_ certainly
didn't send out any cancellation command; I assume there was some sort
of line-noise type glitch somewhere along the line.  Anyway, the
article I tried to post was:

  -=-=-=-  cut here  -=-=-=-  cut here  -=-=-=-  cut here  -=-=-=-

I'm not expressing any opinion on this; I'm just reporting it because
I thought it was interesting.  From the "New England News Briefs"
section at p.49 of the 10/12/92 Boston Globe, slightly reformatted:

Vermont home seller guilty in deaths
------------------------------------

   ST. ALBAN'S, VT (Associated Press) -- A man who sold a house
without disclosing it contained what turned out to be a faulty gas
heater has been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.  Stephen
Converse Brooks, 38, a Burlington businessman, could face up to 45
years in prison.  Authorities said the case was believed to be the
first in Vermont in which homicide charges were filed in connection
with the sale of a product.

   Testimony during the trial indicated that Brooks sold a home in
Burlington to the parents of Linda Cifarelli in September 1988.  Three
months later, Cifarelli, 26, her husband, John Cifarelli, 34, and
23-month-old daughter Nina were found dead in bed from carbon monoxide
poisoning.  Their other daughter survived.  Their deaths were blamed
on fumes from a faulty gas-powered heater used to melt snow and ice on
the home's steep driveway.

   Brooks' former girlfriend testified that Brooks knew about the
problem with the heater and that she and their daughter had been
hospitalized for carbon monoxide poisoning the previous November.
Other testimony came from three repairmen who said they spoke with
Brooks about the problem.
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Carjacking as a federal offense
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:06:23 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

}I was wondering the same thing.  Here's the proposed addition to Title 18:

}"2119.  Carjacking
}  "(a) Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes or
}attempts to take a motor vehicle, that has been transported, shipped, or
}received in interstate or foreign commerce, from the person or presence
}of another,  shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than
}15 years, or both."

Wow, I knew that Congress liked to abuse the commerce clause, but doesn't
this set a rather sweeping precedent?  I mean, given that almost anything
that one can buy these days "has been transported, shipped, or received in
interstate or foreign commerce", Congress could make virtually all theft
a federal crime, couldn't they?  For that matter, they could gather under
federal jurisdiction any crime that involves a "transported" object.  Am
I the only one who finds this scary?  (I know, it's just another step in
the ongoing erosion of the power of the individual states, but this just 
seems so blatant.)

--James Preston

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: JD != "lawyer" (was: What a Problem!!!)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:11:34 GMT

lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:

>2.  Funny, I've always seen (legal concept X) referred to as "the attorney-
>client privilege".  Surely this *only* refers to admitted lawyers...

Nope, it applies whenever someone reasonably believes that a confidence
is being shared with an attorney, whether the person believed to be an
attorney actually is one or not.  The privilege belongs to the person
in the client's position, not the attorney's position; consider the
various forms of trickery that could be used to gain and then disclose
secrets, if ersatz attorneys could not be bound by the client's control
of the privilege.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		Electronic Frontier Foundation Member 932
				Republican National Committee Member 90050367
				Amateur Radio Station WA4LDA
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,misc.headlines