HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Attorney v. Lawyer
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 15:47:43 GMT

larry@world.std.com (Larry Appleman) writes:

>What IS the difference between an "attorney..." and a "lawyer..."?

I get asked this all the time, and so I've done some minimal research
on it:  Most dictionaries of ordinary usage admit to no difference
between the terms.  For example, Random House's wordbook defines
"attorney" most tersely:  "A lawyer."

Others split a fine hair based on the phrase "attorney at law,"
which is used to refer to one who has the authority to act on behalf
of another in a legal capacity.  Strictly speaking, one need not be
a lawyer to hold "power of attorney."  It might follow that one need
not be a lawyer to be an attorney (for example, I have always wanted
to become an "attorney at science fiction," authorized to act on
behalf of others in a science fictional capacity).

Conversely, some contexts allow a broader meaning for the word
"lawyer," referring to anyone involved professionally in the general
domain of law.  By that view, a lawyer is to law as a philosopher is
to philosophy (in that sense, all of us here in misc.legal are
lawyers).

There is no universal agreement on a distinction between the terms,
and for most purposes I think they can be regarded as meaning the
same thing.  But, for what it is worth, one of my professors gave
me this answer:  A lawyer is anyone with a law degree, an attorney
is anyone with a license to practice law.  By his definition, which
I have always liked, neither is a subset of the other.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller J.D.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Embryos as Property?
Note: I included misc.legal, as this has possible applications to property right
X-To: J H WOODYATT
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:49:00 GMT
Keywords: Property rights, abortion, compensation for involuntary loss...?

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes...
JHW> Here.  Play with this:

JHW> Frozen embryos.  While in transit through another sovereign nation,
JHW> they are taken into custody by agents of that foreign nation, wherein
JHW> they expire as a result of mistreatment.  Since embryos are persons,
JHW> and therefore *not* property under U.S. law, the foreign nation is
JHW> `responsible' for the death of those `persons' rather than the
JHW> destruction of property
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ah, so you *would* consider embryos as property, then?

This wasn't meant to be taken as a flame ; I'm just curious as to why you would
want to admit this, while many other "Pro choice" people have stayed clear of
using terminology such as this, perhaps out of fear of being flamed by
"pro-lifers" who might accuse them of believing potential children as merely
someone's property.

Of course, if embryos *are* property, then why could it not be argued that
*both* of the people who contributed to its creation, should have rights to
"its" disposition?  Naturally, it would be a different matter when the embryo
is located in someone else's body, but if I recall correctly, situations where
two parties have joint ownership, but only party has exclusive rights to the
disposition of that property, the other party *does* receive compensation if
that property is sold, used for profit, or (if you have already guessed where
I'm headed...), destroyed.

I realise that this is a Devil's Advocate argument, but I should say right from
the start that I consider it absolutely invidious to consider unborn persons
as property, *but* if they *were* considered as such, would there not be some
sort of financial compensation owing to men for involuntary loss of property
after an abortion??

(Boy, I can just *imagine* the flameworks starting now...)

/* Set Asbestos Suit On */

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * I have an attitude and I know how to use it.
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: False allegations of abuse / Chesler's book...
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 21:30:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.190851.9672@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>In <BzKFHA.Do2@world.std.com>, srm@world.std.com sez:
>>
>>It would be a hard case.  "Soldier of Fortune" magazine beat such a 
>>liability claim in what must have been the clearest possible facts:
>>Plaintiff was shot by a person hired via an advertisement in SoF,
>>offering "gun for hire, all jobs considered" (or words to that effect).
>>At no point in the appeals does any court dispute the obvious
>>meaning of the ad.  But, after some intermediate losses, SoF finally
>>prevailed, and had no liability to the plaintiff.
>
>As I understand it, SoF faced more than one such suit.  According to
>an article I read a month or two ago (in NY Law Journal?  Natl Law
>Journal?), they recently lost their appeal in a case where they *were*
>found liable.
>
>["Cite?  Cite?  I don' have to show you no steenkin' cite!"  There was
>a time when Mead Data would have allowed me find the answer for free;
>nowadays, it's folks like Terry, Ted, William D., and Tim who will
>have to run the dispositive Lexis search.]

Lexis?  Who uses Lexis when there is Westlaw Is Natural!

IS SOLDIER OF FORTUNE MAGAZINE LIABLE FOR AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR A HIRED
KILLER MERCENARY?

Braun v SoF, 968 F2d 1110 (11th Cir 1992)  (liable, $2 million).
Eimann v SoF, 880 F2d 830 (5th Cir 1989) (not liable under Texas law)
Norwood v SoF, 651 F Supp 1397 (W D Ark 1987) (could be liable; no further
record of case, they must've settled, or I read it wrong or something)

Then there are a whole bunch of murder cases where there's an argument
whether the ad can be used as evidence...

This whole Westlaw Is Natural can be fun!

SHOULD THE POST OFFICE USE A YOUNG ELVIS OR A FAT ELVIS STAMP?

See 513 F Supp 1339.  (Actually, don't.  It was just the case that best
answered the question, which is, not very.)

IS A BAKING SODA MANUFACTURER LIABLE IF IT MAKES YOUR STOMACH EXPLODE?
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sskinner@csws2.ic.sunysb.edu (Scott E Skinner)
Subject: SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:51:48 GMT

Does anyone know where to find recent Supreme
Court decisions on the net?  I used to get them
from 129.22.8.75 but I am not sure if this 
address is valid anymore.


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Assessing Governmental Interest
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 03:17:56 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Dec18.230918.1685@inel.gov>, whg@inel.gov sez:
>
>	" ... The constitution as many of us have under-
>	stood it,  the instrument that has meant so much to
>	us,  is gone.  The guarantees heretofore supposed to 
>	protect against arbitrary action have been swept
>	away.  The powers of Congress have been so enlarged
>	that now no man can tell their limitations. ..."
>
>			--- Mr Justice James C. McReynolds,  1935.

Ah yes, the much-beloved and historically noteworthy Justice
McReynolds . . . .


-- 
			Sold by weight, not by volume.
  Some settling of contents may have occurred during shipment and handling.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contracts
Summary: Status Law prevails over Contract Law to protect children.
Keywords: Sex, Agreement, Legal, Contract
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:34:05 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Dec11.021752.25930@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com 
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1992Dec10.142620.11295@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>As are all contracts where two parties contract to take rights from a third
>>party.   [Ted Frank]

>Agreed. That's why the kind of contract I proposed would obligate the woman
>to REIMBURSE the man for his statutory obligations. It would not affect the
>_amount_ of support going to the child, and therefore wouldn't take away any 
>third party's rights.

>Still unenforceable, Ted? Why?   [Kevin Darcy]

Because Contract Law is not the be-all and the end-all of law.  In this
case, the purported contract conflicts with Status-based Law, which is
just as good law as it ever was.  The outcome dictated by Status Law
is that support for a child will come from his biological father.  The
desired outcome of the purported contract is that the biological father
will be "held harmless" (by the mother) so that in effect, none of his
money goes to support his child.  Status Law in this case operates for
the benefit of a party (the child) who is incapable of protecting his own
interests through Contract Law, and so Status Law not only takes precedence,
it *deserves* to take precedence.

When I've brought up obligations based on Status Law in previous postings,
Mr. Darcy's best response has been that Status Law is a relic of the Middle
Ages (as if laws against theft and murder weren't also relics of the same
Middle Ages), and therefore Status Law does not deserve respect when it
conflicts with Contract Law.  In other words, Mr. Darcy *does not like*
Status Law.  Too bad.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: hbishop@ttsi.lonestar.org (Huett Bishop)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Small Claims Court: Collecting on Default Judgement
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:06:16 GMT
Organization: Tandem Telecommunications Systems Inc. Plano, Tx.

I am preparing to go to small claims court here in Texas. I am trying
to collect compensation for damages from a local moving company who
destroyed some of our furniture.

I have made untold calls and have gotten nothing in response. They don't
even return the calls.

I had an attorney write a demand letter stating the claim and that we would
go to court over this matter. They did not respond to this either.
The letter was sent certified and the receipt was signed and returned 
by the post office, so I  know they got the letter. 

Therefore my wife and I filed a claim in Small Claims Court. We expect the
same results, they won't show up or respond and we will receive a default
judgment. That is what the court clerk told us.

My question (finally) is how do I collect on this judgement? My attorney
suggested placing a lien on them or garnishing their bank accounts, or
a lien on their moving vans etc. We asked the clerk about this and was
told that a lien or garnishment on their accounts could be placed if
(big if) we had their bank account number.

What do I have to do to get this information? Can or will the judge (or
JP) force them to pay? Or provide the info?


Any information would be appreciated.

+--------------------------------------+
|Huett Bishop                          |
| Tandem Telecommuncations Systems Inc.|
|Dallas, TX                            |
|                                      |
|Go Cowboys!!                          |
|                                      |
|email: hbishop@ttsi.lonestar.org      |
+--------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.bicycles.misc
From: "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Bankruptcy Lawyer Sought in the Chicago Area
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:58:40 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>DATE:   10 Dec 1992 10:15:06 GMT
>FROM:   Bruce Hildenbrand <bhilden@bigriver.Eng.Sun.COM>
[....]
>it would be a big plus if the lawyer was also a cycling enthusiast.

Lawyers on bicycles? Damn, there goes the neighborhood.

--Michael Smith

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: renglish@cello.hpl.hp.com (Bob English)
Subject: Bankruptcy and divorce in California
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:20:11 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs

Suppose a couple were deeply and debt with a failing marriage, and after
separation and filing for divorce, one of the members of the couple
files for bankruptcy.  Is the other member liable for the entire debt?

--bob--
To the best of my knowledge, H & P are neither getting divorces nor
declaring bankruptcy, so I can't see how they might care...
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Support Groups For Youth
Keywords: Regeneration; Courage; Desert Stream; White Stone; L.I.F.E.
Date: 14 Dec 92 14:26:05 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Dec12.210940.4319@panix.com> roy@panix.com (Roy Radow) writes:

>MY QUESTION TO CRAMER IS- WHAT SHOULD:  1) MY RESPONSE, 

Refer them to one of the Support Groups for Youth, such as Regeneration
and Courage, that I listed in my earlier posting, "Support Groups For
Youth."

>2) THE GAY AND LESBIAN COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE, 

Ditto.

>3) NAMBLA'S RESPONSE, 

Disband, and let the membership individually seek assistance from one
of the above-mentioned Support Groups for Youth.

>AND 4) YOUR RESPONSE BE TO GAY AND LESBIAN YOUTH WHO REQUEST 
>ASSISTANCE, SUPPORT AND INFORMATION?   [Roy Radow]

I would not presume to tell Mr. Clayton Cramer what his response
should be.  He does just fine responding on his own.

>Roy Radow               roy@panix.com         ...rutgers!cmcl2!panix!roy
>North American Man/Boy Love Association -For a packet containing a sample
>Bulletin, publications list and membership information send $1.00 postage
>to: NAMBLA Info,  Dept.RR,  PO Box 174,  Midtown Station,  NYC NY  10018.

Holy cow.  Is this for real, or is it an FBI or Postal Inspector plant?

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus"
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: Assessing Governmental Interest
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 23:09:18 GMT

Get a clue folks.  It is completely arbitrary;  has been since
1935.  The Consititution is D. L.

	" ... The constitution as many of us have under-
	stood it,  the instrument that has meant so much to
	us,  is gone.  The guarantees heretofore supposed to 
	protect against arbitrary action have been swept
	away.  The powers of Congress have been so enlarged
	that now no man can tell their limitations. ..."

			--- Mr Justice James C. McReynolds,  1935.


The "compelling interest" business is as elastic as taffy.  As Justice
McReynolds foresaw,  no one can say what the limits are,  or will be.

Sad. 
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
X-To: MATTHEW ROSENBLATT
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:50:00 GMT

matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes...
MR> With Male Privilege goes Male Responsibility -- including the
MR> responsibility to support one's biological children.  There are
MR> some men who are perfectly willing to discard the whole Sexist
MR> system and give up their Male Privilege.  Some of these men may
MR> be idealists who have truly bought the Feminist message of
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
MR> "Equality _ueber alles_."  And some of them may simply be looking
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
MR> for a way out of their Male Responsibility.  The "Pre-Sex Contract"
MR> appears to be the concoction of men of this latter type.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is hardly true, Matt.  In the proposed Pre-Sex contract, a man who
doesn't want *responsibility* for the child, also declares that he wishes to
have no *Privileges*, either.

So believe me, these men are *just* as willing to give up their sexist "Male
Privilege in order to give up a sexist responsibility.

Equality _uber alles_.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Friends don't let friends use Windows.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: schonert@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Juanita Schonert)
Subject: Informing others of a company's debt?
Keywords: debt legal
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:04:31 GMT


I have a question concerning a company's that used to do business
with us, and we had to take to court concerning a substantial debt.

The company signed a stipulation that they owed the money, and would
make monthly payments. We have had to go to court for judgment twice
now to receive those monthly payments. The company owes considerable
money to us and other sources.

Here is my question. A vendor asked me if I could provide him with
information on the status of this company with us after he found
we had done business with them. Th company in debt has not approved 
this other company checking with us about their financial status.

Can I tell this company about their debt with us and not be taken
to court for libel or slander against their business?

If I choose to, can I inform other vendors that I know they deal with
about their debt?

An inside source tells me this company is very near to closing their
doors and I would hate to see others get taken the way our business
has. Thanks for any help.


Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Government to Grant Swift Endangered Species Act Protection to Hundreds of Imperiled Species
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:29:03 GMT

In article <BzEwJ2.71z@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ezellj@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Jean Ezell) writes:
>ndallen@r-node.gts.org (Nigel Allen) writes:
>
>>Here is a press release from the Fund For Animals Inc. and
>>Defenders of Wildlife.
>
>> Government to Grant Swift Endangered Species Act Protection to
>                      ^^^^^
>   . . .
>
>>   Under the settlement, which was filed today in federal district
>>court in Washington, D.C., the government must, by September 1996,
>                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Why does something seem wrong here?

The word 'government' is used twice which is about twice too often.
And the nastier word 'court' is used at least once which hints of
lawyers, a species lower than pond scum that is in absolutely no
danger of extinction, though it should be.

Gary
From: wr001b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (William E. Raftery Jr.)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: WANTED: Legal mumbo-jumbo
Date: 17 Dec 92 06:28:38 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <11473@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> muzzle@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>Hi there
>
>Does anyone out there have any legal mumbo-jumbo that they can send me?
>
>I specifically require documents detailing terms and conditions, eg
>
>"By opening this package, the user acknowledges the following:
>
>[huge list]"
>
>Well, I'm after [huge list].  The more obsfucated, the better.
>

I too am interested in such a list. If anyone has a copy, please send it.
Thank you.

William E. Raftery Jr.
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contracts
Keywords: Sex, Agreement, Legal, Contract
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:10:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.021752.25930@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.142620.11295@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>As are all contracts where two parties contract to take rights from a third
>>party.
>
>Agreed. That's why the kind of contract I proposed would obligate the woman
>to REIMBURSE the man for his statutory obligations. It would not affect the
>_amount_ of support going to the child, and therefore wouldn't take away any 
>third party's rights.
>
>Still unenforceable, Ted? Why?

Do you think courts are too stupid to see what's going on?

"Well, the default is that in order for the child to have the proper
level of support, we require the NCP to pay the CP $x, but I see this
contract that requires the CP to reimburse the NCP $x, but the money's
still going to the child, unlike a contract where the NCP isn't obligated
to pay the CP anything, so unlike that contract I guess this one's okay."

Leaving aside the issue that courts have never enforced contracts involving 
sex.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Interstate Commerce
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:19:04 GMT

tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In any event, if such material were illegal in California, someone who 
>xhipped them into California would be subject to at least civil penalties 
>under the California long-arm statutes.  I haven't had Criminal Procedure, so 
>I can't comment whether an analagous provision exists for criminal penalties.

Wait a minute.  If the seller doesn't advertise in California, and doesn't
try to serve the California market, but merely fills an order from California,
and ships it F.O.B. some place outside of California, wouldn't they fail
to have sufficient contacts with California to establish jurisdiction?

In particular, I'm thinking of some of the examples from a book you
have praised in the past: _Glannon_.  For instance, there is the example
of the car dealer in North Carolina, who sells a lemon to someone who
comes in and says they need a car to drive home to Florida, and Glannon
says that Florida courts would probably not have jurisdiction, because
the North Carolina car dealer did not deliberately try to derive benefits
from or do business in Florida.

I too haven't had criminal law, but I don't think it can make a difference
here.  If jurisdiction fails because of lack of sufficient contacts for
civil matters, it will also fail for criminal matters, won't it?  The
minimal contacts doctrine comes from the due process clause of the 14th
Amendment, which does not limit itself to civil matters.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal