HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Tort Reform (was: Number of Lawyers)
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:31:25 GMT
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI

In article <16uq02SN20=301@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.175134.23190@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, dsc@gemini.tmc.edu 
>(Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:
>> How about having punative damages acrue to the state, rather than to the 
>> plaintiff?  The successful plaintiff would still receive compensatory 
>damages, 
>> and thus would not be deprived of anything they have a clear right to, but,
>> much of the motivation for seeking punative damages would be lost.
>
>Then no plaintiffs would seek punitive damages.  If that's the goal, why not 
>just eliminate punitive damages?
>

The pupose behind punative damages would seem to be, from the name alone,
to be punishment.  A aggrieved party could concievably still justify seeking
to punish a defendent as a means of dissuading them from repeating the tort.
Especially, in a class action suit.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Subject: Re: Nilges
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:50:16 GMT

 >>into this but it is a pretty typically Western media created notion of 
> >>the big bad middle east (except Israel of course!  But thats an issue of
> >>who actually controls the media!)
> >
> >It'll be interesting to see whether Ed Nilges condemns this dishonest
> >anti-Semitism as strongly as he condemns Walt Disney.
> 
> You reasoned from the Arabic-sounding name of Shereryar and his mild
> criticism, above, of a media bias that is supported by Palestinian
> moderates including Edward Said to the absurd conclusion that Sheheryar
> is an anti-Semitic.  As such, YOU are the racist and indeed the
> anti-semite, if we use Said's definition of latter-day anti-semitism as
> anti-semitism directed at Arabs.  The devil-figure Arab of 1967 and
> after has replaced the pre-WWII devil-figure Jew in racist media.
> 
> If Sherheryar believes that American media is under Jewish control, I
> disagree with him.  If he means instead to say, as I think he does, that
> the media is controlled by neocolonialists with an interest in
> maintaining a militaristic, theocratic state in what used to be
> Palestine, then I agree with him.  And note that there are many Jews in
> America and Israel who disagree with the instransigent policy
> represented by Likud (and who just elected common sense in the form of
> Labor.)
> 
> 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.
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: question on signature
Date: 31 Aug 92 06:48:51 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Andrew Chen, in a message to All on 08-27-92 at 9:19pm, said:

AC>|I have a simple question on legal signatures:  Can a Chinese "chop" mar
   |be used for a signature in the U.S.?  The "chop" is just a stamper with
   |a person's name in Chinese, so shouldn't it be equivalent to a
   |"rubber stamp" signature?
   |_______________________________________________________________________

          If you affix something to a document -- be it your manual or
          facsimile signature, your thumbprint or just an "x" -- with
          the intention of becoming bound by it, you are bound.  Under
          the UCC, a "signature" can be rubber-stamped or even pre-
          printed.


   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
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Tort Reform (was: Number of Lawyers)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:08:20 GMT

dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:

>In article <16uq02SN20=301@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.175134.23190@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, dsc@gemini.tmc.edu 
>>(Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:
>>> How about having punative damages acrue to the state, rather than to the 
>>> plaintiff?
>>Then no plaintiffs would seek punitive damages.
>A aggrieved party could concievably still justify seeking
>to punish a defendent as a means of dissuading them from repeating the tort.

Maybe, but the burden is on the plaintiff to establsih how much of an
award is required before the defendant feels punished.  This requires some
research, and can be more complicated than it sounds.  Assuming that the
lawyers then get their time paid for out of the award, with the rest
going to the state (since no plaintiff is going to pay his own lawyer
just to make the state rich), we would have a situation where only the
lawyers were making any money.  Public poilcy would probably not accept
that, IMHO.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Graffiti Ordinance Ex Post Facto
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:40:38 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Aug25.185106.4511@aero.org>, foy@aero.org sez:
>My city is working on an ordinance to allow the city to take action of up
>to six months in jail if a person does not remove graffiti, or allow the
>city to remove it. The ordinance is directed at one specific individual.
>
>She has refused to allow the city to remove graffiti, because of
>problems which arose from the way it was removed at some prior time.
>
>The city is passing this ordinance to get her to allow them to remove
>graffiti which is already there. Is this not an ex post facto law if it is
>applied to her.

It doesn't look like ex post facto: they're not going to punish her
for her *past* refusal, but rather for her future non-feasance.

If I were of a mind to attack this ordinance, I'd try a takings clause
approach.  (Hoo boy -- and you thought the _Lucas_ debate was over.)
Off the top of my pointy legal head, I question whether the state can
invite itself onto your property (read: invade, as discussed in the
celebrated _Loretto_ decision) on pain of incarceration.  (And please:
let's keep this distinct from the never-ending forfeiture discussion.)


-- 
Morally and artistically, Henry Miller had MORE right to free speech than
Walt Disney and [Father] Coughlin because Miller was an honest man whereas
Disney and Coughlin were liars.   - Ed Nilges
	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: State Universities & First Amendment
Date: 30 Aug 92 02:59:23 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Aug29.162243.1797@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> IO20456@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Ryan R Robbins) writes:
> 
> [...]
>>Concerning the first amendment barring Congress from making laws
>>respecting establishments of religion, isn't it a violation by a
>>state when a state-run university provides a room in its student
>>union for mass? What about when a state rents or leases university
>>land to religious groups on its college campuses? Doesn't this
>>conflict with the First Amendment? Has anyone sued a state to bar
>>religious institutions from holding mass on public property?
> [...]
> 
> I've never heard of this. The U. of Illinois has no chapels on campus.
> 
> I would think the legality would depend on whether religious groups
> are treated like other groups who want to rent state land.

My campus has religious services in an area above the student
cafeteria.  The room is not restricted to services either.  Anyway,
I've heard the court system has loosened its restrictions on religious
organizations having events on public school grounds.  It used to be
that a church wanting to use a high school building for fund-raising for
some charitable cause, even if the cause was secular, would be banned,
even though the same school would allow, for example, the United Way
to conduct their activities on school grounds (after school hours of
course).

I think that Colleges and Universities are treated differently than
High Schools and those schools that teach younger kids, even though
state funded, because the students attending college are not compelled
to attend either the services, or the school.  Unlike, possibly Bob
Jones University, or Brigham Young University, (I've never been to
these private universities so I don't know) there is no stigma
attached in not attending these services either, if you are a student.  
That was one of the reasons, BTW, that the Supremes banned school
prayer in public schools; the stigma of not participating.
=== Al Sparks
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16616 alt.politics.correct:5185 alt.censorship:7233
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:17:47 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Aug28.153659.25832@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>I happily plead guilty to ignorance of racist humor, Chuck.

	But Ed, you post so much of it.

	True, neither the humor nor the racism seems conscious.

						Kayembee
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16454 alt.politics.correct:5135 alt.censorship:7152
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Nilges
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:49:46 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Aug25.163433.15293@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.151714.11497@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug25.150827.11033@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
> >2. Corporate Whistleblowers generally lose their jobs after spilling the beans.
>> 
>> Leaving aside the fact that many whistleblowers have brought successful
>> suits against employers who've fired them, this does not implicate free
>> speech.  I can't start calling my boss names to his face, either.  (Not
>> that I would -- Doug's my hero :)
>
>What happens after they are fired is pretty much irrelevant.  If 
>the application of the first amendment does not protect them from 
>losing their jobs, it is inconsistent.  What comes later is not relevant.
>And thanks for the last sentence:  Why can't you call your boss names
>to his face?  If you're for free speech, that is your right!
>

Well, what if I'm a salesman and my boss fires me because I insulted
a customer?  Violation of free speech?

What if I'm a student, and my math teacher flunks me because I insist
that a triangle has two sides.  Violation of my rights?

>into this but it is a pretty typically Western media created notion of 
>the big bad middle east (except Israel of course!  But thats an issue of
>who actually controls the media!)

It'll be interesting to see whether Ed Nilges condemns this dishonest
anti-Semitism as strongly as he condemns Walt Disney.

>> But who is to determine what is "good" speech, and what isn't?  You?  Me?
>> Jesse Helms?  Better to have a blanket rule that all speech is protected.
>
>Hey, all I say is that if free speech is to be stressed upon with such 
>enthusiasm, then ALL speech should be free.  If we pick and choose what is
>free and what is not (as is currently the case), then we already exist in 
>a censored world where the "power elite" make this decision. 

Except that it isn't the case.  Though if Ed were to have his way, I
could have you prosecuted for spreading anti-Semitism.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16615 alt.politics.correct:5184 alt.censorship:7231
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Organization: Oracle Corp., Belmont CA
	<2A9D3CE0.17246@orion.oac.uci.edu>
	<1992Aug27.213055.17263@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Aug28.034802.27700@fid.morgan.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:40:45 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug28.034802.27700@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.213055.17263@midway.uchicago.edu>
>hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
>>In article <2A9D3CE0.17246@orion.oac.uci.edu>, cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
> >> 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!)

Seriously, wasn't that whole paragraph facetious? If not, it appears
we might have found Mr. Ed's female counterpart, the logical Jackee
Joyner-Kersee.


> Who authorized you to speak for all minorities and women?
> I'm a member of several minority groups; you certainly don't speak for
>me.

And thus (unintentionally, I'm sure) we come dangerously close to
sanctioning the all-too-common (dare I say Politically Correct?)
assumption that being stated by a minority or a woman somehow
automatically confers an extra measure of logical coherency on an
argument.


>  In fact, with the possible exception of Ed Nilges (and has
>anybody ever seen Ed Nilges and Sheheryar Hasnain at the same time?),
>I don't think you speak for anybody else.

Certainly not me. But then, my opinions don't count, I'm just a white
male.

                                     Cordially,

                                          -g
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:12:46 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal

As quoted from <1992Aug27.183148.27573@Princeton.EDU> by egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges):

> 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.  

There was no need to marginalize Sherheryar, since his argument was self-
marginalized by its being comprised solely of untruths and half truths.  Of
course the presences of HALF truths trumps you....

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16679 alt.dads-rights:2148 soc.men:15693
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.dads-rights,soc.men
Subject: blood tests for determining paternity (was Re: NO SUBJECT (1))
Date: 30 Aug 92 17:16:06 GMT
Organization: NCSU Computing Center

In article <1992Aug30.145055.4741@wolves.uucp> woody@wolves.uucp (Woody Muller) writes:
>In <1992Aug29.032604.28702@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
>
>>James, from what I know, a simple blood test will only detect inconsistencies
>>in blood types between father, mother, and child (I *think* that the mother's
>>blood *is* needed ... 
>
>Yes, a blood test requires samples from father, mother, and child.  ...

  To get a bit nit-picky about this - one would certainly want all three
samples, but in some situations the mother's sample is not needed.  For
example if the putative father is AB/N, and the child is O/M, then there
is exclusionary evidence for each of the types even without knowing the
data on the mother.

--henry schaffer  n c state univ
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Graffiti Ordinance Ex Post Facto
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:51:06 GMT

My city is working on an ordinance to allow the city to take action of up
to six months in jail if a person does not remove graffiti, or allow the
city to remove it. The ordinance is directed at one specific individual.

She has refused to allow the city to remove graffiti, because of
problems which arose from the way it was removed at some prior time.

The city is passing this ordinance to get her to allow them to remove
graffiti which is already there. Is this not an ex post facto law if it is
applied to her.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer



Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Rape and Paternity
Originator: root@mogate.sps.mot.com
Organization: SPS
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 01:45:03 GMT

In article <BtLqL6.JxJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
|> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <BtIuAn.G28@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
|> 
|> >|> Darcyesque argument has said that sex constitutes an "implied contract"
|> >|> on the part of the man.  Combine this with the rape twist, and we can
|> >|> see a very strange thing happen.  Note that the law currently only makes
|> >|> sense if a) a child exists from the moment of conception and b) abortion
|> >|> is illegal.  Since neither holds in the current legal situation, it
|> >|> becomes extremely difficult to logically support child support.
|> 
|> >A child exists from the moment of conception and abortion is legal.
|> 
|> Then abortion may be referred to as intrauterine infanticide?

Yes.  Or as murder.  Law (often) doesn't make sense and is (often) illogical.
-- 
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
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Rape and Paternity
Originator: root@mogate.sps.mot.com
Organization: SPS
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:32:00 GMT

In article <BtIuAn.G28@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:

|> Darcyesque argument has said that sex constitutes an "implied contract"
|> on the part of the man.  Combine this with the rape twist, and we can
|> see a very strange thing happen.  Note that the law currently only makes
|> sense if a) a child exists from the moment of conception and b) abortion
|> is illegal.  Since neither holds in the current legal situation, it
|> becomes extremely difficult to logically support child support.

A child exists from the moment of conception and abortion is legal.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16867 talk.politics.misc:43459
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clair George's trial a mistrial!!
Date: 3 Sep 92 01:36:22 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <ART.92Sep2105408@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com sez:
>In article <1992Aug31.185011.24978@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>   In <ART.92Aug30121858@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com sez:

>      [re Oliver North]
>   >  Note too that he was only convicted on the "cheap" charges,
>   >destruction of government documents and accepting the gift of a security
>   >fence.  A gift he accepted in desperation because, even though he had
>   >received numerous death threats, the government refused his request for
>   >protections.
>
>   Unfortunately for your position, this is a lie.  After North made this
>   claim before the committee, the relevant military authorities
>   submitted a declaration that North *never made a request for
>   protection*.
>
>   References, which can be had on line (if not in the committee majority
>   report), available on request.
>
>Here's a request.

Ask and ye shall receive . . . .

1) Associated Press, July 20, 1987:

  "In the Friday session, the committees released a letter from the
  secretary of the navy, James H. Webb Jr., and Peter M. Murphy, counsel
  for the Marine Corps, saying Lieutenant Colonel Oliver L. North had
  never requested protection from terrorist attacks for himself and his
  family.  The letter said the colonel would have been given such
  protection if he had asked for it."

2) N Y Times reprint of committee reports, p. 305:

  "According to the Marine Corps, North did not request protection for
  his home from the Corps, an option that was available to him."

3) Reuters, July 10, 1987:

  "Presidential spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said a check of the files
  `has not turned up any written request for security' for North when he
  worked at the White House."


Any more cherished Ollie North myths you want exploded?

-- 
	       Qui veut la peau lisse, evite la police.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship