HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Lawyerly English (was: How Can I Really Annoy Someone?)
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:46:47 GMT

In article <Bx75wr.GKA@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>(Stevens R Miller) writes:

>>>I take it you think mathematicians, physicists, psychologists and bakers
>>>don't speak English.
>
>>"analytic algebraic topology of locally Euclidean infinitely
>>differentiable Riemannian metrizable manifolds" (I'm enough of a
>>mathematician to know that we don't always speak English.)
>
>Impressive, but inapposite (a lawyerly term meaning, "so what?" 8-) ).
>No one has any preconceived notion of what "Riemannian" means, other than
>math folk.  But my first example, "complex number," could be misleading
>to the uninformed.

If I see the term "... number" in sci.math, I should expect that there
is probably a technical meaning.  Similarly, in misc.legal, any phrase
with terms like "law" or "regulation" or "action" in it will be
assumed to be technical in nature.  I was objecting to a phrase that
did not appear to contain any "flags", and was used in what appeared
to be its standard English meaning.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: USA President's power to pardon
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:04:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: aplcenmp.BxHnnt.7CD
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University

pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:

>According to Article II, Section 2, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of
>the United States of America, "the president ... shall have power to
>grant ... pardons".

>What's the justification for this power? 

It's one of the traditional prerogatives of a sovereign.  The theory,
in English law, was that criminal prosecutions were done in the King's
name, so the King (actually the appropriate Minister) could stop them,
or reverse the result.  It applied only to criminal cases initiated by
the government.  There used to be two ways of initiating criminal
proceedings: by indictment and by appeal.  In appeal, the victim of a
crime accused the criminal in open court.  The power of pardon applied
only in cases of indictment.  Also, it never applied to civil cases
brought by one individual against another.  In short, a pardon was
simply a way for the King to refrain from doing what he could do, or
undo something that he had done.

Initiation of criminal proceedings by appeal wasn't used much after
the end of the Middle Ages, and it was finally abolished entirely in
1819, so the power of pardon in criminal cases became absolute.

The United States government doesn't really have the same concept of
"sovereignty" as the British government, but pardon is clearly an
executive power, so the authors of the Constitution gave it to the
President.  Governors have the same power over criminal prosecutions in
their respective States.  Note that the Constitution talks about
"reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States."  A
crime committed under State laws is outside the jurisdiction of the
President, and it's up to the Governor of that State to decide whether
to pardon.

>Should the USA Constitution be amended to rescind this power?

The power is certainly subject to abuse, but then so are plenty of
other Presidential powers.  In Britain, if the Queen's government
abuses the power to pardon, the responsible Minister will have to face
questions in the House of Commons.  Short of impeachment, there's no
such accountability for the President of the United States.


Keith
Xref: sparky misc.legal:19837 alt.politics.elections:23599 talk.politics.misc:59805
From: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:24:50 GMT
Reply-To: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com
Organization: DARPA STARS/NATO PCIS

In article <BxJ9oG.1qM@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu>, akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
> >1) Justices who might retire in the near future:  Blackmun; White;
> Justice John Paul Stevens is 72. ...
> Rehnquist is 68 ...
> Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is 62
> ... It's doubtful that any [of the others] would retire during the Clinton
> administration, even if he serves two terms.


Ah, but suppose Clinton does get to appoint a Chief Justice.  All he would have
to do is choose Anita Hill, and he would almost certainly get to appoint a
replacement for Thomas immediately thereafter.

Think of that!  As many as six Justices appointed by a Democrat, PLUS whatever
Gore manages before his second term ends in 2008.

-- 
Bob Munck
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: What happens to?
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:25:25 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <2185@sousa.ltn.dec.com>, 
pimentel@earrth.enet.dec.com (John Pimentel) said:

> In the event that any current President loses, what happens to the
> "football"?  Does he maintain it or does it go to someone else for
> safe keeping?  Whom?

With regard to the President's duties and functions -- including his
role as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces -- the presidential
election is a non-event.  George Bush was President and CINC the day
before the election, and he still is today.  The changeover won't come
until approximately noon on January 20th, 1993 when Bush's term of
office will end at the instant that his successor (probably Bill
Clinton, unless he drops dead or something between now and then)
completes the Oath of Office.

If by your question you meant "Is the power to launch nuclear missiles
removed from a losing incumbent President due to the fear that he
might decide to blow up the world in a fit of pique?" the answer, as
far as I know, is no.  Also as far as I know, neither the President
nor anyone else is supposed to be able to launch anything completely
on his own.  I have to admit, though, that my "as far as I know" is
pretty limited, since the United States government and military are
pretty tight-lipped about the details of nuclear launch procedure.
Folks in sci.military might be able to supply more data (or you could
just write a letter to Tom Clancy :-).

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Keywords: Merciful to the Cruel = Cruel to the Merciful
Date: 13 Nov 92 04:58:20 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

> What do we say to the families of the kidnapped and murdered three
> little boys?  That the State of Washington is now going to kill their
> murderer?  Will that bring back the little boys?  Can we face the
> families and tell them that we let this monster go after his previous
> molestings because we didn't want to throw his life into the garbage
> can, because we wanted to "take a chance" that he'd become a better
> man and straighten out his life?  Why can't we start *ruining the
> lives* of these people *before* they kill anyone?  Haven't we yet
> learned that he who is merciful to the cruel ends up being cruel
> to the merciful?
> 

Indeed. 

But what worries me about attacking *suspects* is the same thing that's
angering me about the WOD seizure laws. Too many abuses of the power 
are loosed on innocents.

I agree that on conviction the law isn't doing the job it's supposed to.
I don't see our current system as having any deterrent quality, nor do I
see in it any significant rehabilitative quality.

While the idea of selling people to Anaconda is certianly interesting, it
might run into some Constitutional obstacles. But I think we need to look
closely at a penal system which goes a lot further towards paying its own
way than the one we have now. Part of the overcrowding we have, which goes
to making the revolving door policies in force now, comes from a lack of
funding. 

It was suggested by someone a while back --I can't recall where-- that it
might be better to have a circumstance where convicts had to work. Their
earnings would go to pay for their room and board, and any extra would go
for retribution payment. Money can't bring the dead back to life, or to
undo some occurance, but it's better than nothing. 

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: pearlste@eastrg2.cray.com (Kenneth Pearlstein)
Subject: Bank error
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 11 Nov 92 11:58:24 CST


A friend of mine asked me to find out the legalities of the following

situation:

    He made a $2600 deposit and received a valid teller receipt showing

the $2600 deposit.  He noticed the next day via his ATM receipt that

his account was credited $26000 instead.  It has been over a month and the

bank has not noticed the error.  The question is does he have any legal

option other than letting the bank know of the error.  The checking account

the money is in is non-interest bearing.
From: carl@Cayman.COM (Carl Heinzl)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:30:44 GMT
	<GERRY.92Nov5155324@onion.cmu.edu>
	<1992Nov7.054459.26903@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Organization: Cayman Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu's message of 7 Nov 92 05:44:59 GMT
bcc: carl


>Assault.  Pointing a gun at someone is assault.  Same for the
>"psycho-busride" scenerio below.  All the situations the poster poses
>involve the breaking of various laws, and do not involve any protected
>rights of the perp.  We must assume the original poster knows this and
>is just intentionally being silly.

I think it's technically "Assualt with a deadly weapon".  If I just
*tell* you I'm going to beat the s**t out of you - that's assault.  If
I actually hit you - that's battery.

-Carl-
--
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Translation?
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:00:36 GMT

In article <Bx7qvr.Ctz@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com writes:
>After scanning the "Lawyerly English" thread, I'm not sure whether
>requests for translations of lawyerese are welcome here, but I'm sure
>someone will point out any errors in my ways...  :-)
>
>This paragraph is part of a promise to repay a loan:
>
>	The makers, endorsers, and guarantors of this note hereby
>	severally waive presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment,
>	protest and notice of protest.  I sign this note intending
>	hereby to charge my separate estate with its payment.

Considering what I started, I probably shouldn't jump in here.  Therefore...

When you borrow money, you have certain legal rights.  The person you
owe has to inform you that you owe money, demand it, etc.  There are
many rules about exactly how he must go about doing this.  The
legalese of the first sentence basically says that you're willing to
pay the debut without excercising all of those rights.  The second
sentence (I think) means that you intend to pay the debt with your own
money.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't really understand legalese, so if
anybody depends on this interpretation, there's a bridge not too far
from here...

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.misc,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.exotic-music,alt.emusic,alt.music.alternative
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 08:07:01 GMT

Uh, excuse me, but isn't Anita Hill a right-wing Republican?  Why on
earth would Bill Clinton appoint her to anything?

--Tim Smith
From: djk@nic.cerf.net (Daniel J. Karnes)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Divorce (again)
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:46:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: CERFnet

Hi:

OK. OK..... I know I'm going to get flamed silly for doing this,
but could someone give me some ideas on an 'easy' divorce from
a money-grabbing, possession-stealing, adulteress...?

Something quick and nasty a la Vegas or Mexico would be nice. :)

Phone numbers and details appreciated.

djk@nic.cerf.net

Have a Happy.

-djk

-- 
-- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT --------------------------------------
-- NMS&Systems Engineering ----------------------------------------  
-- djk@CERF.NET - djk@CtEdge.COM ----------------------------------  
- 'innovative solutions for modern problems' ---------------------- 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mind the Gap)
Subject: Re: 4 Q's: Deadly Self-Defense Against Rape
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:00:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.210555.17644@chpc.org> rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.193943.4958@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>Four questions which arose in a more-or-less unrelated topic elsewhere
>>on the Net:
>>
>>	1) Is it generally true that deadly self-defense is allowable
>>	   against rape, even if the (rape) victim's life doesn't appear to be 
>>	   in any immediate danger? I've seen some extracts from the Model 
>>	   Penal Code (see Section 2.04. Use of Force in Self-Protection. (2) 
>>	   (b)) that seems to suggest that it _is_ generally allowable, but 
>>	   the Black's definition of "self-defense" ("..., but it is never 
>>	   reasonable to use deadly force against his nondeadly attack"), 
>>	   along with some other sources, seems to suggest the opposite.

Answer: it varies from state to state.

>In this day of aids, all rape should be considered a deadly assault.

Only if you assume all rapists are HIV positive.  At any rate, there
are separate laws for intentional transmission of a deadly virus.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mind the Gap)
Subject: Re: Supreme Ct. Insurance non-ruling
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:30:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.214019.29062@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> ddaye@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David C Daye) writes:
>Yesterday the Supreme Ct. refused to hear a case in which an employer had
>changed health insurance plans after an employee had begun submitting
>claims for treatment of AIDS.  
>
>My wife, a former insurance claims adjuster, contends that since the former
>insurance co. had been paid for coverage, and since a claim had been filed
>under that policy, the former co. should have been liable for treating
>the disease. 
>
>She's convinced that the courts have effectively allowed insurance co.s
>to renig on services they've promised and contracted to provide,
>any time they deem it costly to do so.  If so, this has implications
>far beyond the AIDS population.
>
>Does anyone wish to comment on what we're missing in all this? 

The Supreme Court "refused to hear" the case.  This merely means a
denial of the writ of certiorari appealing the decision of the Fifth
Circuit, in this case.  So the decision in question is only binding on
Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, because the Supreme Court's denial of
cert does not have precedential value the way an affirmation of the
Appeals Court's decision would.  The other eleven circuits could very
well decide the case differently if it came before them.

Furthermore, because the decision in question was one of statutory
interpretation, it simply becomes a matter of Congress clarifying the
ERISA law in question if it feels that the courts are coming to results
under the current law that are not good.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Translation?
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 13:23:20 GMT

>In article <Bx7qvr.Ctz@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com writes:
>>After scanning the "Lawyerly English" thread, I'm not sure whether
>>requests for translations of lawyerese are welcome here, but I'm sure
>>someone will point out any errors in my ways...  :-)
>>
>>This paragraph is part of a promise to repay a loan:
>>
>>	The makers, endorsers, and guarantors of this note hereby
>>	severally waive presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment,
>>	protest and notice of protest.  I sign this note intending
>>	hereby to charge my separate estate with its payment.

>Considering what I started, I probably shouldn't jump in here.  Therefore...

>When you borrow money, you have certain legal rights.  The person you
>owe has to inform you that you owe money, demand it, etc.  There are
>many rules about exactly how he must go about doing this.  The
>legalese of the first sentence basically says that you're willing to
>pay the debut without excercising all of those rights.  The second
>sentence (I think) means that you intend to pay the debt with your own
>money.

What is happening here is that the party loaning the money is insisting
that the other parties waive a number of technical defenses to repayment.
For example, traditionally, one had to present the actual note for
payment. This is unweildy in today's business environment. At best, 
the party requesting repayment could present a copy of the note, 
not the actual note (which is usually required). This is typical
legaleze, but I don't see any way around it: the technical legal
defenses must be defeated by technical legal waivers. Otherwise
the transaction will not work in today's environment.

Bruce Hayden
bhayden@csn.org
(303) 758-8400
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: 4 Q's: Deadly Self-Defense Against Rape
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:55:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: chpc.1992Nov12.175559.6107
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma

>>In this day of aids, all rape should be considered a deadly assault.
>
>Only if you assume all rapists are HIV positive.  At any rate, there
>are separate laws for intentional transmission of a deadly virus.

That is akin to saying "it's only reasonable to assume that pointing
a gun at you is assault with a deadly weapon is you assume that ALL
guns are loaded".  

Forcible rape is LETHAL ASSAULT.  Aids is only one factor.  Another factor
is that the agressor has shown a disposition to engage in henious
conduct extremely harmful to the victim - the perputrator may
in the comission of the rape cause the death of the victim.  If a 
victim submits to the rape since it allegedly "isn't lethal", (s)he
may find her/himself on the recieving end of lethal force when in 
an extremely physically vulnerable state.

Likewise, a victim of an armed robery cannot "know" the intent of
the agressor.  I agree that non violent compliance with demands for
the wallet/purse/etc. is appropriate IF IT WILL STOP THERE, but 
what about a situation in which (a) the victim is asked for the
purse while threatened with lethal force (gun, knife, screwdriver,
force of numbers, etc.) and (b) the victim has an opportunity to 
deploy lethal resistance to the attack, but will not again have that
opportunity if (s)he submits and "guessed wrong" that compliance would
result in a "no injury robery"?  For instance - imagine being held
up and being told to get your wallet - it's your ONE CHANCE to come 
out with the .38 snubbie in the behind the hips waistband holster; it
you don't do it at this opportunity, you are giving the holdup 
person the ability to decide if your family will ever see you alive
again.  Do you really want to place that decision in an agressive
felon's hands?  [ discussion about tactical aspects of drawing a 
gun on a deployed knife omitted for sake of this discussion ]

No matter what happens, you'll want to be sure that :

   (a)  You will KNOW you did the right thing, both morally and legally,
        and can explain this to the investigating authorities [ in the
        presence of your attorney, of course ! ]

   (b)  The alternative to your use of lethal force was a probable result
        worse than the living hell "the system" will make of your life
        in the post incident aftermath.

   (c)  You remember Massad Ayoob's phone number.



Rob Boudrie
rboudrie@chpc.org
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: rerickso@cwis.unomaha.edu (Ronald D. Erickson)
Subject: Undue Influence:
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:59:58 GMT


Is undue influence impossible to prove in contesting a valid will?

I had a great-aunt who disinherited two of three nephews and willed
25% of the estate to grand-neices.  The grand-neices' father was 
living when the will was made out.  The wife of the
next-of-kin and mother of the
heirs was a witness to the will as was an attorney.
The will is to be probated
in Nebraska.  75% of the will was given to religion in testamentary
trust and outright gifts.

Since there is no fraud involved there is no point looking at it
from that direction.

Ron
From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: USA President's power to pardon
Keywords: State law; Federal law
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:42:07 GMT

matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

>Question:  Does the President's power extend to pardons for State
>offenses, or can he pardon only offenses against Federal law?

The Constitution says that the President "shall have power to grant
reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except
in cases of impeachment."  (Article II, Section 2, paragraph 1.)

This sounds like it would have to be construed as giving the President
the power to pardon only in Federal cases.  The Constitution makes a
sharp distinction between the "United States" and the individual
States.

>The reason I ask is that I once read that after the State of Utah
>had condemned union organizer Joe Hill to death for murder, President
>Woodrow Wilson was among those who wrote to the Governor of Utah asking
>him to pardon Mr. Hill, or commute his sentence, or something like
>that.  (The Governor didn't, and Hill was shot by a firing squad.)  
>Now, if the President of the United States has the power to pardon 
>offenses against State law (such as murder), why did President Wilson 
>have to *ask* the Governor of Utah to pardon Joe Hill?  Why couldn't
>he do it himself?

It's conceivable that he could have done it, but did not wish to
interfere with the Governor's prerogatives.  But it's much more likely
that the President of the United States lacks any authority over the
police powers of the State of Utah.


Keith
-----
   "I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night,
    Alive as you or me,
    Said I, `But Joe, you're ten years dead.'
    `I never died,' said he."