HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Law student writing competition (repost from alt.native)
Keywords: Indian Native American Law School Student Writing Competition
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:22:36 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Followup-To: misc.legal,alt.native
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

The following post is copied from the alt.native newsgroup.  I thought it's 
be of interest to misc.legal readers as well.

---

Newsgroups: alt.native
Subject: Law student writing competition
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:20:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1308200098:000:1399
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ilrc    Jan  5 10:20:00 1993


The Indian Law Resource Center announces prizes for innovative
law student writing on American Indian Law.  The competition is
dedicated to the memory of Petra Shattuck, whose friends have helped 
make the prize awards possible.  Professor Shattuck, a legal
scholar and strong advocate for Indian rights, was particularly
interested in exposing and remedying injustice that Native Americans
suffer under the law.

Only law students are eligible to participate.

The award for first prize will be $2,000.  The second and
third prize awards will be $1,000 and $750, respectively.  Prizes
will be awarded on the basis of originality of scholarship, 
innovation and creativity in analysis of some aspect of Indian law.
The articles and commentaries eligible for consideration include
those prepared during the 1992-93 academic year, whether or not
published.

	Submissions should be postmarked by May 1, 1993 and sent
to the address below.  Please include your mailing address for the
summer of 1993.  Manuscripts should be double-spaced using a 
letter-quality type-face.  No special format is required.  The
prize winners will be selected by a committee of scholars named
by the Indian Law Resource Center.  Manuscripts will not be returned.
For further information contact Steven M. Tullberg or Curtis G. Berkey:
Indian Law Resource Center, 601 E Street, SE, Washington, D.C. 20003, (202) 
547-2800.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei)
Subject: Re: Know the source of Liberty's quote, "tired,huddled masses"?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:14:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.235919.3067@cbnews.cb.att.com> ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.045140.24931@linus.mitre.org> ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec31.004219.17196@cbnews.cb.att.com> ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec30.190453.16688@linus.mitre.org> ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei) writes:
>>>    "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
>>>Emma Lazarus
>>>The New Colossus
>>>
>>>[ The "ancient lands" cite in the poem is a reference to Shelley's
>>>  Ozymandias - a  different "colossus" statue fallen with old age
>>>  and disuse: ]
>>>
>>     However, the "brazen giant of Greek fame, with conquering limbs
>>astride from land to land" is NOT a reference to Shelley's
>>"Ozymandias"; but rather to the Colussus of Rhodes...
>
>Yes,  I was incomplete.  The ancient lands (plural) quote was from
>Shelley, and included both collossi (??) --  

    Actually, if you look at the poem, the reference to the Colossus
of Rhodes is in the first section, mouthed an unnamed narrator.  The
"ancient lands" phrase is attributed to Liberty herself, and refers to
their "storied pomp", not any particular statue(s).  Americans (until
recently) have tended to celebrate the newness of our republic, in
comparison to the tired monarchies of Europe.

>Else ancient land -- Shelley's exact quote  -- would have sufficed
>for just the Rhodes statue.

     I think you are mis-remembering the first line of Ozymandias:

	"I met a traveller from an antique land..."

>Good addition.
>
>>     Shelley's "vast and trunkless legs of stone", "standing in the
>>desert" are said to have been inspired by the Colossi of Memnon (sp?),
>>two 30-foot seated statues in Eqypt, each carved from a single block
>>of quartz, transported over a hundred miles from their quarry. They
>>originally stood in front of a vast temple complex, which is now
>>farmland.
>-- 
>Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus

							Peter Trei    
							ptrei@Mitre.org
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 12:51:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.201327.20317@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>>>mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>
>>>>So far, it is only Republican adminstrations that show a disdain
>>>>for the law and a contempt for the public.  If Clinton acts the same
>>>>way, I will work to get him out as soon as possible.
>
>>>Don't you at least recognize that you're making this "only Republican"
>>>stuff up ?  We all realize it... maybe you're only 12 - 16 years old
>>>and only remember the last few adminstrations.
>
>>>Am I mistaken in recalling that the Kennedy administration admitted to
>>>planning an assassination attempt on Castro ?
>>
>>Huh?  Relevance?  Congress hadn't forbidden this, unlike, say, sending
>>money to the contras or arms to Iran.
>
>David: You can argue with the specific examples that I offer all you
>want but that isn't the topic of discussion.  Mike Polen wrote "so far
>only Republican administrations show a disdain".  I disagree and so far
>we don't know what your position is except that you're attempting to
>define "disdain for the law and contempt for the public" as only doing
>things that Congress forbids.
>
>So... is it true that "only Republican administrations show disdain for
>the law" ?
>
>tom
>>

You want examples of Democrat shenanigans? Okay. How about FDR's lying to 
congress regarding his preparations for WWII?

Or the bugging of Republican Headquarters by the Democrats under both Kennedy
and Johnson? Neither of them were forced to resign in disgrace.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                (This sig intentionally left blank)                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 00:37:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan1.041804.25765@netcom.com> linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:
>Excess cash on hand could be put into a secure drop box inside the truck
>to handle the theft problem. This is what they do at 7-11's everywhere.

7-11's are very difficult to drive off in...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: dickw@IASTATE.EDU (Richard Wallingford)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Reply-To: dickw@IASTATE.EDU (Richard Wallingford)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:12:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.041621.20663@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
(David Marc Nieporent) writes:

> The first shipment of arms to Iran came before Reagan signed the finding
> authorizing it.  That was illegal, because Iran was officially on the
> terrorist nation list and sending weapons to them was illegal.

They weren't sold to Iran.  They were sold to a intermediary (third
party) who later sold them to Iran at ridiculously high prices.

> The money from the legal sales, moreover, belonged to the US government,
> since it was government property that was being sold.  Sending this
> money to the contras was illegal. 

No U.S. funds were sent to Nicaragua.  The funds were given to the 
Contras by the intermediary.  The U.S. treasury was compensated fully
and properly for the original sale (including a large profit). 

For those of you not able to balance you checkbook, here's how it goes:

1.  Going rate for stinger missle bought from US = $50,000

2.  Party X buys stinger missle.

3.  $50,000 deposited in U.S. Treasury and party X receives missle.
    (Just like buyin' a car)

4.  Party X sells missle to IRAN for $200,000

5.  Party X gives $140,000 to the Contras, making a $10,000 profit.

Sounds like an everyday real estate transaction to me. 

--
Dick Wallingford
From: sean@cobra.dra.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Blacklisted from Banking System for $58.59 overdraft!
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:10:07 CST
Organization: Data Research Associates, Inc.

In article <bsm.8.0@utrcv1.res.utc.com>, bsm@utrcv1.res.utc.com (Brian S. McCarthy) writes:
> I tried to open a checking account at a bank near my home last week, and 
> found out that I'm on what they call "ChexSystems", which apparently is a 
> national blacklist of people who have really bad checking account records.

I believe the Fair Credit Reporting Act would apply (for real legal advice,
consult a real lawyer).

However I would question doing business with that particular bank.  The
decision to not grant you a checking account is the bank's, not ChexSystems.
You should treat this as an example of the type of customer service you
would receive from the bank in the future.  If you thought this was an
example of poor customer service, why would they improve in the future.

On the other hand if bank tried to "work with you" in clearing up this
problem, that would be a better indication of good customer service.  Perhaps
suggesting a different type of account (higher required balances, etc).

By the way, I think the 30 day clock has started ticking so WRITE (phone
calls don't count) a letter to the bank and ChexSystems asking them to explain
and verify the information.  Standard suggestions apply, don't accuse, rant,
or rave.  Remember "just the facts."
-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The NYPD situation (was: Say it ain't so)
Summary: A plug for _The Jewish Press_
Keywords: absolutely biased
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:19:56 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <C0nstp.49L@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> idfriedm@hertz.uwaterloo.ca 
(id friedman) writes:

>In article <1993Jan7.020756.13646@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com 
>(Jake Livni) writes:

>>. . . Jews were on the receiving end of all
>>of the hate-ridden violence surrounding Yankel Rosenbaum's murder.
>>[Jake Livni]

>I read a good article on that situation in Commentary ( I think the Jan. 1993
>issue). I find it extremely disconcerting ( despite the fact that I don't 
>live in New York or any other American city).   [Ishay]

Yes, I read the same article, by Philip Gourevitch.  _Commentary_ is
a good magazine, but it comes out only once a month.  For informative,
accurate, absolutely biased weekly coverage of the situation in which 
Jews find themselves all over the world, whether in Israel, in New York
or in the rest of the Exile, Mr. Friedman ought to read _The Jewish Press_.

Subscription rates in Canada via surface mail are $70.00 for a year's
subscription -- 52 issues.  Send payment in U.S. Funds by World Bank
Money Order or Check Drawn Against N.Y. Agency Bank to:

   The Jewish Press
   338 Third Avenue
   Brooklyn, NY 11215-1897  USA

>I think that we should investigate the possible bias of juries . . .
>[Ishay]

The _Jewish Press_ has investigative reporters doing just that.  In
addition, there are columns by Eric Breindel of the _New York Post_,
Professor Paul Eidelberg of Bar-Ilan University, Professor Howard Adelson,
Former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, and former Mayor Ed Koch, who
used to run New York City and knows what he's talking about.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Subject: Re: Pardon stuff..Define please
Originator: tt@tarzan.math.jyu.fi
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla
	<1993Jan11.154056.4660@ncsu.edu>
	<1993Jan11.172025.4818@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:08:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.172025.4818@cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:

> You need not admit guilt to receive a pardon. You need not
>be found guilty to receive a pardon. Pardons are often used to blot out a
>travesty of justice

Yes.  Sometimes crucial evidence comes out after all other legal
avenues have been exhausted, for example.  I must retract my earlier
suggestion that accepting pardon should mean admitting guilt.

>A pardon does not indicate guilt. It therefore can be used to stop the
>prosecution of an alledged crime.

That reasoning isn't necessarily valid, however.  What I don't like
is using pardon to prevent the facts from coming out.

>Is this bad? Only if you have already made up your mind to throw the book
>at the pardonee.

Or if you think he may be innocent but want to find out for sure,
whether any punishment follows or not.

That was behind my original idea of allowing pardon only after
conviction.  In view of the cost of a trial, and the fact that it may
in itself be a punishment of sorts, I'm no longer sure that would be a
good idea either.  Life seldom offers simple solutions, alas.

--
Tapani Tarvainen  (tt@math.jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
From: rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:11:40 GMT
	<1992Dec31.081423.11613@netcom.com> <1993Jan5.220315.26897@chpc.org>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, California

In article <1993Jan5.220315.26897@chpc.org> rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) writes:
   Federal reserve notes are also redeemable for silver and gold, it's just
   that the redemption is done thru private hands and the amount per dollar
   of note demonitation changes daily (prices listed in the WSJ daily).

Only difference is that Uncle Sam *strongly* suggests that you pay
income tax on the "capital gains" if many such "redemptions" turn a
profit for you.

Have a nice day!

--
Ronald Cole           +----------------------+  internet: rjc@unify.com
Software Engineer II  |    Lord/Genis '96    |  uucp:     uunet!unify!rjc
Unify Corporation     +----------------------+  voice:    +1 916 928 6238
          "THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley)
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, UCLA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:57:04 GMT

In a previous article tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) spake...
>linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:
>>In a previous article tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) spake...
>>>Taxi drivers are mugged all the time and 7-11's are notorious for being
>>>robbed would it bother you that much if a Fed.Ex. driver or the company
>>>that hires him would rather not be shot for some cash ?
>>>
>>Banks get robbed. So do Brinks' Trucks; people at ATM machines, pedestrians,
>>the paper boy, gas stations, liquor stores, supermarkets, restaurants, ...
>>I guess, by your 'logic', that cash should be abolished all together.
>>Hey, look at that 'carjacking' trend. It's just too risky to have people
>>driving out there on the roads. Let's get rid of the cars too.
>>
>>Life's full of risks, pal. Deal with it or jump ship.
>
>So, are you proposing that if I decide that I find the carjacking trend to
>make driving too dangerous for me, I should be forced to drive, because *you*
>don't think that the risk is that great?
>
>--Tim Smith

Federal Express is a business. You are in individual and have a choice. If you
were, say, a taxi company, you MUST drive and MUST pick up everyone requesting
a ride (including pick ups in dangerous parts of town). Otherwise you WILL
have your taxi license revoked.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Pardon stuff..Define please
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:07:22 GMT

In <1993Jan11.154056.4660@ncsu.edu>, storrs@eos.ncsu.edu sez:
>
>I have been told that to receive a pardon, one must admit guilt.   OR is it 
>truly a method of legally covering one's own tracks.....

There was a letter to this effect in Sunday's NY Times.  The author
contended that his discussions with both potential pardonees and with
former Justice attorneys revealed that those who seek presidential
pardons must first admit guilt.  The author drew the conclusion that
Caspar Weinberger must therefore have admitted guilt prior to
receiving Bush's pardon.

I think this is a defective conclusion.  Even assuming the accuracy of
the sources, what was established by the examples given is only that
*convicted* persons must first admit guilt.  Since Weinberger was
never even tried, let alone convicted, the confession-of-guilt
requirement (if it exists) would seem not to apply.



Followups directed to t.p.m.

-- 
  I stared balefully out at the studio audience, which was chanting
  something that sounded like "dork".     -Mark Leyner

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract
Date: 9 Jan 93 01:25:36 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <19516@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <29DEC199214311936@oregon.uoregon.edu> 
>dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:
>
>>In article <19496@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) 
>>writes:
>
>>>  Fornication Contract:  The party of the first part, hereinafter
>>>  "Stud," and the party of the second part, hereinafter "Slut,"
>>>  for good and valuable consideration, agree as follows:  If
>>>  sexual intercourse between them results in pregnancy, Slut 
>>>  hereby consents that Stud may use RU-486 to terminate such
>>>  pregnancy at a time and place of Stud's own choosing.
>>>  [Matt Rosenblatt]
>
>. . .
>>As I have noted in several other posts, this contract, even if supported by
>>consideration, probably is not enforceable as illegal, unless, perhaps, the
>>administration of RU-486 is limited to licensed clinics and practitioners, 
>>not at this time available.   [Daniel Reitman]
>
>Well, sure it's illegal!  It has been pointed out that what the Slut
>is doing is "permitting" the Stud to engage in conduct that amounts
>to a *crime*.  And since a *crime* is an action against all the people,
>or against "the King's peace," or against whatever else they teach in
>law school that it's against, her "permission" is not enough to fix
>things so the Stud can really *do it* and get away with it.
>
>Funny thing, though:  Neglecting one's children, failing to support
>them -- that's also a crime.  Just ask those yo-yos out in Chicago
>who got locked up for leaving their kids alone for nine days.  Just
>ask all the fathers presently behind bars for having failed to pay
>support to their children.  If the "Fornication Contract" is unenforceable
>because it entails the commission of the crime of "Male Choice," the
>"Pre-Sex Contract" is equally unenforceable because it entails the crime
>of child neglect.  And that's as it should be.

I don't believe that the statutory crime of non-support, and the crime of 
child neglect, are technically the same. Are you mixing apples and oranges 
here, Matthew?

The "pre-sex contract" I proposed would, assuming that a child were to be
born, and the woman were to take custody of it, leave the father's statutory 
duties intact, while obliging the woman to reimburse him in full. In the event 
that the woman was to become unable to reimburse him, the man would still be 
liable for the shortfall in support. So, the contract would NOT oblige anyone 
to break any statute. As far as I can discern, it would therefore not be
unenforceable on that basis. 


								- Kevin 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bataller@dogie.macc.wisc.edu (Erik Bataller)
Subject: verbal contracts
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Distribution: misc.legal
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:37:43


Hello,
	Can verbal contracts be binding?  For instance,
if I own a store, told you I would hold something for you,
and sold it and you had witnesses would I be legally
accountable to supply you with the goods?

Example #2:  If I was renting an apartment I owned, told
you that it was yours and the next I rented it to someone
else and you had witnesses would I be accountable?





--
!!  Erik M. Bataller | Phone: (414) 242-0347 | Univ. of Wi., Osh Kosh 
!!  Academic Computing Services | 800 Algoma Blvd., 307 Dempsey, 
!!  Osh Kosh, Wi. 54901-8602 | Internet: Bataller@sol.acs.uwosh.edu 
!!  Bitnet: Bataller@oshkoshw.bitnet

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Movies in the public domain
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:49:20 GMT


In article <1ijpoeINN6f7@shelley.u.washington.edu>, 
tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) said:

> > I'm interested in movies that have passed into the public domain.
> > Does anybody have a list?  I was told recently that nobody owns
> > the copyright to "It's a Wonderful Life", which I found hard to
> > believe.  Can anyone confirm or deny?  [George Stachnik]
>
> I think one of the wire services carried this story.  They said that
> some lawyer at the studio forgot to file for the extension when the
> copyright expired.
>
> I bet that lawyer's boss was real annoyed...

He (the lawyer's boss) probably was somewhat annoyed at the apparent
incompetence/carelessness displayed by the lawyer, but in fact it's
probably not the case that the failure to renew the copyright on "It's
a Wonderful Life" cost the studio very much money in lost profits...
IaWL was a fairly obscure and infrequently-shown film prior to the
expiration of its copyright -- it was the fact that the copyright
_had_ expired, allowing any tv station that wanted to to show it as
many times as they wanted to essentially for free, that led to its
being "wallpapered" on television every year around Christmas time.

As a study in contrast, consider "The Bishop's Wife," a 1947 Christmas
fantasy movie starring Cary Grant, Loretta Young, David Niven and
Monty Wooley.  Although "Bishop's Wife" isn't a Frank Capra movie, it
is, in my opinion, an excellent film, and every bit as likely a
candidate for annual Yuletide cult status as "It's a Wonderful Life."
But it's still in copyright, so it only shows up on tv a few times
each holiday season...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>