HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:27:13 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Data Factory Services, Harrisburg, Pa.


 In article <1992Sep30.040641.25843@news.columbia.edu>, ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
 > In article <1992Sep29.072416.19305@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
 > >In article <1992Sep29.034703.29223@news.columbia.edu> ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
 > >>
 > >>Mike your argument is valid, but how can we place a %age content figure
 > 
 > DELETED
 > 
 > >Face it: the Islamic world has some catching up to do.
 > >
 > 
 > THAT is exactly the kind of attitude that we are discussing.  Your branding
 > the entire spectrum of the Islamic world based upon the decision of the
 > Iranians.  
 > 
 > Face it: the Western world has some catching up to do about
 > understanding Islam

Is this the same Islam that believes Christians are the enemy and as
non-believers should be converted to Islam or destroyed? 

Or is there some other Islam to which you refer?


-- 
 ...uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave -or-                       |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 frackit!dave@uunet.UU.NET -or- dave@frackit.uucp -or-   |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
 vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu            | Harrisburg,  Pa. |
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re: student loans
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:34:38 GMT

In article <a2du02QS25D001@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.182550.2277@nova.sarnoff.com>, jms@vision.sarnoff.com 
>(Jerry Shapiro x2420) writes:
>> There is no way you can be a recent graduate, unless your parants paid
>> your way.  Your too insensitive to realize how much damage Reaganomics
>> did to the American standard of living. You better save up to bail out
>> your own children. They will not be able to make it on their own.
>
>Hey, the kid bought a condo.  He's not doing too bad.

Actually, he may have bought something which he cannot afford yet.
(which is the core of economic problems, both individual and government)

Mark


Xref: sparky misc.legal:18779 misc.education:3747
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: School Vouchers: Constitutionality?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:28:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.140919.20549@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:

>In real dollars per student, the public schools today receive more than
>at any other time in history.  Thus, throwing more money at schools is
>not going to solve anything.

This is certainly true, as is the criticism about school bureaucracy.

>The voucher system is an idea whose time has come.  Though there are
>problems with it, it is the lesser of two evils.  I believe, too, that
>a properly setup system can pass Supreme Court scrutiny.  The only
>drawback could be if the Government starts meddling too much in the
>affairs of the private schools.

That's not the only drawback. The drawback is that a voucher for the
amount of money given to a child in a public school is nowhere near enough
to pay tuition at a private school. Hence, a voucher system *increases*
the division between rich and poor we have now (by making it even easier
for the wealthy to send their kids to private schools since their tuition
is subsidized by the vouchers), while leaving the poor to compete, with
their vouchers, among public schools that no longer draw upon the wealthy
as part of their tax base.

>I've also noticed another aspect to the public school debate.  Why is
>it that people who obviously are very liberal deeply oppose anything
>that would elevate private schools?  Is it because the liberals fear
>private schooling since they would have less ability to promote their
>various agendas?

Why not just suggest that liberals are the willing henchmen of the Devil
and be done with it?

It should be noted that Ross Perot, your candidate for president, devoted
considerable energy to improving the public school system in Texas. He
favors vouchers, but doesn't think that vouchers alone will be sufficient.


--Mike






-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I can solve this Orient Express thing without
mnemonic@eff.org| breaking a sweat. It's that simple."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Hercule Perot
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18266 talk.politics.misc:50145 talk.politics.theory:4461
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History (was: Presidential UL's)
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:43:47 GMT


In article <1992Oct5.232154.26267@nezsdc.icl.co.nz>, 
derek@nezsdc.icl.co.nz (Derek Tearne) said:

> > 3/1/1792, c. 8, sec. 9 creates the first succession list: Vice-President, 
> > President of the Senate, then Speaker of the House.
> >
> > 1/19/1886, 24 Stat. 2 scraps the old list, and substitutes a new
> > one: Vice- President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Treasury,
> > Secretary of War[etc...]  [Terry Carroll]

> You mean to tell me that in 1886 they already had contingency plans
> for a nuclear attack.  Now that's what I call planning ahead!

Well, 1886 was, after all, only about twenty years after John Wilkes
Booth's assassination of Lincoln, and there was some evidence that
Booth had been part of a conspiracy that intended to simultaneously
kill a number of high Executive Branch officials.  I don't know enough
history to know whether this was true or not, but I can see people
taking the possibility seriously enough to want to have a lengthy
official order of succession in place, just in case.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mike@meiko.com (Mike Stok)
Subject: Serving a speeding ticket
Organization: Meiko Scientific Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:45:42 GMT

A friend of mine was recently pulled over for speeding on Route 128
around Boston, and the officer serving the ticket didn't give it to
him but to his girlfriend in the passenger seat.

He's going to fight the ticket anyway as the estimated speed was (in
his opinion) too high, but was wondering whether the ticket had been
properly served in the first place?  If it wasn't properly served then
can it just be thrown away?

Mike
--
The "usual disclaimers" apply.    |
Mike Stok                         |
mike@meiko.com                    |
Meiko tel: (617) 890 7676         |
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Carjacking as a federal offense
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:28:18 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <05CS03brabyx00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James 
> 
> Wow, I knew that Congress liked to abuse the commerce clause, but doesn't
> this set a rather sweeping precedent?  I mean, given that almost anything
> that one can buy these days "has been transported, shipped, or received in
> interstate or foreign commerce", Congress could make virtually all theft
> a federal crime, couldn't they?  For that matter, they could gather under
> federal jurisdiction any crime that involves a "transported" object.  Am
> I the only one who finds this scary?  (I know, it's just another step in
> the ongoing erosion of the power of the individual states, but this just 
> seems so blatant.)

Nah, the sweeping precedent was when they said that a farmer who grew wheat 
for consumption on the same farm on which he was growing it could be 
regulated in the name of interstate commerce, because if he was growing his 
own, he wasn't buying it, and that affected interstate commerce.

Interstate commerce is not a doctrine it's a mantra which, when applied to 
any federal law, makes it constitutional.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: pimentel@earrth.enet.dec.com (John Pimentel)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:00:46 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <14OCT199220545391@zeus.tamu.edu>, waf9851@zeus.tamu.edu (FULLER, WALTER ANDREW III) writes...
>In article <1967@sousa.ltn.dec.com>, pimentel@luner.enet.dec.com 
>(John Pimentel) writes...
> 
>>For the record: Abortion is murder not matter how much it's watered down
> 
>Wrong, John. Murder is a legal term with a strict legal definition. And
>elective abortion does not appear in that legal definition in any U.S.
>state, territory, or even federal penal statutes.
> 
>It appears to me that you are offering a definition of murder that is
>built either wholly or in part on a religious view.

Really, I've met a great deal of "religious" people that believe their church's
position on "ABORTION" is wrong and that they should relax the beliefs so
as to be in touch with the times.  Last I checked "elective abortion" was
not mentioned in any religious book I've read.  I've met a good portion of
Pro-Choice folks that claim to be "church going [folks]" and that they are
a "good catholic", "good protestant", "good <insert religion>", but again 
they don't believe that their church is correct to believe that "abortion"
is murder.

Well last I checked it was.

But that aside, currently there is a court ruling that states that a woman
can choose whether or not she wants to be a parent.  Men should have this 
same right, if they don't want to be a parent then they could then go to 
court and have a hearing that they are not financially liable if this *IT* 
(pro-choice term -- as in something not viable) is brought to term and 
becomes *human* (the understanding I have of the pro-choice position, 
unless it is now earlier).  That way the woman can then decide whether or 
not she wants to go at parenting alone (as in with her own funds), as the 
state should have this right too.

=============================================================================
-- John Pimentel

The opinions expressed are my own.  No rights are granted to take them out of
context nor do they represent the views of my employer, whomever it might be
for the moment.

Give men and the state the right to choose too!

=============================================================================
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (opcode ranger)
Subject: Need legal advice on starting home catering/wholesale business
Organization: 
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:33:55 GMT



Meant to crosspost this here from rec.food.cooking, but didn't.


I'm a good dessert baker and I'm looking into doing some catering and in
selling some of my wares to local (upscale) coffee shops (I have some inside
leads).  Does anyone have any useful advice to lend?

I'm especially interested in the need (or lack thereof) of limiting my
liability in case something unexpected happened.  I've never had any problems
with anything I've made, but let's say a stray walnut shell found its way into
a batter and caused someone to crack a tooth, for instance.  Is it basically
caveat emptor?  I'm particularly interested in the case of selling thru a
retail coffee shop.  They'd assume any liability, right?  I'm not that keen on
incorporating, given the expense and the relatively low risk, but given the
litigous nature of society these days I'd rather not leave myself completely
open.  I'd like to keep things as informal as possible, avoiding contracts,
etc., so as not to scare people off nor to somehow worsen my position.  Would a
simple disclaimer printed on the invoice suffice?

Someone recommended business liability insurance.  How practical/expensive is
this for the small-fry business guy?

Failing any specific knowledge on this, can anyone recommend where I might look
at the local public library to see how best to protect myself in my home state
(Illinois)?

Also: someone dropped me a line that in their state you need to have a separate
cooking facility if you're doing catering out of one's house, as well as some
sort of sanitation inspection.  Suffice it to say a separate cooking facility
is pretty much out of the question for me.  Is this a state-by-state thing?
Does anyone know for Illinois?  Which agency would I contact to find out for
sure?                                            

Any advice much appreciated.  Email is preferred.  Thanks.

Robert

-- 
==============================================================================
= gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * "Out there on a darkened road, the lights =
= are dead and the cars explode" -- "Good Things", Sisters of Mercy           =
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Fighting Words?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:45:27 GMT

In article <4oqBsB1w165w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
)bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
)
)>  Since Chaplinsky, the Supreme Court has narrowed and clarified the scope of
)> the fighting words doctrine in at least three ways.  First, the Court has
)> limited the fighting words definition so that it now only includes its second
)> half. [FN4]  Second, the Court has stated that in order for words to meet the
)> second half of the definition they must "naturally tend to provoke violent
)> resentment."  Finally, the Court has held that fighting words must be "direct
)> at the person of the hearer."
)
)How about words about the hearer's mother?  Has the court said
)anything specifically concerning comments made about the hearer's
)mother?  In view of "informal" -- i.e. non-legal -- cultural norms
)concerning the necessity of responding to comments about one's
)mother -- i.e. "dissing" or "signifying" -- this type of speech
)would seem to call for specific attention.

I think comments about someone's mother *would* count as 'directed at the
hearer in the sense of the law.  However, that's really just a guess :-(.

It's a little clearer what 'directed at the hearer' doesn't mean.  For
example, in Cohen, the petitioner was convicted under California Penal Code 
for wearing a jacket bearing the words "Fuck the Draft" in the corridor of the
Los Angeles Courthouse.  The Court held that Mr. Cohen's conduct did not fall
within the fighting words doctrine because his statement "was clearly not
'directed to the person of the hearer.'

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner)
Subject: Re: How Can I Really Annoy Someone?
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:34:44 GMT

Well, sit down and figure out what you can afford to pay since you clearly
have intent to commit intentional infliction of emotional distress. Take
into account if you know your future plaintiff has a susceptibility presently,
or during the course of your planned actions reasonably discoverable to you
to the actions you are considering to see if you've even that defense.

Now cost out the statuatory wrongs -- such as the use of the phone you
mentioned, and determine whether each of the juridictions you plan to
appear in award on average, greater damages and sentancing for each of
your civil common-law and statuatory liabilities than the average for
each liability, then make your cost estimate.

Now you are prepared to proceede, having allowed for being able to meet the
cost for the liabilities you intend to create, in terms of at least the
recovery of your victim for the injuries you intend to commit, and have
planned out your schedule for the next several years in terms of court
time, payment plans, and potential vacations as a guest of the county.
Of course, if your victim is uncooperative, or unappreacitive of your
attentions, additional liabilities may arise, so periodically, or as events
dictate, you will have to repeat this procedure. Significantly longer
vacation planning may become necessary.

You are likely to have an exciting and interesting time, may I suggest
that you reconsider the attractions of new pursuits, and take up fly
fishing and duck hunting instead?


-- 
Eric Brunner Tule Network Services
uucp: uunet!practic!brunner
trying to understand multiprocessing is like having bees live inside your head.

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: Prosecuting Attorneys
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:43:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.142716.16774@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com writes:
>Regular guy has questions:

>  There are a lot of laws on the books and I presume there is a lot of law
>breaking. 

>How does the district attorney decide which cases to bring before the court?
>How does politics play into the descision whether to file a case? State vs.
> john doe?

Theoretically if a crime is committed, it would be investigated by a city
police department or by a county sheriff.  After someone is arrested the
prosecutor would go to court for an arraignment (to determine if a crime
had been committed).  After enough evidence is collected the prosecutor
would take the case to court if they felt the evidence justified it.  The
most likely reason to not proceed would be if those collecting the evidence
made an error which was not legally defensible or otherwise determined that
the case wasn't worth prosecuting.

The prosecutor also might be short of help and would allow the "criminal" to
plead guilty to a lesser offense to avoid the time, effort and expense of
pursuing the case in court.  In determining which cases come under this
category, obviously politics is a factor.  Certain cases also might be more
easily prosecuted if the prosecutor knows the judge is more likely to look
favorably at the cases (the judges are elected also).

One issue that has often been raised is the racial bias of the community
in determining legal action.  For example, if a prominant member of the
community is attacked (and or killed) by a minority, it is much more likely
that the person will be prosecuted than if the victim is a "lesser" member
of society.
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Atty-Client privilege (was: JD != "lawyer")
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:37:57 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <lairdb.718863973@crash.cts.com>, lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. 
Broadfield) writes:
> 1.  There are a number of situations, generally due to either a)stupid
> rules, or b)over-officious people, where a confidently delivered "I am
> her/his attorney!" will get you past all sorts of barriers.  (Let's take as
> an example hospital visitor restrictions.)  I'm guessing that my local
> B&P code probably says something nasty about pretending to be a *lawyer*.
> Has our protagonist done anything wrong or unlawful?

Damn good question; I'm sure someone will answer it.  It probably could be 
made out as a case of misrepresentation.  If you knowingly lie, and someone 
acts to their detriment in reliance on the lie, that's misrepresentation 
(fraud).  "acting to their detriment" might include allowing you to get into 
the hospital outside of their normal hours.

> 2.  Funny, I've always seen (legal concept X) referred to as "the attorney-
> client privilege".  Surely this *only* refers to admitted lawyers, not
> anyone with a power-of-attorney, or some amateur JP, or....  True?

This will vary by the evidence rules of the various states.  In California, 
as long as the "client" (reasonbly?) believed the person to be an attorney, 
or a necessary person to deal with the attorney (e.g., a paralegal sitting in 
on the meeting), it's covered.

Federal courts, when trying state law issues, accept the individual state's 
laws as to privilege (so a federal court deciding under California law wiould 
use California's rules as above).  WRT deciding purely federal questions, the 
Federal Rules of Evidence only mumbles something about accepting the 
privilege law as it exists in the common law, and I don't know what the 
extent of that is for the atty-client privilege.

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,rec.arts.tv
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's Freedom of Speech ( was Re: SNL - Oct 3, Latest on Sinead reaction
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 18:48:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.162814.1220@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.133100.10766@linus.mitre.org> jswartz@mbunix.mitre.org (Swartz) writes:
>>
>>I find it mildly amusing that S(k)in(h)ead wouldn't appear on SNL with
>>Andrew Dice Clay because of how "offensive" she found him, and now she
>>may be banned from SNL for being offensive herself.
>>
>The Cute Bald Chick didn't refuse to appear with ADC because she found
>him offensive, but because she found him wrong.  Andrew Dice Clay
>attacks people who can't hit back (women, gays, and so forth) to make a
>buck.  Sinead attacks powerful people including Margaret Thatcher and
>John Paul who have countless ways of hitting back, such as mobilizing
>the Daily News and New York Post to boycott future appearances.  Sinead
>criticises what she believes to be the real oppression of people by
>powerful political and religious forces, oppression that I understand
>she experienced prior to becoming successful (and it may well continue
>now.)  Andrew Dice Clay is a mere successful bully.
>
>Hope this helps you understand the difference.

Well, I don't know about Mr. J. Schwartz, but I
Sure do....political correctness at its best:

You are wrong of you are offensive to those Mr. Nilges defines as
being people that "can't hit back."

You are right/OK if you are offensive to the real oppressors (again
as defined/selected by Mr. Nilges).

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal