HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Adverse Possession
Summary: Maryland case where a private party wins.
Keywords: Sovereign
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:37:30 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Dec22.090521.1276@midway.uchicago.edu> 
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>In article <19489@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) 
>writes:

>>In article <1h524fINNcbl@meaddata.meaddata.com> joem@meaddata.com 
>>(Joe Mehrle) writes:

>>>In fact adverse possession is most often used against a
>>>state, particularly in wild forest areas.  [Joe Mehrle]

>>The original poster -- the fellow who is wondering whether he
>>can use adverse possession or easement by prescription [against]
>>City Hall -- would probably be interested in seeing cases
>>illustrating this statement.   [Matt Rosenblatt]

>. . . 
>Well, one case where an exception was made for land held by a sovereign
>in its private capacity and not for public use is Hinckley v New York,
>234 NY 309 (1922).  There are undoubtably others, but there don't appear
>to be enough of them to prevent the prefacing "In general," etc.
>[Ted Frank]

Here's a case reported in Lee Baylin's "Rulings" column in today's
(December 22) _Daily Record_, the business and legal newspaper of
the Baltimore, Maryland, area:

  -------------
  Real Property
  -------------
  Adverse Possession

     Adverse possession can be gained against property offered 
  to a public entity but never accepted, the Maryland Court of 
  Special Appeals has held.

     The case involved a strip of land between two homesites in
  Cecil County.  The sites were subdivided in 1945 and a public
  street was laid out between the two lots.  The street, however
  was never developed and the local government never accepted 
  the offer of dedication of the street.

     For over 30 years, the owner[s] of the two lots used the 
  street area as a yard.  They graded it, planted grass and shrubs
  and partially fenced it.

     When in 1991 the owners sought to build on the adjacent lot,
  which was too small to develop under present regulations without
  the offered street, the Town of Charleston sought to accept the
  1940s offer of dedication of the public street.

     The trial court said it was too late and the CSA agreed.

     The CSA acknowledged that adverse possession was normally not
  available against a governmental entity.  In this case, however,
  the court noted, the government had never accepted the property
  and the adverse possession was not against the Town of Charleston
  but against the original developer of the lots.


     _Russell U. Farrell, Jr., v. Robert E. Phillips_, 
  CSA No. 293, Sept. Term 1992.  Filed Nov. 30, 1992.  
  Opinion by Moylan, J.  *Published*


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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Fatti maschii, parole femine"
 (Manly deeds, womanly words)
                 -- motto on the Great Seal of Maryland
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Great Bogg's Story
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Distribution: misc.legal,alt.politics.economics
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 23:35:09 GMT

hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder) writes:
>tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:

>>            Is It Counterfeit Money or Art ? (Or Can It Be Both?)

>If Mr. Boggs ever to imitate Dutch banknotes, he'll find himself sued
>for copyright infringement.

>>"They said I was a counterfeiter, " Mr. Boggs said.  "They don't
>>understand the difference between art and crime."

>"It's art" is not a defense against copyright infringement.

>>"I've consciously made my bills different enough that you can't fool
>>somebody with them," Mr. Boggs said.

>Not a defense either.

If the authorities were trying to convict him on copyright charges don't
you think they would have mentioned it when they arrested him ?

The charge was "forgery" and it seems a 5 year old could tell the
difference... hmmm your message looks peculiarly like our U.S. $10
bills (to the untrained eye).

>>Mr. Boggs does not sell his drawings.  Instead, he "spends" them in
>>a kind of performance that he describes as critical to his work.
>>In this performance, he explains to merchants that he is an artist
>>and wants to exchange his art for goods or services.

>Whatever he calls it, he's undermining the Central Bank's sales of
>coloured pieces of paper.

Actually he is bartering and that is legal.

tom

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: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 04:18:04 GMT

In a previous article tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) spake...
>#1 unless I'm mistaken you can no longer redeem those silver certificates
>for silver regardless of the "promise".  But more to the point we can
>demonstrate why a delivery service would not accept cash quite handily,
>we place you in a Fed.Ex. truck and let you collect cash on deliveries
>through oh... South Central L.A.            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Gee, I guess having all those credit card numbers (from plastic payments)
poses no risk whatsoever? The drivers could keep a small amount of change.
Cab drivers come to mind here ("Driver carries less than $5.00 change.")
Or at the very least, they could require exact change for cash payments.
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.
UPS takes cash. So does Airborne and DHL. Why not Fed Express?
-- 
Bruce James Robert Linley | "Well, I tried shoving a weiner in the warp drive,
Comp Sci & Engr, UCLA     |  but it didn't do a bit o' good."
<linley@netcom.com>       | - Star Dreck, c/o Dr. Demento
<linley@seas.ucla.edu>    |
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.legal.computing,sci.edu
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: reality check - with apologies
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:47:37 GMT

solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:

>In article <1992Dec16.132409.521@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dsmith@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>|> Also, what about software modifications, ports, shell scripts and anything
>|> else that comes under the heading of intellectual property?  For example, if
>|> someone in my research group ported MOPAC to a machine on which it previously
>|> did not run, then I might consider that ported version intellectual property
>|> (with apologies to Jimmie Stewart).  I believe that the ported version need
>|> not be made available to others without my permission, although I would 
>|> certainly not restrict them from obtaining the public domain source code and
>|> doing the port themselves.

Modifications, etc. are probably derivitive works, covered to the extent
they add to the original work, under the Copyright Law. So - the creator
thereof (or his employer) has rights to the enhancements no different
than those of the original creator. Ports are again probably derivitive
works. Shell scripts may actually be original works under the C/R law.
Note that a derivitive work only gives rights to the enhancements. By
its very nature, it invariably infringes upon the underlying work.

>If you get a copyright or patent on the program (which is doable under most
>grants) you can control it. 

What do you mean "if you get a copyright"? Copyright protection has
been automatic since the C/R Act of 1976. Since we joined the Berne
Convention, you can't lose it through lack of formalities (like
marking). The question is not "if you can get it", the question is
who owns the copyright. That question is extremely fact intensive.
However the main question is whether you are an employee for C/R
purposes. (Assuming that you don't have a contract covering the situation).

Patents are much easier. The person or party paying for the patent is
invariably the person (or party) that gets the patent assigned to it.

>Otherwise, anybody who is able to obtain access to
>the program can use it. If it is a licensed program, which has been licensed
>with grant money, then the question of who is able to use it has already been
>resolved in the terms of the license. If it was licensed to the university,
>department or laboratory (as it was my impression it always was) then they
>control it.

As you pointed out, 3rd party software is easy - look to the license.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Xref: sparky misc.legal:21888 talk.politics.misc:65865
From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 31 Dec 1992 17:13:23 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <f3oM036gc6x700@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:

|> You're talking about Walsh?  What powers does he have?  Correct me if
|> I'm wrong, but I thought that as a prosecutor, special or not, all he
|> can do is bring charges.  It still requires a trial, with all the checks
|> and balances therein, to actually convict someone of a crime, right?
|> So it's not really true that Walsh doesn't have to answer to anyone; he
|> has to answer to the judges and juries at any trials that he gets.

On the other hand, by virtue of the fact that he is effectively accountable
to no one, and has an unlimited budget, he wields enormous power and can use
that power to bludgeon people into submission (pleading guilty, i.e.) when
the only other alternative they are faced with is personal bankruptcy. Claire
George, for example, will probably be in debt for the rest of his life, despite
the fact that they managed to convict him only after a mistrial (when the jury
was unable to reach a verdict), and even the second time around, the jury
took a helluva long time to reach a verdict, and some of the counts he was 
indicted on were thrown out. One important check-and-balance, i.e. the 
determination made by the prosecutor whether or not it is WORTH prosecuting 
someone for something that could possibly result in an acquittal (i.e. when
defendant is possibly innocent) is what Walsh is exempt from.

I heard that a fund had been formed to help defray George's expenses, and that
all ex-CIA directors except Bush had contributed to it. I guess he made his
biggest contribution, albeit non-material, on Christmas Eve.

By the way, does anyone know where to send money to contribute to the fund?
(No, not for me. In case someone else on the net is interested).

|> --James Preston

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Date: 2 Jan 93 03:07:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, UCLA

In a previous article tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) spake...
>The risk of credit card number is a lot lower than the risk of cash.  Just
>how many liquor stores and drug dealers (oops...redundency) do you think will
>let you make a purchase by giving a credit card number without having the
>credit card itself?  Or grocery stores?  Or other stores?
>
Well this can be done with just about EVERY order by phone service...where you
can order everything from chia pets to multi-thousand dollar stereos. And
since the CC #s came from a devliery van they probably have your name, address
and phone # right there along with the CC#. Ship your items to a P.O. Box at
Mail Boxes Etc. and you're in business (for at least the 1st month).

>Also, the problem is not change, I would guess, but much larger amounts
>of cash.  What's the average value of things shipped C.O.D. by Federal
>Express?  That times the expected number of such shipments that a driver
>will have to handle on a delivery route, divided by two, is the amount of
>cash that they would have to worry about.
>
You convienently deleted the part of my reply that went over this. A small
amount of change could be kept on hand (say < $50) and the rest of the cash
could be deposited into a secure lock box inside the delivery truck. 7-11s
and gas stations use this same tactic to guard cash. 

The point is that a legislatively backed monetary standard is necessary to
provide a 'lowest common denominator' form of payment that everyone can accept.
Just another way to say "This note is LEGAL tender for ALL DEBTS public and
PRIVATE." You shouldn't be able to refuse it just because it happens to
inconveinence you. C'mon Federal Express, get with it.

-- 
Bruce James Robert Linley | "Well, I tried shoving a weiner in the warp drive,
Comp Sci & Engr, UCLA     |  but it didn't do a bit o' good."
<linley@netcom.com>       | - Star Dreck, c/o Dr. Demento
<linley@seas.ucla.edu>    |
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Adverse Possession
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Keywords: Sovereign
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:59:47 GMT

In article <1h524fINNcbl@meaddata.meaddata.com> joem@meaddata.com (Joe Mehrle) writes:
>In article <19486@smoke.brl.mil>, matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>|> 
>|> I've got a few questions for all those lawyers and law students
>|> out there to look up:
>|> 
>|> 1)  Does adverse possession run against the sovereign? 
>|> 
>Yes, most definitely.

Joe, are you a lawyer or a law student?

The reason I ask is that I've never heard of a case in which adverse
possession runs against the sovereign.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Fat
Summary: See what catering to ENVY and RESENTMENT has brought us.
Keywords: Two Legs Good, Three Legs Bad...
Date: 24 Dec 92 17:11:22 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Dec24.120246.2050@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org 
(Will Steeves) writes:

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...

>MLP>It's not a dearth of procreation that's bugging this
>MLP>group.  It's a reluctance to pay for their progeny.  [Michal Leah Peri]
>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Please spare me this rather patronising treatment, Michal.

>If *I* wanted to patronise *you*, I could have said THIS, a very long time
>ago:

>"it's not a dearth of procreation that's bugging the Pro-Choice people.
>It's a reluctance to BEAR their progeny".  (as though it's somehow your
>RESPONSIBILITY to do so ; *that* is how I view your treatment of *us*)
>[Will Steeves]

Why, yes, that's it.  That's precisely it.  Reluctance to BEAR their
progeny, when it is their RESPONSIBILITY to bear and nurture and
sustain them, is what the Pro-Choice movement has always been about,
going all the way back to the days of Margaret Sanger.  The one person
in the whole world whom the foetus should have the LEAST reason to
fear is the one that the Pro-Choicers have arranged to be the one the
foetus has the MOST reason to fear, because she can legally blot it
out of existence with impunity.  Expectant fathers have never had 
to go through pregnancy, labour, and delivery, and it is largely
expectant mothers' ENVY and RESENTMENT of this fact that have brought
about Pro-Choice:

    "Women hate remembering illegal abortions because they
     almost died, they could have died, they wanted to die,
     they hoped they would not die, they made promises to
     G-d begging him not to let them die, they were afraid
     of dying before, during, and after; they have never 
     again been so afraid of death or so alone; they had 
     never before been so afraid of death or so alone.  And
     women hate remembering illegal abortions because their
     husbands experienced none of this: which no woman forgives."
            -- Andrea Dworkin, _Right-Wing Women_ 
               (New York: Perigee, 1983), p. 75f.

That's feminism's prize thinker, dripping with ENVY and RESENTMENT.
She probably never figured that assuaging expectant mothers' ENVY 
and RESENTMENT would have the side effect of arousing expectant 
fathers' ENVY and RESENTMENT, such as we see if we continue reading 
Mr. Steeves's posting:

>And notice how you can squirm out of one of the above, but we CAN'T squirm
>out of another, . . . [Will Steeves]

Once society starts catering to some people's ENVY and RESENTMENT, 
there's no telling what ENVY and RESENTMENT will be stirred up in
other people.  That's why we shouldn't do it.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: adverse possession
Date: 21 Dec 92 06:32:29 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Thomas D. Gasser, in a message to All on 12-20-92 at 1:49am, said:

TD>|Where is the best place to find out
   |what the laws are in this case.  The value of the garage is such that i
   |not worth bringing an lawyer in on the problem.
   |_______________________________________________________________________

               Visit your local law library and check out the
               laws on adverse possession.  You might also look
               into the concept of easement by necessity.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #11645  Help!  I've fallen and I can't get up!
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Property going to the state
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:12:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.154557.29013@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:
:In article <sBeFwB1w164w@cellar.org> hacksaw@cellar.org (Hacksaw) writes:
:>My grandmother has recently taken ill and will probably spend the rest of her 
:>life in a nursing home. Medicare is currently paying for care, but her limit 
:>is about to run out(100 days). 
:> 
:>She does have a property that will be taken by the state to help pay for 
:>expenses after the hundred days. The family does have power of attorney of 
:>her assets. Is there a way we can sell the home just prior to it being 
:>confiscated by the state?
:> 
:>We've already talked to a lawyer and getting answers from him is like pulling 
:>teeth. He still hasn't answered the question forthright. 
:>
:>Any responses would be greatly appreciated.
:
:I'd start by getting in touch with another lawyer.  That isn't meant to

As a taxpayer I would hope that even if they did sell the property that
the state would then come after them.

If she has assets why should taxpayers foot the bill for her care?
If she did not have assets then by all means I am for supporting her
with public funds. Part of being an open society is caring for those
who do not have the assets to pay for their care. But if she has assets,
then they should be used first.

I suspect selfishness on the part of her heirs who would otherwise 
inherit this property. Why should they be entitled to it at the expense
of taxpayers?

--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Xref: sparky misc.legal:21989 talk.politics.misc:66102
From: mark@whizbang.wariat.org (Mark W. Schumann)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 23:26:34 GMT
Organization: The Software Sweatshop, Cleveland, Ohio USA
Reply-To: mark@whizbang.wariat.org

Bruce Hayden wrote:

!Note also that Reagan had more votes than all of the democrats
!in either one of the houses.

And so did Dukakis, fer crying out loud.  Lots of people only
vote on the top of the ticket.

Irrelevant anyway.

--
Mark W. Schumann/3111 Mapledale Avenue/Cleveland, Ohio 44109-2447 USA
Domain: mark@whizbang.wariat.org                      CIS: 73750,3527
"We're not nuts or anything; I mean *I'm* not nuts." <whizbang!judy>
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: dealing with a phony police officer
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:49:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Dec30.214932.12120
Organization: Western Washington University

C08926RC@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu (Rob) writes:

>This advice was given by police in a local county after it became
>known that they now have plainclothes officers in completely unmarked
>cars pulling people over.  They also recommend that if you are unsure
>if the car pulling you over is an officer's car, drive to the closest
>area with a lot of people or a police station befire stopping.  This
>does not, however, guarantee that you won't get an additional citation,
>although most officers would understand.

I thought that it was a citizen's right to wait to pull over in a 
habitated area if he or she was worried about phony cops or having 
witnesses to the transaction.  Maybe it is different in different states.

What's the law in WA and IL?
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: geiser@nail.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Wayne Geiser)
Subject: Re: Know the source of Liberty's quote, "tired,huddled masses"?
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:27:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.063443.8603@netcom.com>, lion@netcom.com (carl loeber) writes:
|> i
|> 
|> Anyone know where that phrase derived on the Statue of Liberty?
|> 
|> Carl 
|> San Jose

I believe it comes from a poem ("The New Colossus") by Emma Lazarus.
-- 
**********************************************************************
* Wayne Geiser ("Drivel King")           Voice:    (508) 977-8253    *
* PictureTel Corporation                 FAX:      (508) 532-6893    *
* One Corporation Way                    Internet: geiser@pictel.com *
* Peabody, MA      01960                 CIS:      70313,3615        *
*                                        GEnie:    W.GEISER          *
**********************************************************************
"You'd think there would be ... what do they call it? ... some squid
 pro squid here."

    - Steve Blass (commenting on a seemingly inconsistent pair of
      calls by the first base umpire).
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,misc.test