HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcadotte@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Beverly Cadotte)
Subject: Re: Insurance question
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:35:47 GMT


Hi,
    I have a question about an insurance claim that I had recently.

    I live in So. Calif and am covered under a typical dental/medical
plan. The dental plan pays 80% after a $50 per person deductible.
I joined ($80.00) a local dental plan that does not charge for
dental exam and xrays if you join their plan. I did this and
had my kids teeth xrayed, cleaned and my teeth xrayed and cleaned.
I had a cavity and was told it would cost  $55.00 plus the adult
cleanings no longer were charged thus that would cost $42.00.

   I had belonged to this plan two years ago and liked it. I was never
billed for the cleaning and xrays. My husband had other work
done which the insurance co was billed for. So far no problem.

   Well, when I was told I had a cavity I told them I had insurance
that would cover it. I was told they would waive the deductible
since I joined their plan. I got a copy of the claim yesterday
and they have billed my insuranco company almost 700.00 for
the 'free' cleaning and xrays for my kids and I. When I called
to complain I was basically told they have separate fee 
schedules, one for those with insurance and one for those 
without.  The fee schedule for non members is not posted anywhere
nor when I asked would they tell me what the fees were.

   My question is: is this legal?  I might add I was NEVER
asked if I had insurance when I made the appointment or paid
for their plan. Only after I was told I had a cavity did
they  offer to bill my insurace and waive the deductible,
and 'take what the insurance company gave them' to paraphrase.
I don't want my insurance billed for services that are
advertised as free (no copayment if you belong to their plan).


Beverly Tookey
bcadotte.devvax.jpl.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: Justices refuse to a (1)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 03:36:08 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Apr4.151802.28248@zooid.guild.org> Neil Hull <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>I'm absolutely flabbergasted to hear that of all people, Sandra Day
>O'Connor would have wanted to hear an appeal allowing any form of
>censorship.

>From what I have heard (as a Canadian), Justice O'Connor is apparently
>the Supreme Court's most passionate "liberal".


WHo ever told you O'Connor was a "liberal."  She is best described as
a moderate-conservative.  She was appointed by President Reagan,
hardly known as a friend of "passionate liberals."

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk%panix.com@nyu.edu) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
From: gerald.mcdougall@yob.sccsi.com (Gerald Mcdougall) 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: 60 MINUTES PIECE ON O
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:32:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: gerald.mcdougall@yob.sccsi.com (Gerald Mcdougall) 

.EK>                                                                        .
.EK>... But it's not in the best interests of the law enforcement groups to .
.EK>let a case get to the Supreme Court. They will try to settle any dispute.
.EK>that looks like its headed there. Is there any way to get the Court to  .
.EK>decide on a case that's been settled in a lower court?                  .
.............................................................................

I think the RICO siezure problem HAS been to the SpCt.  And - if
settled you can't GET an appeal.
---
 . MegaMail 2.10 #847:Nov schmov Kapop!!?!
                          
Xref: sparky misc.legal:9306 alt.society.civil-liberty:3471
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: jury nullification
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:56:37 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <ARG.92Apr1133243@huxley.bitstream.com> arg@bitstream.com writes:

>
>Sorry for the confusion.  Let me clarify: suppose two juries find the facts
>in their respective  cases the same, e.g., both  defendants were  found  to
>have   committed the same   act X in  violation  of  statute.   If one jury
>convicts in accordance with  the statute,  but  the other jury  acquits  by
>disregarding and  ignoring the law, this would  make our legal  system very
>capricious and arbitrary, which I think violates a basic tenet of fairness.
>
>We should strive to mete out equal punishment for similar crimes.

First of all, no one should disregard or ignore the law.  Jury nullification
is not about ignoring the law, but of declaring it to be unsuitable or
inapplicable to the case at hand.  Jury nullification is about REJECTING
the law, not ignoring it.

In your example given above, assuming that the acquitting jury did so 
as a rejection of the law, then that jury said it was NOT a crime.  
If they are right, then BOTH defendants
should be acquitted.  The other jury DID consider it a crime.  If they
are right, then one man was convicted who should've been, and one
wasnt.  I was always under the assumption that the protection of the innocent
was a top priority in the US legal system,  and that we would rather see
100 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man.

Justice is not a matter of meting out equal punishments for equal actions, 
it is a matter of first deciding if those actions are *really punishable.*

De facto, it is the jury who decides whether a law is just, and also
the facts of the case.  If ALL juries were informed of this power, then
there would be less likelihood of different juries coming to different
verdicts given identical cases.  Why?  Because there is a quite remarkable 
level of general agreement found when a dozen randomly selected people 
are given certain instructions and are forced to gather in a room to 
deliberate on "whether a certain 
defendant should be punished for his actions."

But it would still be possible to get
a different jury verdict in Louisiana or in Utah than in San Francisco.
That is because there are actual differences in what people feel and
believe is right in different locations of the country on certain issues.

I dont see any way around that--community standards DO come into play,
and perhaps this is an overall positive, because people can gravitate
to areas where they find conscientious companionship.
People who find themselves living among small minds may have to pull up roots.
It would certainly be interesting if all doctors and liberal-minded
women abandoned Louisiana, if juries there were upholding criminal
penalties for abortion.


--Al Date
Marrou Lord 92
Vote Libertarian -- Do it for your kids...
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: 6sigma2@polari.com
Subject: Re: Suggestions needed on fighting a speeding ticket
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix (206) 328-4944
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 06:44:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.180913.16093@cs.yale.edu> kopso-jennifer@CS.YALE.EDU (Jennifer Kopso) writes:
|In article <1992Apr9.045436.11254@polari.com>, 6sigma2@polari.com writes:
||> A friend of mine just got a speeding ticket and is looking for some
||> ways to fight it.
|If your friend is going to fight the ticket and she
|truly believes that she is innocent, then she should plead not guilty and
|say that another car was close to her's and maybe the radar caught the
|other car instead of hers.  You never know.

After driving the road yesterday, I think this may have possibilities.
The roads follows a river and curves back and forth.  The river side of
the road is clear of obstructions (of course :-)) and the other side
is bordered by fields, so there are just a couple of houses.  From where
you turn onto the road, you can see a long way down the valley.  A
straight line drawn along the river (by, oh let's say...a radar beam?)
would intersect the road at a number of points.  Also, the road connects
to a fairly busy four lane highway so the beam would hit cars on the
highway.

So, some questions:

  - What is the range of a typical radar gun?

  - Do they register which direction a car is going (toward or away
    from the gun)?

  - In what range of angles to the path of the radar beam must the car
    be traveling for an accurate reading to occur?

  - How hard or difficult is it to tell if the gun got the car the
    operator thinks it got as opposed to a car beyond it?

Thanks!
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Slippery Slope
Keywords: nuclear waste; Xth Amendment; federalism
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:38:30 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <18497@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>It seems to me (and I haven't read the opinion either, so I could be 
>wrong) that the sting operation against this particular Midwestern pervert 
>failed Justice White's test because he did not respond "promptly" to the
>criminal opportunities which the government placed before him, and because
>those opportunities, directed specifically at him as opposed to the public
>at large, were "repeated."  

Then White (if he did) shouldn't have used the "create a predisposition"
language that O'Connor accuses him of using.

>Do undercover drug enforcement agents *keep after* a suspected dope dealer
>the way the undercover anti-child-porn agents *kept after* this fellow?

Yes.  See, for example, United States v Mandujano, 499 F2d 370 (5th Cir,
1974).  (Not quite analagous, but presumably indicative.)
-- 
Ted Frank          + "Question whether attorney's filing claim for 'stud fee'
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  as countersuit to paternity action was improperly
U o' C Law Skool   +  motivated required remand."  Headnote 9, Committee on
Chi, IL 60637      +  Legal Ethics of WVa State Bar v Douglas, 370 SE2d 325.
From: arg@huxley.bitstream.com (Adam R. Grossman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: jury nullification
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:09:46 GMT
	<1992Apr7.232540.18978@esd.dl.nec.com>
	<ARG.92Apr8160924@huxley.bitstream.com> <18449@smoke.brl.mil>
Reply-To: arg@bitstream.com
Organization: Bitstream, Inc. - Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: matt@smoke.brl.mil's message of 9 Apr 92 18:41:31 GMT

matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
   Newsgroups: misc.legal
   Date: 9 Apr 92 18:41:31 GMT

   arg@bitstream.com (Adam Grossman) writes:
   >mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes:
   >   [jury  nullification is good when someone  is accused of  breaking a
   >   bad statute]
   >
   > There are no  such  things  as "bad"  laws--strictly speaking [because
   > "bad" just depends on whom you ask.]
   >
   > If  a law  is "bad" because someone  says "In my  opinion, this law is
   > bad", and if "bad" laws should not be enforced, we won't have any laws
   > left!  So I  have to ask [the  jury nullification advocates  -arg], if
   > people should ignore ["bad"] laws, why have laws?

   So I have to ask, If "positive law" doctrine leads us to question why we
   should have laws at all, why follow "positive law" doctrine?

   [T]he "positive law" doctrine seems to [lead to] an absurd conclusion.

Exactly--but not quite.  I do not think that the question  "why have laws?"
came from the  doctrine  of positive law;  I raised the  question because I
thought it followed from the doctrine of jury nullification.  Sorry for the
confusion.  You may want to make a case for the former, but don't think I'm
doing it for you or help you with it! #:-)

Btw, I think the Positivist  answer to "why  have laws?"   is  "because  it
creates some order and stability in our society and keeps us out of chaos."
Not, because the laws  we have,  or any particular  laws, are inherently or
"naturally" right.
--
Adam R. Grossman
arg@bitstream.com
From: danr@pro-franklin.cts.com (Daniel Roberts)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fully Informed Jury Association (Pamphlet)
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:17:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: crash.1992Apr16.151746.28217
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA

Lee,

You hit some of my point exactly and missed some of it. (and raised some
inportant additional issues as well.)


The "vegence" aspect of the formal criminal law process is, to my mind, of
value only to the degree that it achives other valid goals. The discouraging
of personal vendetta is a valid goal.

Dan
---------
danr@pro-franklin.cts.com
Sysop of pro-franklin 614-462-7458 at up to 2400 BPS.
Home of pro.apo pro.scout and 2nd home of pro.law and pro.security.
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Justices
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 14:55:11 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Apr10.042618.17565@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan A Woodman) writes:
>In article <3014@cvbnetPrime.COM> jharring@lulu.UUCP (Joe Harrington) writes:
>
>>Am I remembering correctly that Scalia dissented on Bostic[k] last
>>year, the ruling that allows the police to initiate a warrantless
>>search on a public trasportation vehicle?  
>
>You forgot an important word. It was a *consensual* warrantless search
>on a public transportation vehicle.
>
>Remember: never consent to any search. Ever.

Justice O'Connor sure had a strange definition of consensual.  If
police officers were to block my path and refuse to allow me to pass
until I allowed a search, I might (until recently) have believed I had
no choice.  In the current situation, well, see my .sig.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Literal Constitutionalism (was: NY State...)
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:29:03 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Apr3.122454.24221@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (wayne john warf) writes:

>>
>>They could have also said "The right to keep and bear arms shall not
>>be infringed."  But they didn't.  They added lanaguage about "a well
>>REGULATED militia."  Exactly what type of regulation do you think they
>>had in mind?

>Regulate, def.-To make uniform, methodical, orderly

My dictionary gives the number one definition as "to control or direct
by a rule, principle, method, etc."

But even your definition would permit the states to determine the
uniform types of guns that were required for common defense, and ban
the rest of them as unsafe, or bad for militial discipline.


-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk%panix.com@nyu.edu) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Little Rascals Trial - jury still out
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:20:19 GMT
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Originator: hes@ccvr1.cc.ncsu.edu


  Deliberating for two weeks, the jury seems to have set a state
record for length of time.  The jury requested Superior Court Judeg
D. M. MCLelland to give them Friday afternoon off, but the Judge
at first denied the request, and then later relented and declared 
recess 1 1/2" hour early.  Deliberations resume Monday at 10 am.

--henry schaffer  n c state univ
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Summary: "Long Arm" statutes.
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:16:23 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <1992Apr14.020251.25395@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
(Jonathan A Woodman) writes:

>. . . Mr. Gotti broke US and NY law while in the United States, and
>is a citizen of the US, and thus subject to US law.  Mr. Noriega, on the
>other hand, is a Panamanian citizen who was accused of breaking US law while 
>in a foreign country. What basis for jurisdiction can the US possibly have?
>[Jonathan A. Woodman]

Let some con man set up a "boiler room" in Florida, and sell nonexistent
or underwater land over the 'phone to Maryland residents.  See how fast
the Maryland Attorney General will sue the con man under the Maryland
"long arm" statute.  That's a civil-suit statute, but the principle
ought to be the same for criminal law.  Gen. Noriega was involved in 
putting into the "stream of commerce" various noxious drugs that 
found their way, and indeed were intended to find their way, into the 
United States of America.  Why shouldn't the "long arm" of U. S. law 
reach out to bring him to justice?

>Are you then saying that the US should go and arrest foreign nationals who
>engage in polygamy, for instance?  It's a crime here.  [Jonathan Woodman]

Polygamy in foreign countries does not affect Americans.  Smuggling drugs
on their way to North America does affect Americans.

>What basis does the
>United States have for "arresting" foreign nationals who break our laws in
>other countries?   [Jonathan Woodman]

It's the "long arm."
					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court to consider limiting Habeas Corpus
Date: 26 Mar 92 00:40:36 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <kt1al1INN2d6@cosell.bbn.com> cosell@cosell.bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes:
>Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>
>} The Justices themselves signalled the potential importance of this
>}case when, in accepting it for review three months ago, they took the
>}unusual step of instructing the lawyers to present a question that
>}neither side had raised: Whether Federal judges have the authority to
>}reweigh determinations made by state courts.
>
>Actually, I've often wondered this, too.  It seemed to me that the
>federal courts ought not to have jurisdiction to review state matters,
>unless there is something like an 8th or 14th amendment problem with
>the state.

Uh, Bernie, this is what happens in habeas-corpus cases.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Les vrais paradis sont les paradis
mnemonic@eff.org | qu'on a perdus."
(617) 864-0665   | 
EFF, Cambridge   |          --Marcel Proust
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 20:31:48 GMT
Organization: The Witherspoon Excludables
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST

In <18481@smoke.brl.mil>, matt@smoke.brl.mil stated:
>
>>What basis does the
>>United States have for "arresting" foreign nationals who break our laws in
>>other countries?   [Jonathan Woodman]
>
>It's the "long arm."
>					-- Matt Rosenblatt
>                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM       [sic]

So-called long-arm jurisdiction is about the power of a court to
exercise legal authority over a person, whether or not that person
chooses to appear before the court. (Civil defendants may, and often
do, default rather than appear.)  The doctrines developed under this
rubric have *nothing whatsoever* to do with the power of the executive
to physically hale defendants into the jurisdiction.

So much for "TRUTH" in your post, Matt.  Or are you announcing a new
rule today?  If so, perhaps you could be good enough to explain why
the federal government goes to all the trouble of signing extradition
treaties with other countries when our "long arm" reaches so very far.


-- 
		  For a Big Lie, call 1-800-424-9090

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Software Renting
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 14:56:01 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <john_newman.34@qmcc.curtin.edu.au> john_newman@qmcc.curtin.edu.au (John Newman) writes:
>
>Logically, how can I argue that software and CDROMs are any different
>to music and video disks/tapes/cassettes.?

You can make exact copies of the former.


-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 00:14:21 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST

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

>In article <khsjs9g.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) 
>writes:

>>1. The Iraqis can now kidnap President Bush and put him on trial in
>>Baghdad  for mass murder.  [David Feustel]

>The main implication of the Noriega trial is that the following argument
>no longer holds:

>   "You can arrest my employees, my lackeys and my stooges.  
>    You can bomb my soldiers, sink my sailors, and shoot down
>    my airmen.
>    But you can't touch me, because I'm a head of state and I
>    have sovereign immunity no matter what I do.  I'm a king,
>    and a king can do no wrong."

>>2. It's OK for IRAN to carry out its death sentence on Rushidie.
>>[David Feustel]

>On the contrary!  Whatever Ayatollah who imposed that sentence (if he
>were still alive) would be criminally responsible in a British court 
>as a principal in the crime of attempted murder of a British subject
>in Britain.  Before the Noriega precedent, such an Ayatollah could
>have argued, "I'm the head of state of Iran, and therefore I can never
>be held criminally responsible for anything that I, in the course of
>my business as head of state, order my servants to do."  With the
>Noriega precedent, if the Special Air Service can get its hands on
>the Ayatollah, he will find himself in the dock at Old Bailey.

>The Israelis captured Adolf Eichmann in Argentina and put him on trial
>in Israel for ordering the murder of Jews in Europe.  As far as I can 
>see, the main difference between what the Israelis did to Eichmann and 
>what the Americans did to Noriega is that Noriega was a head of state
>and Eichmann was not.

The main difference is that America has abandoned the Constitution.

>                      If Noriega was, as the jury found, engaged in
>poisoning American kids with drugs, the fact that he was a head of state
>ought not to have protected him from being brought to Justice.

What you're saying is that diplomatic immunity is no longer
operational and that any law made in any country can be enforced in
any other country.
-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
= Candidate Bush wouldn't recognize principle if he were standing upon it =
Newsgroups: alt.sex,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
From: fielden@spot.Colorado.EDU (fielden j.a.)
Subject: Re: Censoship of nudity (was Re: Photo of minor: is it illegal to possess?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:44:04 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.211536.25897@midway.uchicago.edu> js23@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Speaking of full frontal nudity (male), let us not forget
>Monty Python's "Life of Brian" where Graham Chapman displayed
>his wares for all of Judea to see.
>-- 
>_______________________________________________________________________
>"Amusment is the happiness of those who can't think."  Pope
>
>We are not amused.



There is also Breathless with Richard Gere where he has a shower scence
showing full frontal and Room With a View (which just showed on PBS ch. 6
in Denver unedited) which has a scence with 3 men running about a pond
with no clothes and no "strategic" plant placements to obscure things.