HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: Original Jusrisdiction.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:44:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.132414.10830@atlastele.com> brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets) writes:
>What does the constitution mean by this phrase: 

>   In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
>consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme
>Court shall have original jurisdiction.  In all the other cases
>before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate
>jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and
>under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Cases involving foreign officials are under the Supreme Court as the
first and only court involved.  I'm not sure what "State" means.  If it
means a foreign country then that's the same as foreign officials.  If
it means States in the U.S. I don't think that's true.

I don't know what's included in the "all other cases" so I can't address
that.

Normally, the first court (i.e. original jurisdiction) would be the normal
state courts (i.e. common pleas or superior court).  If you're sueing
someone in another state, you can sue them in Federal District Court.
Normally the Supreme Court only hears questions of interpretation of
Federal Law which would normally be a case that had been heard in Federal
District Court, then Federal Appeals Court and finally the Supreme Court
(and only then, if they elect to hear it).

Xref: sparky misc.legal:18661 alt.politics.usa.misc:202 alt.politics.usa.constitution:680
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:54:03 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct13.232047.23120@mtu.edu>, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles 
Scripter) writes:
> > The Articles of Confederation aren't particularly useful in determining
> > any of this -- as Terry posted, the role of representatives was more
> 
> Ummm... He posted a section from the Constitution, not the Articles of
> Confederation.

Nope, the section I posted was from the Articles of Confederation.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski)
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's freedom of speech
Keywords: Those croppies who will not lie down
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:31:09 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Oct7.131302.4326@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes:

>>That's bullshit.  The libertarian position would absolutely NOT prevent
>>Sinead from speaking.  Further, I would bet that most libertarians would
>>not only not prevent Sinead and defend her right to speak, but would
>>also support what she said.

>Right on two of three accounts.  I for one found Sinead's actions to be
>highly offensive.  I definitely do not support what she said.
>On the other hand I want to emphasis that I have neither the right nor
>the desire to try and stop her from saying what she feels.  JUst as she
>does not have the right (I don't know about desire) to stop me from saying
>that she is an idiot who appears to have gone off the deep end.

True, but when will you get the chance to go on SNL and say that to millions
of people??  She's just turned into a loudmouthed @#^@#$% that can't sing 
anymore.  And yes..I have heard her earlier stuff and like it.

-Mark


--
- Mark Komarinski - komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
[MIME mail welcome]
Remember: 7 out of 10 people make up 70% of the popualtion
From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fighting Words?
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:49:26 GMT

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.

--
Richard Carlson
Internet:              rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Bangpath:              {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
CompuServe:            76605,470
Voice:                 (404) 881-6877
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18326 alt.politics.correct:5637 soc.college:4213
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:00:59 GMT
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma

>No. Collusion by a group of manufacturers in such an attempt is a
>violation, but such an attempt by a single manufacturer is not. What
>is the MSRP on a car if not such an attempt? What about all the
>products you see in retail stores with the price printed directly on
>the box, obviously at the factory?

That is not illegal.  What is illegal is for a manufacturer to inform
a dealer "you will not be permitted to buy any more merchandise from
us if we catch you selling at less than full list price".  This used 
to be permitted up unitl the mid/late 70's when various firms had "fair
trade" policies.

Such policies still exist with many small to medium sized firms -
enforcement is lax in all but the biggest cases (and sometimes the firms
get off, like the Nintendo price fixing case where they had to pay
consumers in "coupons" good for "discounts on future purchases").

The "full retail dealer may not negotiate or discount" Saturn Policy
(which they do not formally admit to, but is pretty obviously coming
from the top) may result in an interesting price fixing case (then 
again, it may not).

Firms still engage in anti-competetive behaviour which borders on
price fixing - for example, prohibiting retailers from advertising prices
less than full retail (Heckler & Koch does this).

I recently recieved a $40 payment from an anti trust settlement against
Mitsibushi consumer electronics - they had been caught telling retailers
not to discount televisions below certain floor prices.  Not bad, since
I only paid about $350 for the 20" TV originally.

Rob Boudrie
rboudrie@chpc.org
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.history,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Marbury v Madison (US 1803)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 11:41:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.054910.6662@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>Not exactly: More like, the Court said, "we win, and you can't do anything
>about it." The case specifically required no action by anyone except
>the Court. The ruling was that a congressional grant of jurisdiction, to
>the Supreme Court, was unconstitutional, and therefore the Court refused
>to take any action. This was one of the reasons John Marshall used _this_
>case to establish supreme judicial review: No action was required by the
>President or Congress to make the Court's interpertation stick. ("So
>what, try to enforce it" actually came 20 years later from Jackson.)

You have missed an essential nuance of the case: by ruling that the
Congressional grant of jurisdiction was unconstitutional, not only did
the Supreme Court not have to do anything, but the executive branch, which
was being sued in a mandamus action, *won* a victory because Marbury could
not bring his suit. To have challenged the Supreme Court's decision in
Marbury v. Madison would have meant *creating* legal exposure for the
executive branch.


--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
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Joint Acct vs single account with beneficiary
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:01:20 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct7.175421.25595@mwhhlaw.uucp>,  writes:
> In article <25979@oasys.dt.navy.mil> tobias@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve 
Tobias)  
> writes:
> > 
> >     Questions re a joint bank account in the name of a parent and his/her
> > child vs. an account in a parent's name with the child as beneficiary
> > (i.e. payable on death):
> > 
> > - Assuming parent is source of money, does setting up joint account with
> > child make money subject to gift tax if it's >$10,000?
> > 
> > -Is going through probate (i.e. getting ripped off by probate attorney)
> > avoided in either type of account upon death of parent?
> > 
> > -re my "ripped off" comment above, maybe I'm wrong, though I doubt it.
> > What is typical legal fee: flat charge, percentage of $ involved...??
> > For example, for a bank account in parent's name only, $XX, no beneficiary
> > named (except in will), what percentage of XX would probate attorney get?
> > 
> > -Is a federal tax involved only if total inheritance is over $600,000?
> > 
> >     Thanks in advance for your help.
> > 					 Steve
> 
> Why is it that Steve feels he can accuse me of being a "rip off artist" and  
> then ask for free advice?
 
I don't think he ever called you an "artist".  :-)

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: akoticha@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Apoorva Koticha)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Copyright Law
Keywords: Advice needed
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:01:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business


Hi,
  I needed some advice.  I have done some work that I would like to
copyright.  I would essentially like to pass it around to people, but
if anybody does want to use it for profit motives, I would like a part
of the loot :-).

What should I do?  Can I just right Copyright on top of the paper I am
circulating, or do I have to do any legal stuff?
Thanks in advance

Apoorva

akoticha@rnd.stern.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.environment,la.general,no.general,alt.activism
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Baton Rouge Businessman Indicted for Illegal Discharge of Pollutants
Organization: NDA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:00:15 GMT


Here is a press release from the U.S. Justice Department.

 Baton Rouge Businessman Indicted for Illegal Discharge of Pollutants
 To: National Desk
 Contact: U.S. Department of Justice, Public Affairs, 202-514-2007

   BATON ROUGE, La., Oct. 13  -- Edward W. McCrary III, a long-time 
Baton Rouge businessman, was indicted today by a federal grand jury.
   The grand jury charged McCrary with conspiracy to illegally
discharge pollutants into the Baton Rouge storm and sanitary sewer
systems and for the illegal discharge of pollutants into the Baton
Rouge storm sewer system.
   McCrary was also charged with the illegal transportation of toxic
hazardous waste, and for the illegal treatment and storage of toxic
hazardous waste.  The indictment charges that the discharges of
pollutants and the illegal handling of toxic hazardous waste occurred
at the Scenic Highway facilities operated by McCrary.
   United States Attorney Raymond Lamonica stated that this criminal
case was presented because it appears that the civil regulatory
process along has been unable to stop the repeated pollution of
Capitol Lake and the storm and sewer systems by McCrary's companies.
Willful and serious violations of environmental laws will result in
criminal prosecutions.  This, however, should not deter regulators to
attempt to enjoin such actions by civil proceedings where the burden
of proof is less and the response should be more rapid.
   If convicted on all four counts of the indictment McCrary could
receive a maximum sentence of 18 years imprisonment and a fine of $1
million.
    ------
   (Note: An indictment is a determination by a grand jury that there
is probable cause to believe the offenses have been committed by the
defendant.  Defendants, of course, are presumed innocent until and
unless proven guilty.)
 -30-

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.education
From: aovai@qube.ocunix.on.ca
Subject: Question about Continuing Education
Organization: Bell Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 15:43:04 GMT

 I hold an EE degree and work full time for a telecommunication company in
 Canada.  My job is a software job but my education were almost in hardware
 area.  

 Do you know any university/college in Canada/US offers home study courses
 of computer science ?  And do you think that home study is worth and the
 courses are accredited ?  My job does not allow my to take night course at
 university because it usually requires overtime work.

 if you have any recommendation, please send it to aovai@qube.ocunix.on.ca

 Thanks in advance,

 Aovai

Xref: sparky misc.legal:18512 alt.folklore.urban:25419
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History (was: Presidential UL's)
From: hugh@nezsdc.icl.co.nz (Hugh Grierson)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 22:32:47 GMT
Organization: Fujitsu New Zealand

In article <46u402KL25Vo01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>No, just the "or something".  :-)

Two dreaded-smileys in the space of 5 minutes reading; the latest from a
Terry, no less.  What _is_ the world coming to?

Hugh "Death of A.F.U predicted.  Film at 11" Grierson

-- 
Hugh Grierson          Fujitsu/ICL New Zealand - Software Development Centre
hugh@nezsdc.icl.co.nz                Speaking for myself only.  See figure 1.
    Quote of the decade: "We're not just talking about unpopulated areas
     of the Southern Hemisphere anymore" [Pres. Bush, on the Ozone hole]
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,misc.headlines
From: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's freedom of speech
Keywords: Those croppies who will not lie down
Reply-To: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 12:58:17 GMT

In article <sauron.718495535@femto.engr.mun.ca>,
sauron@femto.engr.mun.ca (Patrick Ryan) writes:

>Integrity?  You think integrity is taking a stand against another
>person, describing him as bigoted and racist, then turning around and
>condemning a person on the basis of religion?

What evidence do you have that Sinead O'Connor condemned the Pope on the
basis of religion?  It seemed clear to me that her complaints were based
upon the _acts_ the Pope and his organization have committed.


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@alien.enet.dec.com
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18323 alt.censorship:7969 misc.headlines:6549
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's freedom of speech
Keywords: Those croppies who will not lie down
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:12:30 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct7.131302.4326@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes:

>That's bullshit.  The libertarian position would absolutely NOT prevent
>Sinead from speaking.  Further, I would bet that most libertarians would
>not only not prevent Sinead and defend her right to speak, but would
>also support what she said.

Right on two of three accounts.  I for one found Sinead's actions to be
highly offensive.  I definitely do not support what she said.
On the other hand I want to emphasis that I have neither the right nor
the desire to try and stop her from saying what she feels.  JUst as she
does not have the right (I don't know about desire) to stop me from saying
that she is an idiot who appears to have gone off the deep end.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Xref: sparky misc.legal:18792 misc.education:3748
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.education
Subject: Re: School Vouchers: Constitutionality?
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:34:28 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

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

			..................

>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.

>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?  Just a thought.

>Comments, criticisms?

The liberals cannot consider that the reason one child learns better than
another can be due to innate ability, rather than environmental factors.
Or even if it is due to cultural factors, they insist that those from
cultures which promote education must be held back until those who do
not do as well catch up.  

The idea that education should be geared to what the child can and is
willing to accomplish, and that this varies substantially, is totally
alien to the PC liberal thinking.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,bit.listserv.infonets
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: On-line Legal: ABA/net
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:45:40 GMT

In article <Pe0isB1w165w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:

>Folks reading this article in bit.listserv.infonets will probably
>be shocked to hear that none of the lawyers in misc.legal seem to
>have heard of ABA/net.

This is simply false.

>I inquired in misc.legal if there were any
>specialized legal networks with bulletin board type conferences
>and discussion and the word came back that there were not.

From whom did the word come back? Not from me--I don't recall being asked.
But, then, I can't read every posting in misc.legal, nor can I respond to
every posting for which I might have a relevant response. 

>  That
>raises the question: just _who_ subscribes to ABA/net?

For the most part, ABA members with computers who like the service.
I'm an ABA member who doesn't like the service. But, contrary to your
statement here, I and most of the other lawyers online in this newsgroup
have heard of the service. Perhaps all of us have. 

It is not logically valid to infer from the lack of response to a public
posting that no one in your audience *can* respond.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: property/future interests formal syntax help
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:32:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.201213.12787@rosevax.rosemount.com> craig@bunsen.rosemount.com (Craig Taylor) writes:
>I am currently taking Property and I'm more than a little
>confused by what seems to be use of undefined words in
>future interest problems.  
>
><text deleted>
>I am definitely looking for black letter solutions here, 
>preferably in some formal syntax.  I did not have this problem
>in contracts, civil procedure or torts last year.
>
>BNF ;-) || flowchart || good study guide suggestions?

This is a common problem for law students, but there is a cheap and
very effective fix: Buy the Law-In-A-Flash flashcard set for Future
Interests. After one or two passes through these cards, you will know
future interests cold.



--Mike





-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,misc.headlines
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's freedom of speech
Keywords: Those croppies who will not lie down
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:34:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.054011.2337@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>As I get ready to leave Princeton and cease posting from this location,
>I won't refrain from (1) saying hip hip hurrah for Sinead's performance
>on Saturday Night Live, and (2) reflecting that the logic of the modal
>net "libertarian" position on freedom of speech would PREVENT Sinead from
>speaking.  

I don't know where you get these ideas.  I didn't see Sinead's
performance, but I can see why many people were offended.  I 
of course support her right to free speech.  Although, the producers
are under NO obligation to ask her back.  Just as they are
under NO obligation to allow me on their show to rip up
photographs of people I despise.

>And, of course, Sinead made her protest on air time which most
>libertarians will argue was (surprise) private property, to be disposed
>of by NBC and not by Sinead.  

Not at all.  NBC hired Sinead to perform - she performed.  If they
didn't like the performance they are under no obligation to have 
her back.

>Sinead went against this tradition.  Because of the infantile Baby
>Boomer view that Freedom is nice and good and Power is evil and bad,
>many idiots in my generational cohort will say, Sinead oppressed
>Catholics by insulting Popey Jopey.  

Actually Ed, that is the kind of argument I would have thought you would
put forward.  Isn't she "censoring" Catholics because now some of them
will be ashamed to admit that they like the Pope in public ?


Guido
Newsgroups: misc.legal