HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tan@infonode.ingr.com (Maribel Tan-Vanderzijp )
Subject: information on claim court procedures : needed
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Distribution: misc
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:09:23 GMT

I may have to go to the claim court in the near future to file for a claim
against the seller of a house (who sold us his house a year ago, he is a
builder too).

I have gathered as much evidences as I can. Being a first timer, can the
net wisdom share some helpful tips to me such as :

can the other guy bring a lawyer with him to defend him ?
what are the things I may have to watch out for ?
what are the common/regular procedures ?
how long does it take ?

thank you very much for any insights you can share with me.

please email to tan@infonode.ingr.com or maribel@maribel.b23b.ingr.com

thanks
bell
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Ed, The Punisher
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:24:03 GMT

While I was trying to point out to our own Mr. Ed Nilges that freedom
of speech does not imply a guarantee that others must listen to and
agree happily with that speech.  I was stupid enough to actually use the
word punishment vis peoples displeasure with that speech -- that freedom
of speech means that the government will not punish you (I felt that
arrest, court, penetentiary was clearly my intent here), but that people
you insult, lie to, and otherwise abuse with your speech are free to
"punish" you with speech and actions (or inactions) of their own.  They
can ignore you, they can speak truth to make obvious your lies, they can
fire you, they can call you a worse name, they can live the rest of
their lives hating you for what you said.  

Ed, in his apparent infinite wisdom, seized upon my use of the word
"punish" and in it found, via telepathy and long-distance, instantaneous
psychoanalysis that I was a Punisher-wannabe.  For those not in the
know, the Punisher is a Marvel Comic character whose M.O. is wreaking
havoc on people he believes are criminals with automatic weapons,
explosives, cutlery and his fists/feet/elbows/knees.  A vigilante in
blank pajamas with a skull painted on his chest who breaks countless
laws everyday in his pursuit of bad-guys.  Thanks for saving me all that
money on therapy, Ed.  I guess my beleiving that you are not living in
the same reality most of the rest of us do is using force that "we've
giving a monopoly on" to the government (NOT).

He also decided that I was a white male libertarian who should be sent
to Bosnia-Herzogovenia for awhile to learn about real life.  What a
pathetic waste.  He was right about the white male part, but that's
about it.  What I know about B-H is that a bunch of idiots are killing
each other over religion, race, and historic hatred.  What would I learn
there?  That a fascist state actually did manage to have these peoples
living together without killing each other (not too difficult to do when
the gvt controls all firearms, communications, outlaws religion)?

Mike Percy             | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu  | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst    | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET      | is really...bossy.
Clemson University     | (803) 656-3780              | (Laurie Anderson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: craig@bunsen.rosemount.com (Craig Taylor)
Subject: electronic copy of UCC wanted
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 18:28:12 GMT

Does anyone know where I can obtain an electronic copy
of the UCC, especially articles 1 and 2 (with comments)?

I am assuming the the UCC with comments but absent any 
annotations is not copyrighted. 
-craig

-- 
Craig F. Taylor
craig@rosemount.com
Work (612) 895-2254
Home (612) 454-4994

Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Question for Charles Perez and Ted Frank
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 11:35:19 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal

As quoted from <1992Aug29.180929.27116@Princeton.EDU> by egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges):

> I suggest that we return to the subject under discussion, which is the
> subtle racism of contemporary American society and how it found
> expression in the Viktora decision, rather than waste bandwidth on
> Trivial Pursuit.

I suggest we discuss the UNsubtle racism of massah Ed.  Come one Gauleiter
Nilges, what race AM I?  I sense that you're poised to make the jump to
electronic apartheid....


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Number of Lawyers
Date: 26 Aug 92 07:01:34 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Aug25.223540.9460@mwhhlaw.uucp>, mwhhlaw!tim (Timothy E. Hollingsworth) writes:
>  In the most recent issue of the ABA Journal, Ray August, an Assoicate  
> Professor from Washington State University, provides myth cracking
> data about   the number of lawyers in the various countries of the
> world.  Surprise! The US   probably does not have 70% of the world's
> lawyers.  Actually, the percentage is   something more like 9.4%.
> 
> Hum.... I always thought my former classmate, Dan Quayle, was lacking in the  
> research department.
> 

I reformatted your post so that it would fit on the screen with the
"> " added.  You should wrap at the 70th column (or set wrap 10 if
using vi).

I summarized an article by _The Economist_ that also disagreed with
Quayle, but it said that the U.S. had about a third of the world's
laywers.  Though Dapper Dan got his facts wrong, I do agree with a lot
of his conclusions.  We certainly need tort reform in this country.
                    === Al Sparks
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Custody case question
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:32:21 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:

>srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:

>> My professor of Family Law 
>> [basically says the man has the edge]

>I'd be interested to see what she bases her opinion on.

Mostly she used appellate decisions, here in New York.  I hated that
course so much that I didn't keep the materials, but maybe I can find
a few notes for you.  For what it is  worth, I couldn't pass for a
feminist at the GOP convention, much less in her class, but I drew
the same conclusion from the cases we read.  I should add that the
paternal edge does *not* apply where the child is deemed to be of
"tender years."  At one time, the law in almost every state virtually
gave automatic custody to the mother when the child was very young
(say 8 or less years), on the theory that nature calls for mothering
at that age (whatever that is).  Most states have claimed to repudiate
the tender years presumption, but it still operates, unacknowledged,
in many of them.  In that case, the mother has the clear advantage.
--
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16582 alt.politics.correct:5173 alt.censorship:7212
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi)
Subject: Re: KNOW YOUR RIGHTS (was: Re; Nilges)
Organization: Oracle Corp., Belmont CA
	<1992Aug25.020542.9196@panix.com>
	<1992Aug25.150827.11033@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Aug26.125505.27373@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:48:57 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug26.125505.27373@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In particular, the Supreme Court provided Viktora with
>the freedom to commit a tort and a crime (given the statements of many
>posters on the other side of this debate, who said that his conduct was
>ALREADY criminalized.)  Such an odd freedom: a freedom to get busted and
>to get sued for violating laws against assault that are already on the
>books

Say WHAT? Ed, the Court did _not_ give him the "freedom" to break the
legitimate laws he broke, they _only_ said that his punishment could
not be harsher due to the unpopularity of his political statement.
Someone with such, ah, extraordinary views as yourself might be glad
of such protection some day.


>(see, for example, "gun liberties" which criminalize
>people by shoving guns in their hands.)

This gratuitous tripe has been beaten completely to death between
people much more amenable to reason than Ed here, but I can't resist
noting that this is one of the most, er, extreme expressions of the
anti-2nd-amendment viewpoint I have ever seen.


                                         -g
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mbisted@ssf-sys.DHL.COM (Morris Bisted)
Subject: Re: HP managers read my e-mail
Organization: DHL Systems, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:49:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.005238.2612@cbnews.cb.att.com> ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:
>In article <9208271700.AA18554@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu writes:
Stuff deleted

>
>So what sort of confidential information is being shared, and with
>whom?
>
>
>As to your email:   Is this on a company machine and not on your own
>personal computer at home?  If it is on a company machine, they own
>the machine and all the imformation on it.  They can probably show a

Are you sure about this?  I thought that if there was a password associated
with the machine that the password indicated that the person provided with
the password could expect some level of privacy.  I believe the realm of
this privacy would safegaurd personal information not relevant to the 
company.  

I'm also a little skeptical about your statement about the "imforation" (sic)
I'm sure that the company could claim that company information on
your machine at home, was still the company's information and therefore
ultimately exert control over the disposition or use of it, even though
the owner of the machine could exert dominion.  Realizing that enforcement
is problematic, I still think this is a very interesting aspect of privacy.

Who ultimately owns the information on your hard disk?  In the case of
most purchased software which is licensed, the hard disk owner has no
rights other than use, and I believe the vendor can compel removal for
cause.

>legitimate need to be sure all the information on the machine and
>all the use of the machine is for legitimate business purposes.

Previous statement assumes that the information was not company information.
Most companies that I have worked with have encouraged the use of
the machine for non-business exploration and personal use outside of 
business hours.  They have felt that they(the company) gained from this
extra work.  It seems to me that, if this is the case, ( there are no
facts to show that it is or is not), then that which is the employees that
is not within in the scope of employment could be kept from the company.  If
the company did not adhere to this policy after the fact, I think that
there may be a remedy to the employee based on the modification of
a contract and the employee's detrimental reliance.  I don't know whether
there is any precedent to support this, but it seems logical doesn't it?

Art this is just food for thought, not an attack on your statements.

>
>Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus

Morris
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 03:30:04 GMT

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <2516@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)writes
>>Should the government have the right to suppress speech because it can
>>be defined as hate speech?  Yes or No.  Responses?

>No, Joe, because the Constitution (specifically the bill of rights)
>specifies that this is forbidden.  The St Paul law enhanced the
>punishment when a tort or crime had already been committed, and the
>state is well within its rights to withold some Constitutional rights
>when a crime is committed.

Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.
Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.
Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.
Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.
Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.

RAV wasn't charged under the penalty-enhancing part of the law; he was
only charged with the hate speech law itself.  He was never charged with
arson, trespassing, making terroristic threats, or anything else, because
the DA here is an idiot.  As was pointed out Sagans of times before, RAV
could've been charged under the same law if he'd burned the cross on his
OWN lawn.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Nilges
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:01:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.211853.24886@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.134946.951@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Aug25.163433.15293@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
>>>
>>
>>Well, what if I'm a salesman and my boss fires me because I insulted
>>a customer?  Violation of free speech?
>
>If Viktora had his "rights", then the answer to your question is "yes."
>Since it is unacceptable to you, you must concede that the Supreme Court
>was wrong.

You obviously fail to see that the right to free speech means that the
government cannot punish me for my speech.  It doesn't mean that all
individuals must ignore my speech.

The concept of free speech is a limitation on the actions of the
government.

>>>into this but it is a pretty typically Western media created notion of 
>>>the big bad middle east (except Israel of course!  But thats an issue of
>>>who actually controls the media!)
>>
>>It'll be interesting to see whether Ed Nilges condemns this dishonest
>>anti-Semitism as strongly as he condemns Walt Disney.
>
>You reasoned from the Arabic-sounding name of Shereryar and his mild
>criticism, above, of a media bias that is supported by Palestinian
>moderates                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^

See the oxymoron file in rec.humor.

> including Edward Said to the absurd conclusion that Sheheryar
>is an anti-Semitic.

Why is it absurd?  Do you have evidence against it?  It might be
unwarranted, but in the absence of contrary evidence, it certainly
isn't absurd.

>  As such, YOU are the racist and indeed the
>anti-semite, if we use Said's definition of latter-day anti-semitism as
>anti-semitism directed at Arabs.

Once again, Ed Nilges redefines words to prove his point.  Or, in this
case, he adopts someone else's redefinition.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: ADL Dismayed by Ohio Court Decision Striking Down Hate Crimes Law
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:56:06 GMT

>In article <1992Aug27.075721.6907@samba.oit.unc.edu> Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
>Here is a press release from the Anti-Defamation League.
>
> ADL Dismayed by Ohio Court Decision Striking Down Hate Crimes Law
>believe as they choose without state interference, but if their
>bigotry prompts them to engage in criminal conduct, the state should
>be able to punish that conduct as it sees fit."

This is the key issue.  The Supreme Court's Viktora decision provided a
counterfactual "right" to Viktora to commit a tort and a crime, implying 
paradoxically that the guy had a legal right to commit a legal wrong.
The ADL here points-out correctly that well-drafted laws against bias
come into play when a tort or a crime has already been committed, and
enhance the punishment for the tort or crime to the extent that
bias-related torts and crimes degrade community spirit.  In the absence
of hate crime laws, Viktora's antics may very well have been treated as
Halloween high-jinx and would likely have gone without any punishment at
all.  

The Viktora decision enhanced no-one's freedom since even proponents of
the decision call for punishment of Viktora based on his nonbias crime.
I should have thought that the defunct Soviet Union was the home of
lawyers and judges as alchemists skilled in transforming real rights
(such as the Soviet Constitution's bogus guarantees of freedom of
speech) into formal and then fictional rights, and I am disheartened to
see that our own judges are acquiring this skill.





Subject: Re: ADL Dismayed by Ohio Court Decision Striking Down Hate Crimes Law
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Princeton University
Keywords:
From: bm941@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul L. Krash)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: even the high and mighty...
Date: 2 Sep 1992 20:22:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Matthew Stong, a George Washington University student, was arrested
in Alexandria.VA. in June, with 90 handgunds jammed into three duffel
bags. "It's not like I am a criminal," Stong told the Washington Post.
"I scored 1,400 on my SAT."

Billy Sexton, serving 75 years in prison (Oklahoma) for murdering his
first wife (and charged with killing his second wife), filed a $60 million
lawsuit against officials as a parole-board hearing recently for
subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment that caused him 
'mental trauma' . He is objecting to parole officials forcinhg him
to view photographs of his first wife's mutilated body.

(Sorry about the sp errors my editor is down)

krash.
-- 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: shedevil@leland.Stanford.EDU (Anne P. Mitchell, JD)
Subject: Re: Computers for Law (was Re: Advice to first year law students)
Reply-To: shedevil@gw.home.vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell, J.D.)
Organization: Fathers Rights & Equality Exchange
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 00:23:06 GMT



Mike <mnemonic@eff.org> says:

*Learning DOS machines as a lawyer is not particularly difficult. Learning
*them for the first time when you're a first-year law student turns out
*to be a bit more difficult, as I've discovered from counselling first-year
*law students. The nice thing about Macs is that they take less time from a
*first-year student's studies.
*
*Capturing the entire problem was not my goal. What I was trying to say
*was that, all things considered, I think students are better off with
*Macs as their first computers if they're first-years. If they already
*own a DOS machine, of course, they should stick with what they know.
*The whole business of incompatibility with your law office--which Anne
*Mitchell stated in extreme terms--seems to be fairly extreme exaggeration,
*even if we grant that most law offices have DOS platforms. 
*

You know, I don't think that Mike and I are in disagreement here...I
think that we simply were coming at the same general statement from
two different perspectives and sets of experiences.

Apparently, in Mike's mind's eye, he was seeing and thinking of 1Ls
with little to no computer experience, and who, once working, would
only need or want word processing compatibility between their home and
office computers.  Certainly a valid point of perspective.

In my mind's eye, based on my own, and only my own, personal
experience, I was seeing and thinking of 1Ls who did have some
computer savvy, as this was as often as not the case in my
experience.  We had several 1Ls this year who were already online
before school started, and running around UNIX like nobody's
business.  I was also starting from the perspective of wanting to run
more applications than just word processing between work and home,
such as billing and calendaring programs.  

I think that in the circumstances Mike is talking to [as I understand
them] Mike is absolutely right, and I think that in the circumstances
I am talking to that I am correct as well.

I really see no disagreement here.

But I do wish, Mike that you would stop using such unflattering terms
when referring to my statements as "extremely out of date" [first
posting] and "extreme exaggeration".  You probably don't even mean
them to be unflattering but they do seem that way, at least to me.
Besides, this subject is very subjective, not one based on hard facts
alone, so I suggest that even an extreme point of view, had I
evidenced one, would not be "exaggeration", but rather (over)zealous
advocacy. :-)



Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: Sperm Donor Paternity (was Re: Right To Not Support)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:42:11 GMT

kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse) writes:

>In misc.legal, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>> That's +very+ interesting news -- so it is quite possible for a mother
>> to sue the sperm donor successfully.  Can she force the clinic 
>> to identify the donor (and does such identification make the clinic
>> liable to reimburse the father for his "support" expenses)?

>I retained a paralegal to check this out. She found that because a doctor
>transferred the donor's sperm, the donor isn't liable for child support.

Bingo!  So what about those frozen embryos?  Since a laboratory transfers
the embryos, the man can't be liable for child support (there still isn't
a child, remember).  Is the doctor/laboratory liable for child support?
Dollars to donuts s/he/they ain't.  The only person liable in this case
is the woman who creates the child.  Biological/genetically based 
child support claims obviously don't hold in this case.  Why do they hold
in the case of sexual transmission of sperm?  The right to abortion has
already demonstrated that sex creates no implied contract to create a child.
Social covenants currently hold that sex is primarily a pleasure activity,
in which procreation is a minor, unwanted side-effect.

What happened to the "child's right to support"?  WHo are the parents, if
biology is not important (and the AID case shows that technology determines
paternity, not biology, else the simple intervention of the doctor would
not have vitiated the man's duty to support)?  The only "parent" a child
can have is the mother, since the mother is the only one who has the 
biological technology to create a child.  "Father" is demonstrated to be an
archaic concept based on "person from conception" biological notions 
which the courts deem to be no longer valid.  THe framework for destroying
child support is in place.  It needs only a good test case.

Steve Kellmeyer