HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:39:24 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <bhayden.725784933@teal>, bhayden@teal.csn.org sez:
>
>So - you are faced with a situation where if Ollie's rights
>had been respected, he would have been exonerated (or never
>even charged) on those crimes. Instead, he is convicted on
>unconstitutional evidence. 
>
>You would of course have to say that in the first case he was
>innocent. But aren't we in a strange position that we can say
>he is "factually guilty" if his constittuional rights had been
>violated, but "factually innocent" if the rights had been respected.


This is a fiction of your own invention.  Acquittal in the American
criminal system is not, and never has been, a declaration of *factual*
innocence.  A verdict of not guilty cannot be read as implying
anything more than that the government failed to establish guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.  Thus, this notion of acquittal proving
"factual innocence" is, to use the legal term of art, utter hogwash.

There *are* legal systems -- the Scottish one, most prominently -- in
which the jury has the choice of "guilty", "innocent", or "not proven"
[i.e., we think he's factually guilty, but the prosecutor didn't carry
his burden of proof].  Since the system in the US doesn't work that
way, acquittals here only tell one about the jury determination of
*legal* guilt, but nothing about factual guilt.


>I am uncomfortable with the idea that he would be legally considered
>in a lesser position if the conviction was obtained using 
>unconstitutionally acquired evidence, than if his rights had
>been respected in the first place. 

What do you mean by "legally considered"?  Can you grasp the concept
that we're decidedly not talking about legal status, but rather about
factual events?  

-- 
They told me you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: nancy@hayduke (Nancy Feagans)
Subject: Divorce, bankruptcy, accident, liability...
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:08:30 GMT

It seems as though my brother has become an innocent victim
of our legal system.  Here's what happened:
 
 - He left his wife in Feb. 1990, and filed for divorce 6 months
later.  She wanted their '77 Mercedes; he took the Mazda van.
 
 - When the insurance came up for renewal in late '90, he informed
her - verbally and through the insurance company - that she must
take out her own policy for the Mercedes.  She never did.
 
 - The divorce was final Jan. 3, 1992.
 
 - On January 27, she made an illegal left turn in front of a
motorcyclist; he was killed.
 
 - No drugs or alcohol were involved, so she lost her license for
3 months; there was no fine, and no jail time.
 
 - The case came to court last August.  She was found guilty of
"misdemeanor manslaughter" and ordered to provide 240 hours of
community service, plus her license is restricted to driving to
work and back only.
 
 - She spent *all* of her monetary divorce settlement on attorney's
fees - in excess of $30,000.  She literally has zero assets except
for some household furnishings.
 
 - The family of the deceased filed a lawsuit naming her *and* my 
brother.  Why him?  It turns out that she never reregistered the
Mercedes in her name after the divorce.  His name was still on
the title.
 
 - When she heard about the lawsuit, she promptly filed for
bankruptcy.  So the plaintiffs come after my brother.
 
 - After months of going back and forth between their attorney
and his attorney, they (the plaintiffs) are willing to settle
for $14,900. from my brother.
 
 - The kicker is, both his attorney and another attorney he checked
with told him that if he decides to go to court and fight this, he
will most probably lose, plus accrue several thousand more in legal
fees.  They told him that bottom line:  he is the only one the
family can go after, and as the amount of $14,900 is less that the
maximum dollar amount they could go for in a case like this ($16,000)
the court would, in all liklihood, find for the family of the
deceased.
 
One last thing:  my ex-sister-in-law hates my brother so much that
she is willing to do anything she can to stick it to him.  Well,
having to come up with that kind of money will just about do it.
 
So.... any words of advice from the net?  Could there be any
recourse for him?  Thanks in advance.

-- 

Nancy J. Feagans     (818) 306-6423
Jet Propulsion Lab   nancy@jpl-devvax.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
"Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious."
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: USA as the first UN or ... and the future
Date: 29 Dec 92 00:49:25 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Dec27.104930.22029@netcom.com>, lion@netcom.com (carl loeber) writes:
# What is the thought on non-US territories, like Mexico, gaining
# admission to the Union.
# 
# I'd say federalism, more state jurisdiction, is appropriate
# and necessary to make it feasible.
# 
# Rather than have everyone seek freedom by coming here, let's take the freedom 
# there.   OK you all come on in ... just bring your own space (land).
# 
# It seems that in the past, new states have always been territories
# before applying for admission.
# 
# Yes we need democratic reforms and decentralization here first.

An interesting thought, but not original.  El Salvador at one point
in the 1840s considered applying for admission to the USA.  Slave
advocates vigorously supported the idea of acquiring many parts of
Central America and Cuba as a method of extending slavery, and
increasing the number of slave states.

As it is, our Congress is already absurdly unrepresentational, with
~600,000 people per member of the House -- and this problem would
get worse with more people.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:21730 comp.sys.sun.misc:6000
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.sys.sun.misc
Subject: Re: Put away your Motif manual; Sun's lawyers are at the door! (long)
Date: 24 Dec 92 21:14:12 GMT
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: astro
Originator: richard@astro

rmilner@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Ruth Milner) writes:
>If so, then yes, you may very well be screwed, and Sun is saying, in 
>essence, that you can only develop on Suns for SPARC-API/OL-compliant systems.

You forget that Solaris now also runs on x86 machines (such as the one
on which I am typing this message).

     Richard M. Mathews			D efend
					 E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM		  I ndependence
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.environment,alt.activism,sci.engr.chem
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: I Need Text of U.S. Constitution and U.N Bill of Rights
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 21:08:25 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

I need ASCII copies of the U.S. Constitution and the United Nations
Charter on Human Rights (or whatever its called) for an upcoming court
action between me and the State.

Thanks in advance,
Mark Thorson
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.activism,soc.culture.asian.american,alt.security
From: ndallen@r-node.gts.org (Nigel Allen)
Subject: FBI to hold conference on Asian organized crime
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 08:56:53 GMT

Here is a press release from the FBI.

 FBI To Hold Conference on Asian Organized Crime
 To: National Desk
 Contact: FBI National Press Office, 202-324-3691

   WASHINGTON, Dec. 18   -- FBI Director William S. Sessions 
announced today that the FBI and the Las Vegas Metropolitan
Police Department will host the largest conference in the world
addressing Asian organized crime, the 15th Annual International Asian
Organized Crime Conference, from March 28 to April 2, 1993, in Las
Vegas, Nev.
   More than 1,000 law enforcement officers from throughout the
world are expected to attend.
   The emergence of a significant Asian Organized Crime presence in
the United States is rapidly changing the criminal threat facing
domestic law enforcement.  These organizations have displayed a
onsiderable degree of violence in their criminal activities,
routinely perpetrating crimes such as murder, extortion, kidnaping,
gambling, prostitution, illegal narcotics, money laundering and home
invasions.  These are the types of crime problems that have to be
addressed aggressively by law enforcement both in the United States
and throughout the world.
   The conference is world renowned and comprised of representatives
from national, federal, and local law enforcement agencies in 25
countries.  Various workshops will include: White-Collar
Crime/Financial Crimes; Asian Gambling; Laboratory-Records Analysis;
Immigrations -- Alien Smuggling; Special Operations and Planning;
Home Invasions; and Computer Chip Theft.  Task force approaches as
well as other pertinent issues critical to addressing this rapidly
escalating crime problem will be presented at this conference.
  Established in 1978 for the purpose of information sharing among
law enforcement and revealing new trends in the Asian criminal
enterprises, this year's theme is dedicated to a "Global Impact."
   The three major focuses of this conference are:
   -- Increase the awareness of law enforcement personnel to the
      Asian culture.
   -- Educate law enforcement on how to address the culture/customs
      of the criminal/victim.
   -- Continue to identify the increase in Asian Organized Crime
      and its "Global Impact."
   Members of the news media are invited to attend the conference and
should contact Angela Bell, FBI National Press office, for further
information and press packages by close of business Feb. 15, 1993.
 -30-
-- 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder)
Subject: Re: Great Bogg's Story
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Distribution: misc.legal,alt.politics.economics
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:31:56 GMT

In <1992Dec16.043712.326@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:

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

>Courts in Britain and Australia agree with the artist J.S.G. Boggs,
>who has been drawing likenesses of paper money for the last eight
>years, that his drawings are just that: art.

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

[stuff deleted]
>"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.

>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.

The Bank sells really nice pieces of paper; I especially like their
"impressions of a light house" in purple, aka the 250 guilder note.

--
Hans Mulder			hansm@cs.kun.nl
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:48:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Devil's Advocate

In <1992Dec29.191801.6412@netcom.com> linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:


>	I just had a disturbing experience with a Federal Express delivery
>yesterday. It was a COD for $30.00. So I hand the guy a twenty and a ten. To
>my surprise, he said that he cannot accept cash. Holy inflation, Batman, our
>money's worthless! Is this legal? Has the phrase, "This note is legal tender
>for ALL debts public and private" lost its meaning? What's the world coming to?

"This note is legal tender for all debts public and private" means
just what it says.  If you owe somebody money and you tender federal
reserve notes, you have satisfied the debt.  However, nobody is
obliged to enter into a contract with you based on payment in cash.
Thus, Federal Express is not obliged to agree to make the delivery in
the first place unless the customer agrees to pay in whatever form
they require.  If you don't comply with their condition, they don't
have to complete their part of the agreement.

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: the rights of players on MUDs
From: youngdah@nic (Ben Youngdahl)
Date: 29 Dec 1992 04:23:02 GMT
Organization: Gustavus Adolphus College
NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.gac.edu


Situation:  lets say you are running a mud on a commercial site.
You charge nothing for the service.  Does a player connecting to
the mud have any rights in-so-far-as the mud goes?  If they post
a message on a bulletin board on the mud, can you remove it?
Can you delete their player if they "break a rule" of the mud?
Can you ban their site?

Or do they have actual legal rights that they could take your company
to court over?

Ben Youngdahl
youngdah@nic.gac.edu

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: The Forces of Darkness and Ee-vil
Keywords: Mazda v. Harriman
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 08:12:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.181912.10127@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <19495@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>>the forces of Darkness (e.g., War, Feminism, Pestilence and Death).  
>
>I hear Somalia's suffering from an outbreak of the Horsewoman of Feminism.

No, no, no... According to my _The Official Politically Correct Dictionary
and Handbook_ (1992, Random House), it's

	The Four Horse Oppressors of the Apocalypse were Nutritional
	Deprivation, State of Belligerency, Widespread Transmittable
	Condition, and Terminal Inconvenience.

								- Kevin
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sophie Tucker is a Sexist Sow.  :-)
Summary: "Copulate and kill" is bad reasoning.
Keywords: Oh Well, I never *claimed* to be a "gentleman" or "REAL Man," anyway..
Date: 30 Dec 92 15:33:25 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Dec27.183255.8756@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org 
(Will Steeves) writes:

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

>MR>But this time I'll do it as the great Sophie Tucker did it 55 years ago
>MR>in Cole Porter's musical, "Leave It to Me."  Because the kind of
>MR>reasoning that seeks to let men "copulate and run" away from their
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>MR>responsibilities -- that kind of behavior simply gives all men
>MR>an undeserved bad name:   [Matt Rosenblatt]

>I noticed that you haven't recently posted very much about "the reasoning 
>that seeks to let women 'copulate and kill'" in order to run away from their
>"responsibilities," though.  [Will Steeves]

How recent is "recently"?  It seems to me that on December 14, I quoted
with approval the following by Andrea Dworkin, feminism's prize thinker:

   "There is the fear of having murdered:  not someone, not real
  murder; but of having done something hauntingly wrong.  . . .
  She has been having children in her mind, and getting her value
  through them, since she herself was a baby.  Little girls believe
  that dolls are real babies.  Little girls put dolls to sleep,
  feed them, bathe them, diaper them, nurse them through illnesses,
  teach them how to walk and how to talk and how to dress -- love
  them.  Abortion turns a woman into into a murderer all right:
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  she kills her allegiance to Motherhood First.  This is a crime.  
  She is guilty: of not wanting a baby."         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      -- _Right-Wing Women_ (New York: Perigee, 1983), p. 74.


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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: drears@pica.army.mil (Dennis G Rears (FSS) <drears>)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Tracking down debtors
Date: 24 Dec 92 14:18:16 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army  Armament Research Development & Engineering Center, Dover NJ

In article <1992Dec23.221605.13142@wam.umd.edu> kckbxr@next15pg2.wam.umd.edu (Robin Hood) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.192316.15874@nosc.mil> psm@nosc.mil (Scot Mcintosh)  
>writes:
>> I've gotten a judgement against some individuals and need
>> to collect. Only two little things stand in my way:
>> finding them and finding out what their assets are. I
>> know there are companies out there who sell credit records
>> and other financial information. Someone mentioned
>> a company or computer program (he couldn't remember
>> which it was) called Professional Credit Checker,
>> but didn't know where they're located. I'd appreciate
>> a pointer to this or any other company in that business.
>> General advice or even war stories on the subject of
>> judgement collection would also be of interest (I've
>> got the Nolo Press book).
>
>If a company is selling my financial information, I'd sure like to know  
>the name of such a company so that I could sue the living hell out of them  
>for invading my right to privacy.

   While I sympathize with you, you wouldn't stand a chance.  First there
is no federal right to privacy.  You might possible have a state right
depending on your state.  

dennis
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Summary: Forced Fatherhood?
Keywords: RU486
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:16:44 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Dec18.192354.12286@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <19441@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) 
>writes:

>>The same goes for a man who has moral convictions against using RU486
>>to terminate his girl-friend's unwanted (by him!) pregnancy.  
>>[Matt Rosenblatt]

>Without her consent, you mean? Since when are people allowed to make risky
>changes to other people's body chemistry without their consent? "Moral 
>conviction" or no "moral conviction", this is chemical assault & battery 
>you're proposing, and the state has every right to forbid it on social
>policy grounds.   [Kevin Darcy]

That means that the State has every right to force a man who has
conceived a child to become a father.  And that being so, why
should the State not have every right to force that man to *act*
like a father and support his child?

Moreover, even if the State does forbid men from using RU486 to
terminate unwanted pregnancies, that's not going to keep all men
from using it in spite of the State.  Does Mr. Darcy have any idea
how desperate a man might become when he's facing at least eighteen
years of child support payments for a child he *does not want* and
whom he conceived during a one-night stand?  *Of course* someone
like Mr. Darcy himself would have too much respect for a girl's
"bodily autonomy" to resort to "chemical assault & battery," but
someone with fewer scruples, with no regard for either his unborn
child or his erstwhile bed partner, may just be desperate enough
to go ahead and sprinkle RU486 into his girl-friend's salad or
drink, illegal or not.  Remember, no criminal commits his crime
believing he will be detected and punished.  The practitioner
of "male choice" will figure, "she'll never know what happened
to her, and I'll get off Scot-free."

Right now, the State requires men to support their children, with
legal penalties for those caught not doing so.  And yet, far too many
children go without support, because so many men disregard that law.
The State's law prohibiting "male-choice" through RU486 is just
like any other law: those who have an interest in breaking it, and
who think they will get away with breaking it, will break it.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism
From: bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger)
Subject: Re: Government to Grant Swift Endangered Species Act Protection to Hundreds of Imperiled Species
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:51:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.153441.8780@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes...
> 
>I agree that one of the more discouraging aspects of libertarian
>philosophy is the tendency to run to court on the slightest provocation,
>similar to liberal greenies in that respect. I do think that property
>rights are a proper basis for dealing with most economic and environmental
>issues, but rights are abstract things that are only sustained by power, 
>and like Chairman Mao, I also realize that power only flows from the 
>barrel of a gun. Governments, courts, and lawyers are collective wielders 
>of that power, and such concentrations of power are corrupting. Therefore, 
>I prefer restricting the use of power to the individual level. Code duello 
>is perfectly adequate to deal with conflicts arising between individuals. 
> 
>Gary

However, individuals may gain corrupting power independent of a 
government.  In fact, if there is no government or equivalent social 
compact, those individuals who start with more power will concentrate
it more to themselves and use it to contro others.  Those without
power will have less effective control over their own lives as they
would under a democratic government. Under a democratic government you 
can choose the rule makers and evaluate them by the rules they make, 
under the concentration of power by economics you have no such choice. 
One on one conflicts are not fair if one has an economic machine gun 
and the other an economic bread knife.  What happens then is might 
makes right and "justice is the will of the stronger."

				my views only
				BMS

Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: rmilner@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Ruth Milner)
Subject: Re: Put away your Motif manual; Sun's lawyers are at the door! (long)
Reply-To: rmilner@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Ruth Milner)
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 20:01:05 GMT

In article <richard.725231652@astro> Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews) writes:
>rmilner@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Ruth Milner) writes:
>>If so, then yes, you may very well be screwed, and Sun is saying, in 
>>essence, that you can only develop on Suns for SPARC-API/OL-compliant systems.
>
>You forget that Solaris now also runs on x86 machines (such as the one
>on which I am typing this message).

No, I don't, but the original poster was (I believe) quoting from the SPARC 
Solaris 2.1 CD. It is entirely possible the license agreement on the x86 CD 
(or whatever medium it is distributed on) says something slightly different. 
Anyone? What API do Solaris x86 machines use?

Note that I said "... only develop *on Suns* for SPARC-API etc.".

Note also that I went on to say that I did not believe this was the interpre-
tation Sun was trying to put on it. 
-- 
Ruth Milner                          NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
Computing Division Head      rmilner@zia.aoc.nrao.edu