HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jgh1+@pitt.edu (John G Hardie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:53:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Apr2.023431.13453@panix.com> simona@panix.com (Simona Nass) writes:
[...]
>
>If a single person in on the deliberations reports the juror bringing up jury
>nullification, the juror who mentioned it might be found in contempt of court
>or, perhaps, as having perjured if the judge asked jurors to swear that they
>will take the law as the judge charges it and will judge only the facts.
>That's what I had to swear in order to be permitted to sit on a jury in
>New York. -S.


This is insane!  From the sound of this thread we have a guaranteed right
(as defined in US/State constitutions) of jurors, i.e. jury nullification,
and (benevolent !?) government is ALLOWED to charge anyone talking about 
(not to mention exercising) this right with CONTEMPT??  Well, this sounds
highly irregular, if not illegal.  How the he** do these pinheads
justify this?  I've never been called for jury duty, but if the occasion
should arise, and should I feel the law unjust, you can be d*mn certain
that I'm not gonna sit there and shut up!

Outraged and sputtering with indignation,
John

-- 
jgh1@vm1.cis.pitt.edu

	Give me chastity and continency, but do not give them yet.
From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Software Renting
Date: 12 Apr 92 05:23:47 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

In article <1992Apr9.214139.18617@CERIS.Purdue.EDU> jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath) writes:
>From article <bcnj02TC0fjB01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, by tjc50@ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll):
>> In article <1992Apr8.212028.419@holos0.uucp> lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) writes:
>>>Why should there be a law against renting software?
>> Because it's a disguised way of permitting infringement.
>> 
>>> Is there such a law?
>> Yes: 17 USC 109.
>> 
>>>So what if it's copyrighted?  So are video tapes with movies and music on
>>>compact discs.
>> 
>> Renting compact disks is illegal by the same law.
>> 
>>>If the renter copies the software/movie/music, the renter is committing
>>>copyright infringement.
>> 
>> So is the person renting it out.  There's a belief many people have that
>> "copying" is the only right conveyed by copyright.  'tain't so.  Among
>> other rights is the right of distribution, se 17 USC 106(3).
>>
>
Here in Spokane there are a number of computer businesses that rent software
--shareware, freeware, and full registered items like Lotus and Word Perfect.
You can rent the software alone, or you can rent a machine with the software
installed.

I don't know about 17 USC 106, but there are also mail order companies which
openly advertise rental software. So I suspect that the idea that it's not a
legal enterprise is in error, or nobody, even the postal department will
enforce it, and have made it clear they won't. There's just too many people
openly doing it (legitimate businesses) for me to believe that there is a law
against it.
-- 
root@dogear.spk.wa.us                 "We come in search of the Holy Grail...
Bob Kirkpatrick                        --have you got any?"    --monty python
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
From: dhm@hpsmtc1.cup.hp.com (Daniel H. Miller)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:13:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Electronic copy of the Declaration of Independence
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
From: jkogan@eff.org (Julia Kogan)
Subject: Re: Does technology obsolete constitutional rights [was some gun flame]
Originator: jkogan@eff.org
Keywords: FEMINISMUS, ERA, Dark Ages 
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 10:17:14 GMT

In article <18435@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

>Did the Founding Fathers intend for equality to get in the way of freedom?
>
>It was only in 1868 that "social factors" changed so much as to inspire
>the victors in the War Between the States to bully the States into 
>ratifying the XIVth Amendment with its "equal protection of the laws"
>clause.
>
>[Tribe, Dworkin et al.] think seem to think that the move to treat "social  
>factors" as favoring equality over freedom is an "advance."  
>The Rawls-Dworkin Tribe may believe that curtailing freedom in order to
>force equality of result is an advance; I believe it is a mistake against
>which our Constitution should protect us.

Yes, and Justice Rehnquist agrees; he feels the States should be allowed
to censor speech, and that we should return to the infinitely malleable
approach whereby States may take life, liberty or property as long as
they due so with proper procedures.  See Davis, Justice Rehnquist and
the Constitution 43, 71 (1989).

I certainly concur; life was much simpler when Amurcuns could insult the
less fortunate, beat their women, rape their children, and hang their slaves.



>
>>Does Ted Frank's logic apply to freedom's of the press too?  I've
>>heard some people argue that since television is such an effective
>>means of communication that the government should be able to place
>>restrictions on this media.  [Ron Mayer]
>
>Like, the _Red Lion_ decision?  The "Fairness Doctrine"?


-- 
Julia Kogan                     |  These opinions are not my employer's,
jkogan@eff.org                  |  nor are they legal advice.
Boston University School of Law |
From: euclid@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Elizabeth Kupfer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: plea bargaining info sought
Summary: looking for info
Keywords: look at title
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:30:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: ux1.1992Apr14.213014.27700
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Hello.  I'd like to find out more about plea bargaining.  What percentage of
cases (especially felonies) involve plea bargaining?  What type of crimes
(e.g. violent) are most frequently haggled over in this way?  Where would i
go to find more information?
Thanks in advance.           e.k.
--
elizabeth kupfer, euclid@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu (preferred)
standard disclaimers apply
Those who do not trust enough are not trusted --Tao Te Ching
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:57:05 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.hac.com (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <18481@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.020251.25395@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
>(Jonathan A Woodman) writes:
>>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."

Three bases:
	1. Might makes right.
	2. The end justifies the means.
	3. The house always wins.

	George Tucker        tucker@kali.hac.com
		Just say NO to incumbents.
From: olson@acf9.nyu.edu (David Olson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Duke BBall could get sanctioned by NCAA
Keywords: Contract, Laettner, Duke
Date: 17 Apr 92 14:08:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: New York University


Taken from the 17.April.92 NY Times, B12, 
credited to the Associated Press:

Duke Basketball might be retroactively penalized because Laettner
may have violated an NCAA rule.  Last summer, he made an oral agreement 
with GQ magazine to give them a diary for an undisclosed fee.  Duke
received an interpretation from the ACC "which did not prohibit Laettner
from preparing a diary for future post-eligibility publication."
Laettner did not sign anything, but "The only agreement I made was to
submit a diary to the magazine for a possible fall issue."

Soooo... This looks to me like a contract.  Is it really?  Both sides
basically agree as to the content and timing.  They just didn't sign 
anything.  Does anyone know enough about NCAA rules to know whether this
sort of contract would be forbidden by an "agreement for professional
services"?  The impression I gathered from the article is that is
was forbidden, but isn't their some distinction between a contract for
_writing_ and a contract for athletic performance?


david
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: jury nullification
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:58:39 GMT

In article <BcuaJB1w164w@n5abi.hou.tx.us> gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy) writes:
>ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>
>That depends on where the jury is. In Texas, the law *requires* 
>the jury to be "bound" by the law as presented in the courts 
>charge. Therefore, nullification would be "ignoring" the law.
.....
>
>Maybe some of the "jury nullification" proponents can answer two 
>questions for me.
>  1. Where does the Constitution grant any "right" of jury 
>nullification?
>  2. Where does the Constitution grant "legislative" power to 
>juries? (Since nullification of laws is a legislative power).
>
>Simple fact is, in Texas, jury nullification is *not* legal, and 
>there's nothing unconstitutional about that.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
>                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>        Exculpatory, a nifty little word that meant confuse
>           the hell out of the jurors. -- Stephen Coonts
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Constitution doesn't say it. However, the Supreme Court did say it.
A case came down during the late 60's that does say it.

The case was some state v some activists. The defendants lawyer wanted
the judge to instruct the jury that they did not have to follow the law.
It was appealed to the SC. Amognst many many words were something like,
 "Though it is well known that the jury may ignore the law in arriving
at its decision, it would be folly to require the judge to tell them so."

I don't have the case reference. I stumbled on it once when I was 
stumbling around the law library in the LA Federal Court on some other subject.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: maxwell@fnalo.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Organization: What does *this* button do!?
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:25:11 GMT

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

Dave has articulated something that's been bothering me for quite some time.

Could someone explain exactly what doctrine, law, or precedent gives the US
gov't. authority to put Noriega on trial in Fla?

Was he extradited under treaty?

No polemics or rants, please.  I'm well aware of our government's historical
support of Noriega, and in the hypocrisy of putting him on trial in light of
that support. 

--
     O~~*             ...and what does *THIS* button do.      \ | /
   - ~ ------------   Max Monningh   ------------------------->zap<-
 /       \            Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory   / | \
(    #    )           
 \       /            Internet:              Maxwell@FNALF.FNAL.GOV 
   -   - 
     ~
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:18:12
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<18481@smoke.brl.mil> <TT.92Apr15143953@romulus.jyu.fi>
	<18490@smoke.brl.mil>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: matt@smoke.brl.mil's message of 15 Apr 92 13:55:06 GMT

In article <18490@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

...				    The Florida courts must enforce
   it, because Section 1 of Article IV of the United States Constitution
   declares that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each STate
   to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every 
   other State."  That means that the Florida courts will go after
   the con man and get the money from him.

   The problem in a case like Noriega's is that General Noriega was
   the dictator of Panama.  The entire Panamanian government, including
   its court system, was subject to him.  There was no way he could have
   been brought to justice by following the sort of procedures outlined
   above.  So the United States Government was faced with two choices:

      (1)  Let General Noriega get away with smuggling drugs
	   into our country to poison our kids; or

      (2)  Go into Panama and arrest him and bring him to Florida
	   to be tried for his crimes.

   Assuming that the jury found correctly, and that General Noriega was
   guilty, why should the United States have let him get away with it?

Well, there's no "full faith and credit" clause in any treaty between
the US and Panama, perhaps?

   This assumes a government in the other State to which *all* its citizens
   are subject, not a government run by a dictator who is "above the law."
   There is no problem with assuming such a government for an American State,
   because Section 4 of Article IV of the  Constitution requires the United
   States to "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
   Government."  But we cannot assume such a government for foreign countries,
   which from time to time come under the rule of tyrants, despots, and
   dictators.  It is to handle such cases that Article I, Section 8 of 
   the Constitution gives Congress the Power "To raise and support Armies," 
   and "To provide and maintain a Navy."

What on earth does this have to do with arresting Noriega?
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The unconstitutional nuclear hair-trigger
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:03:28 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Logicon Technical Services, Inc.

In article <1992Apr2.210504.19693@morrow.stanford.edu>, GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson) writes:
> vince@Cadence.COM (Vince Gibboni) writes:
>>> Putting missiles in that posture is itself an act of war, in that
>>> they may then be launched accidentally in peacetime.
>>
>>    Well, it's still early, but right now - as of this minute -
>>    this is, without question, the silliest thing I've read all day.
>>    Think about it. How is pointing a missile at another country
>>    different from pointing a gun at another country ? The gun may
> 
> Hmm. let me se now, er... well, how about the fact that accidentally
> launching a huge volley of ICBMs would likely kill a few more people
> than a gun going off by mistake?

	The amount of damage that is done is irrelevant to this issue.

Brett---------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________The best thing about morning________________________________________
__________________________________is that it's over by noon.____________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: mprisco@lynx.cat.syr.edu ()
Subject: Re: Legal Cocaine? (WAS Re: Drug legalization)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 11:04:23 EDT

In article <1992Apr3.184759.13634@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson) writes:
>In article <1992Apr1.152447.4981@newstand.syr.edu> mprisco@lynx.cat.syr.edu writes:
>[...]
>>I must wonder how you and those reading this define "addiction"?  In the
>>way the word is tossed about, I wonder if addiction is always a bad
>>thing?  I mean, today you hear about people addicted to sex, love
>>and other BS.  I think by this type of definition addiction is 
>>a part of human nature that is not necessarily bad or harmful....
>
>Addiction has never been really well defined, because there is still a lot of
>question about it, and many people have established their own theories about
>it.  I feel that there are good addictions and bad addictions -- I don't have
>anything against someone addicted to sex (especially cute females :-p), as 
>long as it doesn't interfere with that persons life.  I think a bad addiction
>is one where a person who wants to stop can't, one that is potentially lethal,
>etc.  I also think that it's lame for people to spend all of
>their money and time to support a drug habit, but it should always be that
>person's prerogative.  
>
Remember that sex can kill you!!  I keep hearing people talk about all of
the money spent.  Does a drug become less addictive if its cheaper??
>
>>Also there seems to be a double standard that use of pot and acid
>>is OK and creative (but aren't regular users addicted?) but other drugs
>>(coke, smack,speed) are bad (because they are so good???  DOes that
>>mean the people are using drugs they don't like so that they won't
>>get addicted???  I mean, isn't that like saying I don't want to
>>have fun becuase if its too much fun I'll want to do it more?)
>
>I've met very few people who use pot/acid on a super-regular basis (ie.,
>every day.)  Of these people, I don't think anyone wouldn't be able to handle
>a few weeks or even a few months without a toke/trip -- I can't recall the

I find this hard to beleive!  Most of the pot heads I know smoke every day,
several times a day.   They get real upset when they can't get more, too!!

>last time I heard of someone steeling his parents stereo system to support
>a 'weed addiction' or 'acid addiction'.  After a long day of being stoned or

Me neither, but I don't know anyone who's stolen anything from his parents to support a crack or coke habit either...
Sounds like you've been listening to the WoD propaganda!!

>tripping, the user doesn't feel the urge to immediatly drop more acid or smoke
>more pot (at least in my experience).  On the other hand, after a super-
>orgasmic coke rush, a user might want to do another line, etc. -- until its
>all gone.
>
>-marc
>andersom@spot.colorado.edu



--
=====================================================================
=          H A V E   A   D A Y             :|                       =
=====================================================================
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: simona@panix.com (Simona Nass)
Subject: Re: Suggestions needed on fighting a speeding ticket
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:24:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Apr11.064412.10749@polari.com> 6sigma2@polari.com writes:
>  - Do they register which direction a car is going (toward or away
>    from the [radar] gun)?

In all the cases I've ever heard of, yes. I don't know how they could not.
Change is computed as a positive or a negative, indicating direction. -S.
-- 
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, though I do have an opinion on everything.
     (     simona@panix.com    or    {apple,cmcl2}!panix!simona     )
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:45:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: eng.1992Apr14.204530.10473
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <18481@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>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?

Because the long arm of Maryland is only valid because of Federal law
making it so.

-- 
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: ARL00SJB@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Japanese Maritime (Salvage?) Laws                   r
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:05:46 GMT
Organization: UNC Charlotte

I'm writing a short story in which someone finds gold ingots in the shallows
off the coast of Japan.  I need to know 1) how long would the Japanese
government (or whoever) keep the property found before allowing the finder to
take possession of the gold and 2) how much in taxes would said government
(or whoever) take from the finder?  I've asked several legal professionals
these questions, and no one knew.  They suggested others to ask, but still no
luck.  Anybody have a suggestion who to ask, or even better, anybody *know*?
I have checked the library for references on related subjects, but that got
me nowhere.
Thanks in advance for any assistance.
 
Jean
From: skrone@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (stuart.krone)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fully Informed Jury Association (Pamphlet)
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:04:33 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <18446@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.074041.7105@eskimo.celestial.com> 
>delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) writes:
>
>>    ----> This is copied from a pamphlet that I was given. <----
>>          Please forgive any bad typing.
>>
>>                  --   *   --
>>      Fully Informed Jury Association
>. . .
Sorry if I missed it, can I have the phone of FIJA?

Thanx,
Stu
From: jokiniem@cs.Helsinki.FI (Jari Jokiniemi)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:09:10 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki, Department of Computer Science

In article <18481@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>			Why shouldn't the "long arm" of U. S. law 
>reach out to bring him to justice?

Oh well, if it is ok for the "long arm" of U.S. to go to another
country and enforce U.S. laws there, then it should be ok for the
"long arm" of any other counry to go to the U.S. and enforce the laws of
that country on the U.S. soil. There is absolutely no morale in this.
U.S. can enforce its laws on many other countries only because U.S. is
so strong. Not because of any other reason. Other countries cannot
enforce their laws on U.S. soil for exactly the same reason. 

-- 
Jari Jokiniemi /            / Technical Research Centre of Finland:
              /  OH2MPO    /    jjo@tik.vtt.fi                 +358 0 456 6009
DO IT NOW!   /  OH3BU     /   University of Helsinki: 
            /  HSC 1182  /      jokiniem@cs.Helsinki.FI jokiniemi@finuha.BITNET
From: danr@pro-franklin.cts.com (Daniel Roberts)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Jury Pools (INDIANA)
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:17:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: crash.1992Apr17.011712.19495
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA

Indiana Jury pools when I lived there were from votor lists. (1977-81).
Don't know current status.

---------
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.