HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Dec29.135226.20152@panix.com>
	<1992Dec29.221407.24874@ryptyde.cts.com>
	<1992Dec30.122028.2193@engage.pko.dec.com> <bhayden.725732024@teal>
	<1992Dec30.193932.2582@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com> <bhayden.725781710@teal>
	<1992Dec31.150340.2741@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 16:43:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.150340.2741@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com> dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau) writes:

   bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:

[...]

   >Maybe - with incumbant protection that was running 98% retention
   >rate in Congress. How do you compete if your oponent mails all
   >of your possible constitutents 3 times a year, then gets your
   >mother her medicare.

   Oh, so when Democratic incumbents in Congress get re-elected due to
   the privileges of incumbency, that's unfair competition; but when
   Reagan, using the bully pulpit of the White House, gets re-elected by
   a small majority of those who bothered to vote (*), that's a mandate.

   (*) Some talk of the '84 election as a landslide, but really, it
   was such only by the electoral vote, not the popular vote.  The
   last *real* landslide, IMHO, was Johnson over Goldwater in '64.

Completely untrue.  Reagan got nearly 60% of the popular vote in 1984.
In 1964 LBJ got a bit over 60%.  In terms of popular landslides the two
elections were rather similar in support for the incumbent.
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Adverse Possession
Summary: Applicability to City-owned Land
Keywords: Sovereign
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:30:03 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <kaufman.724783182@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> kaufman@CS.Stanford.EDU 
writes:

>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>>I'm not a lawyer, . . .  [Ted Frank]

>Well, I'm not a lawyer either, but my knowledge of California Easement and
>Adverse Possession law is unfortunately up to date because my neighbor(*) 
>is suing me, claiming adverse possession of some of my land, and easements 
>by prescription and necessity.  So I went and looked it up.  . . .  
>[Marc Kaufman]

I've got a few questions for all those lawyers and law students
out there to look up:

1)  Does adverse possession run against the sovereign? 

2)  Can one acquire an easement by prescription against the sovereign?

3)  In California, is a municipality considered to be "sovereign,"
    as the State is?

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Date: 3 Jan 1993 17:24:35 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

>because it is not a good idea to send cash through the mail. I would, however,
>expect any company (credit card/gas/phone/etc.) to take cash If I paid at
>their office in person.

What if almost all customers of the company do not use cash?  As an extreme
example, would you really expect to be able to walk into Boeing and pay
cash for a 767?  So few of their customers pay cash (none, probably), that
they probably do not have a procedure set up to deal with a large amount
of cash.

--Tim Smith
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: diplomatic immunity
Date: 24 Dec 92 16:13:15 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Brenda J. Roder, in a message to All on 12-22-92 at 10:56pm, said:

BJ>|So the question is, which one was correct (more correct?)
   |or is rape not sufficiently grave to warrant automatic waiver of immuni
   |_______________________________________________________________________

               Generally speaking, diplomatic immunity is *immu-
               nity* by custom.  Unless waived, the government's
               only remedy is to PNG the diplomat.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #11645  As easy as 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 10:19:14 GMT

In <1992Dec31.223223.19589@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com sez:
>In article <1992Dec31.160750.19838@panix.com>, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>|> 
>|> This situation is analogous to a standard 4th amendment violation, the
>|> use of improperly seized evidence at trial.  Convictions are on
>|> occasion overturned (properly, in my view) because the
>|> gun/knife/bloody shirt was obtained through an illegal search or
>|> seizure.  This legal principle offers no support for the proposition
>|> that the defendant in such a case is not factually guilty; it means
>|> only that the constitution does not permit him to be convicted through
>|> the use of the suppressed evidence, no matter how reliable or
>|> probative it may be.
>
>The analogy fails.  Physical evidence did not change when North was forced
>to testify to Congress.  The appeals court told the trial court that it
>must prove that North's testimony did not affect any of the witnesses
>testimony.  Since North's testimony altered the recollection (and
>therefore the testimony) of the witnesses the trial court dismissed the
>charges.


Eric, I am deeply impressed by your inability to think this through.

I'll restate the general proposition at issue here: Whether or not
North's testimony (and that of witnesses influenced by it) was
properly admissible, there is no reason for doubting its truth.

Even assuming that Bud McFarlane's testimony *was* altered by his
hearing North's immunized testimony, why does that make McFarlane's
testimony factually unreliable?  Answer: *It doesn't*.  Even if Bud
changed his testimony, he did so in reliance on North's sworn,
immunized testimony before the Joint Committees.

Unless you can offer some substantial reason for doubting the truth of
North's testimony, your entire argument fails.  Since there is no such
reason, I suggest you stop displaying your ignorance by repeating
these irrelevant observations about McFarlane.


-- 
			   797 F. Supp. 186

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Attorney v. Lawyer
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:38:04 GMT

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>It has always seemed apparent to me that "attorney" is what lawyers call
>each other, as well as what a non-lawyer calls his lawyer when he wants to
>make that lawyer sound more high-powered and highfalutin.

Interesting.  My experience is that attorneys and policemen address
lawyers as "counselor," but for entirely opposite reasons.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller J.D.
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Do I have a case?
Keywords: small claims court, contract, binding
Date: 25 Dec 92 00:07:25 GMT
Organization: The Devil's Advocate

In <1992Dec23.203122.29854@microsoft.com> steveco@microsoft.com (Stephen Cox) writes:



>If I buy something "on the behalf of someone else" and they keep 
>promising to pay but don't and then eventually change their mind
>and tell me that they don't want the stuff after all can I sue
>them in small claims court to make them pay what they had agreed to?

Yes.  There's another word for "agreement"... "contract."  You have a
contract with your friend.


>Specifically, A "friend" of mine wanted to order something from a
>mail order catalog.  There was a time crunch to get the order in 
>so I agreed to pay for the order up front and they could pay me
>back.  They were suppose to pay me back right away and then I would 
>deliver the item to them when it came in. 

If you agreed to buy the item for your friend, and your friend agreed
to pay you for it when it arrived, this is an oral (or email?)
contract.  You can sue him for breach of contract.

N.B.: You should try to return the item, since you have an obligation
to mitigate damages.  If you can't return it, then sue.

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger)
Subject: Bush notes on Iran/Contra : Walsh's options?
Summary: Withholding evidence, impeding investigation 
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 16:39:46 GMT
Distribution: us
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC
Followup-To: misc.legal

Now that George Bush took his six co-conspirators "out of the loop"
with pardons, what are the options open to former U.S. Supreme Court
Justice and now Special Prosecutor Iran/Contra-Gate Lawrence E. Walsh?

It's a wonderful Christmas present to the U.S.A. to realize that
George Bush could not silence Judge Walsh :-)



-- 
Patricia Ann Bromberger                            patth@panix.com
This quote borrowed from: Gary.Petraccaro@f12.n2610.z1.fidonet.org 
... "It matters not so much what you sing, but why..." J.S. Bach
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: wanted: opinions on d
Date: 27 Dec 92 17:07:01 GMT
Distribution: misc
Organization: The Devil's Advocate

In <1992Dec25.1297.22237@execnet> "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com> writes:

	  [do-it-yourself wills]

>          As an experienced practitioner of trusts and estates, I am
>          unalterably opposed to them.  If you have enough assets to
>          worry about a will, you can afford an attorney to draft one
>          for you.  If he screws up, your heirs can collect on his
>          malpractice insurance.


I seem to recall from one of my recent bar exams (NY or MASS) that at
least in some states, a laywer who prepares a will owes no duty to the
heirs, only to the maker.  Thus, if a problem comes up after the death
of the maker, the heirs have no cause of action. (Although the estate
might have a cause of action, the mistake of the laywer may have
accidentially disinherited a potential heir, without harming the
estate).

Anyone know more about this?

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: "Eddie Kovelan" <wk00191@worldlink.com>
Subject: Obsessive ex-spouses..can the madness be stopped?
Organization: Tex-Tronics
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:33:10 GMT
X-Mailer: WORLDLink (3.11)

After four years of dealing with a clinically diagnosed obsessive 
ex-husband, I am fed up.  My ex has no life and therefore tries to 
destroy mine by taking me to court as often as legally possible (every 
six months or so) and threatens to take my son away from me.  I am 
re-married and have a baby daughter and this constant harrassment by my ex-husband
is hurting everyone in my family.  My four year old son is hurting the 
most because he is caught in the middle and the courts do not look out 
for him.  I have tried all the ways possible to make the courts and 
other legal authorities see the damage all the battling is doing to my 
son, but no one can or will put a stop to my ex-husband.  He has no 
grounds to take my son, in fact, he always gives up the fight at the 
end.  He just fights to get revenge on me for leaving him four years 
ago.  He is so obsessed that he video tapes me at every moment possible, 
he interrogates my son to find out if anything is going on at home, he 
has people follow me and look up records (credit reports, driving 
records, etc.) of both my husband and myself.  I fear that he will 
continue to do this until my son is 18 or I find a way to stop him.  Is 
there anyone who can help me find a legal way of getting him out of my 
life as much as possible?  I need legal avenues or advise from those who 
have experienced or are experiencing a similiar problem and have found 
ways to eliviate the problem.

Bundy
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Soldier of Fortune negligence upheld (was: False allegations ...)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:50:35 GMT

tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

>Heh, heh.  Braun v. Soldier of Fortune, 968 F.2d 1110, 20 Media L. Rep. 1777 
>(11th Cir., 8/13/92), affirming a jury verdict of $4,375,000, where the jury 
>found that Soldier of Fortune acted with negligence and and malice... 

Wow.  This case postdates my prof's summary.  I will read it.  I don't
recall "malice" being an issue in the earlier suit; perhaps that is
what differentiated it from simple negligence.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller J.D.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Maroonbook
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:02:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.151112.21272@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>Precisely.  It's also much less expensive than the Bluebook, which, in its
>Fifteenth edition, suspiciously adopted some Maroonbook innovations...

Nothing suspicious about it at all. They learned from their betters.

After the first year, I abandoned Bluebook cite form almost
entirely--choosing instead to focus on whether readers could find the case
I was citing based on the information I provided.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: wanted: opinions on d
Date: 25 Dec 92 10:56:05 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Wayne Hathaway, in a message to All on 12-23-92 at 6:52am, said:

WHApologies if this is an inappropriate newsgroup, but I am trolling for
   opinons on "do it yourself wills," either computer-program-assisted or
   regular-book-assisted.
   

          As an experienced practitioner of trusts and estates, I am
          unalterably opposed to them.  If you have enough assets to
          worry about a will, you can afford an attorney to draft one
          for you.  If he screws up, your heirs can collect on his
          malpractice insurance.  If *you* screw up, who are they gonna
          collect from?  I can make a lot more money providing a liti-
          gated clean-up for some do-it-yourselfer's mess than I could
          ever have charged for preparing a will in the first place. 
          Do yourself a favor.  Hire a lawyer.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #11645  Nietzche is pietzche, but Sartre is smartre.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Government to Grant Swift Endangered Species Act Protection to Hundreds of Imperiled Species
Date: 28 Dec 1992 18:35:00 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <22DEC199213514739@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov>, bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger) writes:
=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,

You make such a nice sheep.  Never questioned the propaganda they fed you in
high school civics class, have you?  Please answer the following questions:
    1)	When's the last time your vote mattered in an election?
    2)	When's the last time an election was decided largely based on the
	question of who had the bigger advertising budget?
Now, please reevaluate your claim that "[u]nder a democratic government you can
choose the rule makers."

 >under the concentration of power by economics you have no such choice.

There is no such choice under "democratic goverments" either.  However, some
people, like you, prefer to believe in the comforting illusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Attorney v. Lawyer
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:02:48 GMT
Distribution: misc
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

"nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com> writes:
>As well, patent and trademark agents are highly-trained paralegals who
>handle patent and trademark applications, but are not lawyers.

In the U.S., the difference between a patent agent and a patent
attorney is whether the person is also licensed in some jurisdiction
as an attorney (or lawyer). Hopefully, that is the jurisdiction in
which the person practices, but not necessarily.

> And in recent years, there has been a significant increase in the
>number of traffic ticket agents, non-lawyers (often former police
>officers) who defend against traffic tickets for less than what a lawyer
>would charge. (Their fee may be more than the possible risk, but a
>traffic ticket can cause your car insurance premiums to go up more than
>the paralegal's fee.)

At present, these types of non-lawyering will not work in most jurisdictions
in the United States. Lawyers have a guild system, protected by their
brethern on the states' supreme courts. Defending a traffic ticket in
court would be "practicing law without a license" in most jurisdictions
here. The same is true of paralegals filling in forms. This is slowly
changing, especially with the help of HALT.

I have allways considered Lawyer to be the generic term that includes
Barristers, Solicitors, Attorneys and Counselers. (of course we don't
actually have the former here in the U.S.) Attorney is more an advocate,
whereas a Counseler offers advice in a non-adversarial situation. MostM
Lawyers perform both functions, so the confusion.

Bruce E. Hayden (J.D., Esq., etc.)
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Date: 29 Dec 1992 14:31 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <19496@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>Yeah, Looney Tunes.  Let's see if a woman can alter her Status-Law-based
>Female Privilege by contract:
>
>  Fornication Contract:  The party of the first part, hereinafter
>  "Stud," and the party of the second part, hereinafter "Slut,"
>  for good and valuable consideration, agree as follows:  If
>  sexual intercourse between them results in pregnancy, Slut 
>  hereby consents that Stud may use RU-486 to terminate such
>  pregnancy at a time and place of Stud's own choosing.

As has been elsewhere indicated, there is a question of whether there is
consideration to support the contract.  Social interaction usually does not
suffice.

As I have noted in several other posts, this contract, even if supported by
consideration, probably is not enforceable as illegal, unless, perhaps, the
administration of RU-486 is limited to licensed clinics and practitioners, not
at this time available.

                                                        Daniel Reitman
							
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: steveco@microsoft.com (Stephen Cox)
Subject: Do I have a case?
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:31:22 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: small claims court, contract, binding 


HELP!

I'm considering taking someone to small claims court and would like
some feedback on whether or not I have a case.

If I buy something "on the behalf of someone else" and they keep 
promising to pay but don't and then eventually change their mind
and tell me that they don't want the stuff after all can I sue
them in small claims court to make them pay what they had agreed to?

Specifically, A "friend" of mine wanted to order something from a
mail order catalog.  There was a time crunch to get the order in 
so I agreed to pay for the order up front and they could pay me
back.  They were suppose to pay me back right away and then I would 
deliver the item to them when it came in. 

A month went past without my getting paid and the item came in and
now they decided that they no longer want it.  It's a possibility
that I *might* be able to return the item but even then I'll be out
the shipping costs (both directions) and it's possible that it might
not be returnable at all.

My only real concern is that, since I paid for the item and it was
delivered to me that I may be stuck with it.  But I wonder if our
casual agreement is considered a legally binding contract?  

A similar scenario...
What if I agree to buy your car and pay you when you bring it to me?
You do as we agreed and bring the car to me and I give you a check. 
But later that day I contact you and tell you that I've changed my
mind (nothing to do with the car, I just decided I don't want to do
business with you for one reason or another) and I'm stopping payment
on the check and returning the car to you.  Aren't I legally committed
to buying the car?  Am I on the right train of thought here? 

Since this was done via email I do have copies of our email conversations
over the past month which document our original agreement and also show
an extensive pattern of promising to pay and not fulfilling that promise.

What do you think?  Do we indeed have a contract?  I don't even
care about the money anymore, I just refuse to be taken advantage 
of.  All I want it for this person to do as they had agreed.

Thanks for any feedback you may have or suggestions on where I can
find more (free or reasonably-priced) advice.

-Steve


-- 
"When the going gets weird, the 	|  Stephen Cox - Professional Wierdo
weird turn pro." - Hunter S.    	|  Microsoft Consumer Sales 
Thompson, American journalist.  	|  email: steveco@microsoft.com