HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ian@sinix.UUCP (Ian Malone)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.travel,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: US dual citizenship info -- updated version available via FTP
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:59:00 GMT
Organization: SNI AG Muenchen, STO XS

In article <1992Aug24.223346.5719@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>In article <ktay+bd@rpi.edu>,  wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin) writes:
>> 
>> In article <1992Aug12.110603.1@acad3.alaska.edu> on Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:06:03 GMT,
>> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>> 
>>   > In article <JIM.92Aug12132113@hunter.cs.strath.ac.uk>, jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) writes:
>>   > > In article <1992Aug10.104127.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>>   > With the United States being a notable exception.  They tax U.S.
>>   > citizens irregardless of where they reside, unless maybe it's Puerto
>>   > Rico, and I don't know how that works, exactly.  === Al Sparks
>> and the US now checks the tax returns of nonresidents before renewing
>> their passports, I've heard.
>How do you reconcile this claim with the "tax free" status persons
>working in Saudi Arabia are supposed to get.
>
>I think you mean that US citizens are required to file income tax
>forms -- not necessarily pay income tax on all income.

According to the IRS tax book that I am staking a quarter of my gross 
annual salary on:

	If you are out of the country for 330 out of a consequetive 365
	day period, and you do not maintain a primary residence in the
	US, EVEN IF YOU ARE PAID BY AN AMERICAN COMPANY, WITH AMERICAN
	DOLLARS, you do not have to pay US income taxes.  YOU MUST FILE
	FOR THIS EXEMPTION.

This was not a quote.

Ian Malone

I love knowing exactly what I am talking about, it's so rare.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Original Intent
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:24:51 GMT

In article <12096@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>Could you provide some evidence that original intent was this broad?  
Can you provide some evidence that original intent is of much relevance?
Unless you're Edwin Meese-esque, you probably accept that the Eighth
Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment includes in its
scope the prohibition of pillories, of whipping, of the removal of part
of an ear, even though all of these were not considered "cruel and unusual"
in 1791.  

Even if you don't, how would you amend the constitution to forbid such
punishments?  Another amendment forbidding "cruel and unusual" punishments,
but this one with a different intent?
-- 
           .........................................................
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
         here i sit looking for a warming smile in a house of cold wit
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:01:20 GMT

>> I suggest that discussants in this thread follow the lead of Israel and
>> inject some sense in the discussion.  The defense of Kuwait and the
>> abandonment of Bosnia-Herzegovina means that international politics is
>> under the control of a dollar elite, not the Elders of Zion.
>> Sherheryar, do you mean to say that Jews set our media's agenda, or an
>> amoral elite comprised of scum of all persuasions?
>> 
>Absolutely the latter!   I was not even going to reply to
>such a stupidly drawn conclusion.  Thanks for clearing my name.
	So I ask you, are these guys the Gallagher and Shean of the Politically
Correct, or what?  Who says vaudeville is dead?  It LIVES!
"Absolutely, Mr. Gallagher?"
"Positively Mr. Shean!"

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'




--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16491 misc.consumers:15718
From: v572vk3f@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (LJ)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: Endorsing checks for deposit via ink stamp?ucc 3-204 & 3-401
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:37:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <BtM36A.I2u@hatch.socal.com>, richg@hatch.socal.com (Rich Greenberg) writes...
>In article <1992Aug26.003400.13033@cs.ucla.edu> wales@cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) writes:
>>Is it permissible for an individual to endorse checks for deposit via
>>an ink stamp with his name, bank name and account number, and the words
>>"FOR DEPOSIT ONLY"?
> 
>I do it with a stamp that just has my name and the "FOR DEPOSIT ONLY".
>Never had a problem with any check I endorsed and deposited.
>-- 
>                
>Rich Greenberg - N6LRT - 310-649-0238 - richg@hatch.socal.com


	The indorsement either Special or Blank is stated in UCC 3-204(a) as a 
"signature" which by UCC 3-401(b)i. may be made manually or by means of a 
device or machine.  It is further stated in Comment 2 to 3-401 that a 
thumbprint is enough if so intended to be the signature.
From: reginald.hirsch@yob.sccsi.com (Reginald Hirsch) 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: US CODE ON CD ROM
Date: 23 Aug 92 17:31:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: reginald.hirsch@yob.sccsi.com (Reginald Hirsch) 

 TThe U.S. Government Printing Office has announced that the U.S.
Code will be available on CD ROM for $30.00 .If any one has more
information a post would be appreciated.Thanks
                                                                              
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 14:35:42 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Aug24.234416.26790@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>Unless, of course, Ed Nilges is appointed "dictator-in-charge-of-
>determining-what-speech-is-permissible".

	Seth, I think you just made old Ed cream in his jeans.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Tort Reform (was: Number of Lawyers)
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:03:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.002724.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>2. Hard decisions by our policy makers (the legislatures of the fifty
>states as well as Congress) have to be made as to how much a human
>life costs, or an arm, or a leg, etc.  Jurors are being asked to make
>these decisions on a case by case basis when they decide damages. 

This is as it should be IMHO, most of these cases involve very different
circumstances.  A law that could encompass all possibilities just
isn't possible.  The plain fact is that my arm really isn't worth
as much as Roger Clemens' arm.  Any statute which says you get X$
for an arm, Y$ for a leg, is going to be inherently unfair.  I think
that it is good that juries can take individual circumstances into
account when deciding these things.  I realize that sometimes the
result is unfair, but I believe that your system would result in
more unfairness.  We are dealing with the real world here, and as
such, we aren't ever going to arrive at a perfect solution.

>consistency and fairness is important
>to make rules or laws work.  That's what our system of torts is
>missing.  The Congress recognized this problem in our criminal system,
>and this is why they passed the sentencing guidelines for federal
>judges to follow.  It's time for Congress to turn its attention to the
>civil arena.  

I wouldn't look at the uniform sentencing guidelines as a model for
fairness or justice.  What you said above is "consistency AND fairness
is important".  It is important to remember that these two are not
different words for the same thing.  IMHO, it was a bad thing to
take away discretion from judges in sentencing, and it would be
a bad thing to do this in the civil arena as well.

Guido
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Killing in defense of possessions?
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:37:29 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <24426@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
> In talk.abortion, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug31.124138.2184@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
# Thanks for posting the relevant sections. Let's put it in complete layman's
# terms, to show that it really is pretty cavalier....
# 
# #From Sec. 9.41 (which governs the use of force generally to protect
# #property):
# 
#  #- You must "reasonably believe" that force is "immediately necessary" to
#  #  recover the property and you have to have used the force "immediately
#  #  or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession" and
# 
# you must catch someone in the act or be chasing him from the scene of 
# the crime where a theft has occurred.

What is so cavalier about this?  Should criminals feel completely
safe in stealing the possessions of others?

# Ron
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.culture.jewish
From: w2dz@watson.ibm.com (Daniel Zalik)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 03:22:10 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center


In article <1992Aug27.002927.29619@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

|> And if you think attitudes have changed so much in the South, then why
|> have whites completely left the public school system down there?

What? You are sputtering nonsense. Quite laughable really. Sure there are
some people who attend private schools in the south because they are
racist, but most southerners can't even afford the tuition. Don't be so quick
to be sectarian (North, South etc). Those paradigms have long since changed.

Daniel

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of IBM.
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Summary: The righteous of all Nations have a share in the World to Come.
Keywords: Tosefta; Sanhedrin
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:28:25 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <1992Aug24.235405.26959@fid.morgan.com>
sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:

>In article <1992Aug24.151541.24156@Princeton.EDU>
>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>>Religions which exclude other faiths are fundamentalisms which do so for
>>the personal aggrandizement (financial or emotional) of their founders.
>>It remains immoral for a religion to do so.  [Ed Nilges]

>Judaism specifically excludes other faiths (read the Second
>Commandment some time).  [Seth Breidbart]

How about right now?  "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of
likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in 
the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou
shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them."  Exodus 20:3-5a.

This Second Commandment comes (surprise!) immediately after the
First Commandment, the one that reads, "I am the L-RD thy G-d,
who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
bondage."  So whom is the Second Commandment addressing with
its "thou"?  It must be the one who had shortly before been
"brought . . . out of the land of Egypt," viz., the Israelite.
The Second Commandment "specifically excludes other faiths"
only for Israelites, not for members of the other Nations.

And what about those Nations?

Do the righteous of all Nations have a share in the World to Come?
Does _Tosefta_, in _Sanhedrin_, tell us, "Sure they do, by gum!"?
Will they munch on Leviathan at a table in the sky
While they're learning Torah at that great Yeshiva up on High?

It turns out that _Tosefta_ to the Talmud _Sanhedrin_ does indeed state 
that the righteous *even among the worshippers of the stars* have a share
in the World to Come.  Now, star-worshippers are blatantly disregarding
the Second Commandment when they "bow down unto" the stars that are
"in the heaven above" and "serve them," yet Jewish Law in the Talmud
not only tolerates Gentile star-worshippers, but accords a coveted 
share in the World to Come to the righteous among them.  There is 
nothing in the Jewish religion which asserts that no man cometh unto G-d 
except by Judaism.  

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:57:38 GMT

>> Ted Frank writes:
>> > 
>> > Leaving aside the fact that many whistleblowers have brought successful
>> > suits against employers who've fired them, this does not implicate free
>> > speech.  I can't start calling my boss names to his face, either.  (Not
>> > that I would -- Doug's my hero :)

Well, why CAN'T you start calling your boss names?  Because he's a white
guy?  Because he controls your paycheck?  If you don't have that right,
why did Viktora have the right to terrorize a black family (noting in
passing that the Supreme Court gave Viktora an absurd counterfactual
"right" to committ a tort and a crime, since the SC acknowledged the
applicability of non-hate-speech related law)?  At issue is the rule
governing the applicability of free speech to situations including both
Viktora and your behavior on the job, and it is question begging to
airily say that free speech does not apply to your relationships with
Doug but does apply as long as a minority group is being trashed.
>> > 
>> >But who is to determine what is "good" speech, and what isn't?  You?  Me?
>> >Jesse Helms?  Better to have a blanket rule that all speech is protected.

But it's perfectly ok with you, isn't it, if the Supreme Court makes
that decision (as long as they agree with you.)  And it is astonishing
that the statement above is in the same post as the preceding extract.
If you have a blanket rule protecting all speech then your calling Doug
anything you choose is protected.



Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: ted@cs.brown.edu (Tony Davis)
Subject: Re: Can someone be fired after they've resigned?
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 10:39:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.164808.1628@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil> bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:
| In article <1992Aug26.161338.8748@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, earle@poseur.JPL.NASA.GOV (Greg Earle - Sun JPL on-site Software Support) writes:
| > Just curious:
| > 
| > Joe Blow walks into his Personnel office and hands in his resignation.[...]
| > 2 days later his boss calls Joe into his office and says, "You're fired!".
| > Can this happen?  [ ... ]
 
| 	The resignation letter is a notice of intent.  Specifically of your
| intent to terminate the open-ended work agreement you signed upon being hired.
| 
| 	The employer can always decide that they don't really need that advance
| notice :).

While the employer may decide that they don't need the advance notice,
isn't it true that in most states that doesn't let them out of paying up
to two weeks salary anyway?

Tony Davis
ted@cs.brown.edu

Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets)
Subject: Civil Rights in a nutshell (was Abstract discussion of "civil rights")
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:51:49 GMT

I don't understand all of the hoopla about Civil Rights, it all seems very 
clear to me. If you go back to the old "Common Law" which nobody really 
seems to care about, that you could do just about whatever you pleased as long
as it did not deprive someone of their rights ie. Life, Liberty, or Property.

Maybe there is more to it than that but it seems very clear to me.



-- 
Brian Sheets				"TRUCK?! What truck?"
153 N. Hayden Bay Dr.			 
Portland, Or 97217			   -Raiders of the Lost Ark
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Cheryl, Mark, and old programmers
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:11:08 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Aug28.152715.24814@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>which actually had much to do with philosophy.  I also recall the shabby
>treatment meted out to Mark Ethan Smith and Cheryl Stewart by some self

	I remember Cheryl as the instigator more often than the target,
and as giving better than she ever got.  

	MES was a lunatic who hated the fact of her gender so powerfully
that it distorted her thinking.  Not unlike the way certain people hate
the fact of their race...

>Ms. Stewart happened to express some feminist convictions

	That's putting it _very_ mildly.  Weren't you around for Ms. Stewart?
I'd love to see her return to the net...

	By the way, your idea that only young new grads can find jobs
is utterly bogus.  I'd hate to be a new grad today.
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: New LSAT scores for old
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 03:24:47 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Aug21.162104.2465@athena.mit.edu>
  <1992Aug24.210626.26478@cco.caltech.edu>
  <1992Aug25.134806.7162@midway.uchicago.edu>

Here's the top part of the table of raw scores and reported scores for the
October 1991 LSAT:

	Raw Score	Reported Score
	100-101		180
	99		179
	98		178
	97		177
	96		175	(yes, 176 was not possible)
	95		174
	94		173
	93		172
	92		171
	91		170
	89-90		169
	88		168
	87		167
	85-86		166

Here's what they say on the back of my "Candidate Item Response Report"
in the tables that give percentiles for scores.

	Score		Percentile
	48		99.5
	47		99
	46		98.3
	45		97.4
	44		96.1

They say that this is actual data from 1988-1991.  They estimate the following
for the current test format:

	Score		Percentile
	180		99.9
	179		99.9
	178		99.8
	177		99.6
	176		99.5
	175		99.4
	174		99.1
	173		98.9
	172		98.4
	171		98.0
	170		97.6
	169		96.8
	168		96.0

People who say the LSAT is hard don't know what they are talking about.
You can miss 12 questions and still be in the top 5%.  With the new format,
about 50 questions are automatic (the so-called logical reasoning
questions).  Either get most of the reading and half the analytical
reasoning, or do it the other way around (whichever you are best at),
and you've got your >95%-ile right there.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:53:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.002232.13250@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>
>  Even worse are the errors in content.  For example, rather than
>totalitarian_system  it really should be
>
>  totalitarian_system_following_Nilges'_biases

Oops, Henry, apostrophes are not valid in C identifiers (God this is
fun.)
>
>and Chris forgot to include
>
>      deconstruct;
>
>in the list of required politically correct actions.  (Although
>it does seem to me that flaming about an extra parenthesis in
>*pseudo*-code goes beyond the usual amount of Nigles-pissing-moaning.)

The original code was clearly an attempt at C, not English-like
pseudo-code.  And I pointed out the blunder (as well as your blunder) in
a serious spirit, for I perceive the increasing conservatism and racism
of American society, coupled with loud yawps that we is number one, as
exactly paralled by, and intimately connected with, a precipitous
deindustrialization and technological degringolade.  I was not just
nit-picking.  And these errors in code "not intended for execution" are
alarmingly common; I have found serious blunders in code samples printed
on the cover of Microsoft's Basic documentation and in programmer
employment ads from Levi-Strauss.  The frequency of these errors (which
approaches 100%!) reflects the high frequency of errors in "real" code.

Meanwhile, ageism, sexism and racism makes it increasingly difficult for
experienced computer programmers to practice their trade, for management
increasingly will only hire young, well-barbered, aggressive white men
from "good" schools, with the result that these young men get to create
code that contains the sorts of bugs that programmers learned about
twenty years ago.

So the blunders are HIGHLY relevant.


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:20:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.133825.2161@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.175848.26952@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>Sounds like you DEFINE government as coercion, which is a denial, is it
>not, of the possibility of democracy, as well as a question-begger.

No, it is not.  In a democracy, in each decision, the minority is
coerced.  If the democracy makes enough decisions (3 can suffice),
then each member is at some point coerced.  That doesn't mean it isn't
a democracy.

>And your definition of government as its coercive (rather than its
>eleemosynary, say, or teaching) functions makes you focus unduly on this
>area,

There have been lots of governments without eleemosynary or teaching
functions.  I don't know of any without coercion.

>  Less than one percent of Outward Bound's
>students are so resistant as to fail to go along with the patrol's
>decisions, and the "punishment" (if you must have a "punishment") meted
>out to these offenders is just removal from the patrol.

See? A patrol is a voluntary organization, and someone who doesn't
agree is a non-member.  No problem there.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship