HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: title insurance
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Distribution: misc
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:16:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.1297.20231@execnet> "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com> writes:
>...
>          your hypothetical does not correctly state the law relating
>          to forfeitures -- the title of a drug dealer is not void ab
>          initio, it is merely forfeitable once the government takes
>          certain statutory actions.  It may take them only against the
>          criminal and *his* property, not against a subsequent BFP.
           ^^^^^^^
	   Shouldn't this be 'the accused' rather than 'the criminal'.
>
>...
>   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
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Title Insurance
Keywords: Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:15:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: balrog.5932
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.


	
In article <1992Nov13.202055.11894@cpqhou.compaq.com>, thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush) writes:
>...the Jones' are engaged in drug activity.  Property A is siezed
>under forfeiture laws, leaving the Smiths with an uncollectable 
>mortgage, and no income, and still owing on their note to the 
>original owner.

>Feh on the unjust takers of the right to life, liberty, and the
>pursuit of happiness.

Welcome to the war on Drugs, where the unbridled and unfettered power of
a giant centralized democracy works for _you_!  Everything's okay as long
as we can get a majority to vote for it!  Courts, Constitution and due
process are an utter drag, a majority of our voters want _quick_ action
in our Holy Jiha...I mean, war, yes, war...on Drugs, so we just deep-6 'em
right out of the way!  Instant gratification and remember: as long as
we're busy robbing the Smith's, we're not robbing you!

If this is the _first_ "excess" you've encountered thanks to the War on Drugs,
you haven't been paying attention.  God help you if carry more than twenty
or thirty bucks cash, you might fit a "drug dealer" profile.  If the dog
"reacts" to your money, kiss it all goodbye, Bunky.  And remember too: a dog
can pick up 9 parts of cocaine in a billion of air.  Your money can pick up
that much if it was ever placed in a drawer _next_ to a bill that was touched
by someone with cocaine on their hands.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Admitted to the bar in Massachusetts
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:49:41 GMT

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>today that I passed it. Massachusetts will be the third jurisdiction in
>which I'm admitted to practice (the first two are Texas and the District
>of Columbia).

So, what's next?  California?  New York?  Clearly, the EFF attorney should
take and pass the bar in every jurisdiction reached by the net, right? :-)
Do any of the bar review courses give a discount if you sign up for 20
or 30 states at once? :-)

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Mars vs. The Green Ones
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:49:43 GMT

bryan@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

>But my evil half, the advertising student I currently am, wonders if
>maybe Mars couldn't shut this competetor down more effectively by
>surreptitiously starting a rumor that the Mars product _really did_
>have an aphrodesiac ingredient in it, and that Just the Green Ones did
>not contain the ingredient.

>Now, here's the misc.legal question: if it got out that Mars had
>started such a rumor, what legal trouble might the company be in?

Good question, Bryan.  In New York, there is a chance that they would
be criminally liable under PL 190.20, which makes deliberately false
statements as part of an advertising effort an A misdemeanor.  But,
your hypothetical asks more about a deliberate rumor, and Mars might
defend the 190.20 charge on grounds that a rumor is not advertising.

A juicier possibility would be a charge under PL 190.65, which makes
a course of conduct that intends to and does fraudulently obtain property
in excess of $1,000 from 10 or more people a class E felony.  A defense
here would be to show that the facts did not indicated that the money
so obtained was obtained pursuant to the fraudulent misrepresentations;
that is, the prosecutor would have to prove that the candy would not
have been bought, but for the rumor.  In that case, the company would
still have to defend a charge of attempting a 190.65, which under 110.05
is another A misdemeanor.

Maybe someone else can address possible civil claims.

-- 
Stevens R. Miller J.D.
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: What's in a big law library?
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:23:10 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Nov15.081016.8271@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:


>So, what do the large libraries and Harvard have that those of us with
>medium or small libraries lack?

Well, I don't know what the small libraries lack, but some of the
unusual holdings that Harvard has include:

1. A complete set of United Nations documents from the General
Assembly, Security Council and other Committees.

2. The Official Reports of most countries with courts that report
their opinions.

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
From: AZ7408A@auvm.american.edu (Aimee J. Zeltzer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Actual lawyers on this group?
Date: 17 Nov 92 09:05:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: auvm.92322.040513AZ7408A
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center


  Can I tell you?  My goal in life as I near the end of my law
  school career is to dissuade any and all creative or intersting types
who are not anal retentive from going into law.  If you want to be
a corporate drone, and if you can pay attention to tiny, (indignificant) detail
s (like periods or commas, or whatever) go into law!  Right now I am working in
 a patent office and I could just die!!  However, if you like math or drawings
go for it.  But heed my warning:  It's a lie!! (p.s.  I don't care about typing
 or spelling--law school has failed with socializing this one!)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 22:34:46 GMT

In article <24067@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu writes:
>You obviously did not read my post clearly enough.  I said that I was in
>agreement with the Supreme Court in the case in question because the Appellee
>argued that homosexuality was a fundamental right which could not be abridged.
>They rightly ruled that they could find no where in the Constitution where it
>stated that the right to homosexuality could not be abridged.  And, if I were
>deciding the case, I would give the same decision if asked the same question.

Here's a hypothetical.

Can Georgia constitutionally ban heterosexual sex?  
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.african.american
From: allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren)
Subject: Re: Federal Prosecutor's plans in Rodeny King trail leaked to Defense!
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:47:37 GMT

isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:

>According to the TODAY show this morning, the "gameplan" of the
>federal prosecutors assigned the Rodney King case has been leaked to
>the defense.  This, according to experts, is not cause for mistrail;
>however, it is the equivalent of a football disaster in which the
>plans and strategy of one team are given to an opposing team one week
>before a playoff game.
> 
>Looking good, eh?

I heard about this on NPR this morning while driving in to work.  I am
quite shocked.

Evidently, someone purposely (so they believe) leaked the prosecution strategy
to the Stone (can't remember the first name), who is the defense attorney
for Powell, the only officer not acquitted of all charges in the state trial.
The leaking of this document is one hell of a severe blow to prosecution in 
that defense now knows exactly the strengths and weaknesses of the prosecutors
case, in that the prosecution outlines everything.

There is a good possibility of legal action (obstruction of tampering of
justice) against whoever leaked the information.

allen
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: 4 Q's: Deadly Self-Defense Against Rape
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:25:33 GMT

Maybe to make up for the Gay boycott of Colorado, there is a reason to
move here, if you are worried about this sort of thing. Colorado has
on its books what is called the "Make my Day" law, named after the
movie showing at the time it was enacted. It basically allows the use
of any level of force (including deadly) if you are in your house and
someone enters to commit a crime (including rape, burglury, intimidation,
arson, assault, etc.). This means that if you find someone in your house
and he doesn't belong there, and you can reasonably assume that he is there
to commit a crime, you can use deadly force with impunity. 

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: misc.legal,bit.listserv.lawsch-l
From: rossi@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tom Rossi)
Subject: Re: How to Cite "The Bluebook"?
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:42:15 GMT

Is there a real reason to ask how to cite the "Bluebook" or is your question
posed to poke (much needed) fun at the absurd seriousness with which the 
"Bluebook" is taken?  If the later is your ploy, I salute you.  If, on the
other hand, you are seriously concerned about the question, I can only say
"Get a life"!  Oh, wait, was the exclamation point to be inside or outside the
quotation marks?  What would the Bluebook say?  Who the hell really cares?
-- 
rossi@cwis.unomaha.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,justice.usa,alt.activism
From: cstaddc@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr M A Stuart)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Assualt and Compensation : Have I got a case ?
Date: 15 Nov 92 16:56:23 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
NNTP-Posting-Host: saffron.csv.warwick.ac.uk





	I am a student at the University of Warwick, England.  Having no previous
legal experience I am writing for advice as to whether I have a viable case for
prosecution and compensation.


	Basically a cigarette was purposly put out on my neck by a man I had
never met before.  The burn mark is sure to leave a scar that will be very
visible under normal conditions of dress.  It happened very early into the party
as I had just arrived.  Two men where clearly very drunk.  The first man, I'll
call him #1 approached me for a cigarette.  Having only one left I refused but he
persisted to the degree of offering me 80 pence for one.  Naturally I
rationalised and sold the cigarette.  Everything wass fine until his collegue
found out that I had sold him this cigarette.  He was very upset at the extreme
price and startede threatening me to obtain the money back.   I kept my calm and
explained that we had made a fair exchange and that he couldn't hit me it was
against the law. This made him retract temporarily.

	
	The next thing I new I had a cigarette sizzling into my neck.  At this
time I was talking with a group of good freinds who saw the whole incident. 
Again I kept my calm and warned the attacker that the security guards would be
called.


	I spoke no further with the offenders until the security guards arrived. 
They took all the details of the incident and each party agreed the obove was a
true explanation of what happened.  After all this fuss I wanted to go to bed. 
Upon leaving the room the collegue #2 shouted that my life was under threat and
that my calling the security guards was an act of cowardice.  




	In summary :

	Premeditated and unjustified attack with a cigarette.
	
	Could mean permanent defamation of facial features.

	Mental stress due to prosecution and also effect on study.

	Further threats witnessed by security guard on my future health.




	I dont feal angry towards the offenders but feel very upset and confused
by the incident.  Upon meeting new people now they invariably comment on the
scare and invariably identify it as a cigarette wound; not a very good
representation of myself.



	Please offer any legal advice you have time to donate considering my
living within the united kingdom.


	Please offer suggestions as to how to approach the prosecution and
compensation applications and procedures.



	Thankyou very much.
 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:14:05 GMT

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>I think [the Hardwick] decision was wrong.  What two consenting adults
>do in private is none of the government's business.

But that has nothing to do with what the court was asked to decide.
The question was not whether or not it is the business of the federal
government to regulate the conduct of consenting adults.  The question
was whether or not it is the business of the federal government to
regulate a state's legislative power over the conduct of consenting
adults.  Now, you may feel that prohibiting sodomy is wrong, but all
the court decided was that such prohibition did not violate the
Constitution.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller J.D.
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: What's in a big law library?
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:57:52 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <69760@cup.portal.com>, edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan 
kwok) writes:
> Check the plaque again. I think it is B.T. Collins.

Oops.  You're correct, I think.  Sorry, I'm usually concentrating on other 
things when I'm in front of the plaque.  :-)

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Admitted to the bar in Massachusetts
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:35:48 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

Let me interrupt the usual discussions to share this bit of happy news:

Those who saw me get more irritable than usual last summer may recall
that I was studying for the Massachusetts bar exam. I've been notified
today that I passed it. Massachusetts will be the third jurisdiction in
which I'm admitted to practice (the first two are Texas and the District
of Columbia).

Considering that I had very little time to prepare for this one (I
had a job, for example), I'm both pleased and relieved.



--Mike





-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I can solve this Orient Express thing without
mnemonic@eff.org| breaking a sweat. It's that simple."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Hercule Perot
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: markd@locus.com (Mark Dubinsky)
Subject: Radio station won't pay off my prize
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:06:15 GMT

I won $1000 from a radio station in Los Angeles, but they're trying not
to pay it off.  They say that I also won some amusement park tickets 19
days earlier (which I did), and they have a rule about winning only once
in 30 days.  When I won, they didn't say anything about this and just
said to expect the check in 6-8 weeks.  When I didn't hear anything I
called them and got this story.  Are they breaking any laws by not paying?
Any relevant cases that I should know about?  There was a case of a
California Lottery contestant who was declared a winner of some big prize,
and then the ball bounced into a smaller prize.  He sued the Lottery
Commission and won, I think.  Does anyone remember that case?  I think it
may be relevant to my situation.

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: University of Michigan.  Inflated reputation?
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:41:19 GMT

OK, now that Harvard has been discussed, let's turn to Michigan.  The
U.S. News & World Reports rankings put them tied for number one in
reputation in the academic world, and put them at number four in reputation
in the judge/lawyer world.

Yet, according to a New York Times article that was posted to soc.feminism,
the following happened:

	One of their journals was putting on a conference on some
	feminist topic.  Some invitied speakers from an anti-prostitution
	group were invited.

	They said that they would not accept if anyone who took the
	opposing side was invited.  The students running this thing
	accepted this condition.  I find it hard to believe that
	competent organizers would give in to such a demand.

	There was an artistic exhibit at the school.  One of the items
	was a video tape by a former prostitute.  Someone complained that
	this tape was dangerous.  The students from the journal then
	went over and removed the tape.  They say that they did not
	even consider if there was a first amendment issue involved in
	doing this.  I'm supposed to believe students at a school that
	is supposed to be in the top 10 are not even going to consider
	if there is a first amendment issue?  Come on!

So, what't going on with Michigan?  I am not impressed with the quality
of the students mentioned in the NYT article.  Are they an anomaly, or
has the school gone downhill and the surveys have just not noticed, or
has a group of students fallen for the "think with your ideology instead
of your brain" trap (perhaps under the influence of MacKinnon/Dworking?),
or what?

Or am I just overreacting?  Is not noticing that censorship at a public
University raises a first amendment issue normal?  (Perhaps I've been
spoiled by years of Usenet, where people tend to notice those issues?)
Is it normal to give in to demands from speakers that their opponents
be kept out of academic conferences?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman)
Subject: Anybody else studying for LSAT?
Date: 15 Nov 92 19:09:13 MST
Organization: University of Utah, CompSci Dept

  I am studying for the LSAT and would enjoy talking with others about
the questions and so forth to try to perform as well as possible.  I am
pretty good on practice tests, so probably could help with any questions..
although I frequently (still) make silly errors.  So if you are studying
for it too and would like to talk about specific question types/ practice
making questions/ etc contact me.

Thanks,
Tom
From: bryan@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Mars vs. The Green Ones
Date: 16 Nov 92 09:59:09 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

I note that there's an interesting legal battle brewing over (of all
things) green M&Ms.

A small candy retailer is apparently marketing a candy-covered
chocolate product very similar to M&Ms. The product, called Just the
Green Ones, is being sold in jars. And part of the marketing scheme is
to imply that the product has the fabled "green M&M" power (i.e. the
old urban legend about aphrodesiac power).

Now Mars Inc. contends that 1. calling the product Just the Green Ones
infringes an implicit trademark interest Mars owns in the original
product, and 2. that the promotional ads (featuring small, round
cartoon characters which resemble the product with appendages and
faces) are an actionable copy of the M&M guys.

Now the law-student-to-be in me tends to believe that Mars will
probably lose on the first count ("The Green Ones" as a TM...come on,
guys!), but may well succeed on the look-and-feel action (they really
do look like the M&M guys).

But my evil half, the advertising student I currently am, wonders if
maybe Mars couldn't shut this competetor down more effectively by
surreptitiously starting a rumor that the Mars product _really did_
have an aphrodesiac ingredient in it, and that Just the Green Ones did
not contain the ingredient. If successful, this would short-circuit
the Green Ones marketing scheme. Even though I think it's being sold
as a novelty rather than a real sex aid, the rumor could still kill
sales.

Now, here's the misc.legal question: if it got out that Mars had
started such a rumor, what legal trouble might the company be in?

-Bryan
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: 4 Q's: Deadly Self-Defense Against Rape
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:00:17 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Nov18.194549.7488@socrates.umd.edu> ice@socrates.umd.edu 
(Fredrik Nyman) writes:

>The United Methodist Church, which founded the National Coalition to
>Ban Handguns (NCBH), declares that people should submit to rape and
>robbery rather than endanger the criminal's life by shooting him.  The
>Presbyterian Church, another NCBH affiliate, supports a complete ban
>on handguns because it opposes "the killing of anyone, anywhere, for
>any reason", including defense of others against a life-threatening
>attack.
>
>I don't think either church is known for having liberal views...
>[Fredrik Nyman]

In Matthew 5:39-41, Jesus of Nazareth says:

    "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.  If someone
   strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
   And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him
   have your cloak as well.  If someone forces you to go one mile,
   go with him two miles."  (New International Version)

It seems to me that the United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian
Church are doing no more than following the instructions of the
Founder of Christianity.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY