HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Slippery Slope
Keywords: nuclear waste; Xth Amendment; federalism
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:21:04 GMT

In article <18489@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>>>	O'Connor said that despite the majority's belief that the ruling will
>>>not halt ``run-of-the-mill sting operations,'' it very well could.
>>>
>>>	``After this case, every defendant will claim that something 
>>>the government agent did before soliciting the crime 'created' a
>>>predisposition that was not there before,'' O'Connor wrote for the
>>>dissent.   [Carl Kadie, quoting a news story]
>
>>>Didn't she read Justice White's words?  Doesn't she think that judges
>>>and jurors are capable of distinguishing the _Jacobson_ case from a
>>>run-of-the-mill sting operation?  Why does one lawyer so misinterpret
>>>what another lawyer says?  [Matt Rosenblatt] 
>
>>It's commonly known as the "slippery slope" argument, Matt.  [Julia Kogan]
>
>Oh.  I see.  Justice O'Connor's opinion seemed far-fetched and 
>preposterous before, but now that we've given it a label, it has 
>magically become clear and convincing.   :-)
>
>Seriously, there are "slippery slope" arguments, and there are "slippery 
>slope" arguments.  Here is another one, by the same Justice:
>[arguments deleted]

All due respect, Matthew, the two are precisely analagous, the only
difference being you agree with one, but not the other.

Any time a vague standard is set up without a bright line rule you
have the potential for a slippery slope.  Given Jacobsen, at what
point do you rule police efforts to be entrapment?  Okay, 2.5 years
is too much, that's entrapment.  How's about a one-year effort?
Six months?  Two months?  Two weeks?  Two minutes?  Where did you draw
the cut-off line, Matt?  And what language in the opinion justifies
the use of that cut-off line?

It seems to me (and I haven't read the opinion, so I could be wrong)
that White has set up contradictory standards -- police cannot create
a "predisposition," but "run-of-the-mill" sting operations are okay.
But then, what serves as a "run-of-the-mill" sting operation that might
not create a disposition?  O'Connor's argument is not wrong on its face
(though it might be wrong for other reasons, I'll have to read White's
opinion), but that's a reason for writing a separate concurring opinion,
not a dissent, IMHO.
-- 
Ted Frank          + "He wanted to be the car rather than the thimble or the
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  hat."  -- District attorney explaining Marc Cienkowski's
U o' C Law Skool   +  murder with bow and arrow of Michael Klucznik in
Chi, IL 60637      +  Doylestown Borough, PA over a game of Monopoly.
From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fully Informed Jury Association (Pamphlet)
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:57:04 GMT
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.


(Daniel Roberts) writes:

   Tim,

   You make a key point in the Jury nullification discussion. RE: acquiting
   the guilty person because the jury does not like the victim.

   While the state is the accusor many people seem to forget the impact on
   the victim.

As long as there are angry and misguided people around who feel that
laws should exist, even in part, for vengeance, I'm sure they will
consider this a "key point".  But in civilized nations (not the U S of
A where Presidential candidates pick up points by flying home to
execute the mentally retarded, but those where punitive cruelty is
considered abhorrent) the laws are used to regulate social and
economic interchange, and perhaps as a bit of a deterrent to
malefaction.  That's all.  Despite the possible ethnic or personality
bias (which I suppose is Mr.Roberts' point) that could lead a jury to
a not guilty verdict, that's better than convicting someone who should
be freed.  The object cannot reasonably be to convict all the guilty
ones.

As to "the impact on the victim": victims' rights organizations seem
to be filled with people who are reacting irrationally to major
emotional trauma.  I would hope that the law does not exist to
satisfy these people's desires.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:22:44 GMT
	<26491@hydra.Helsinki.FI> <18471@smoke.brl.mil>
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.

(Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

   >>			If Noriega was, as the jury found, engaged in
   >>poisoning American kids with drugs, the fact that he was a head of state
   >>ought not to have protected him from being brought to Justice.
   >>[Matt Rosenblatt]                                     ^^^^^^^

   >Then it should be quite OK for any fundamentalist muslim country to
   >kidnap any american in the territory of the USA and bring him to that
   >muslim state to be convicted by the islamic law.
   >[Jari Jokiniemi]                    ^^^^^^^^^^^

   I wrote about Justice, and Jari Jokiniemi responds with a statement
   about Islamic law.  Are we supposed to believe that the two are
   equivalent?

I really don't understand M.Rosenblatt at all.  He seems to believe
that we should all act in accordance with an unwritten international
law which attempts to approximate something called "Justice" with a
capital "J" by scrupulously following US and Israeli law whether
within its jurisdiction or not.  He also apparently supports state
kidnapping providing the targets can be found guilty of felonies
(or maybe just parking violations) under those, but no other, laws.
In a previous post he speaks of "Justice" for the victims of the
Holocaust.  Let me clue you, Matt:  there is no justice in this world
for those people; they're DEAD.  That doesn't mean that we should reward
their killers, or that their own countries shouldn't have made some
attempt to prosecute them.  But all there is in your weird ethic
is the smug satisfaction of revenge through the application of out-of-
jurisdiction and ex post facto law in contravention of the US
constitution and others modelled in part after it.  Even the
Nuremberg trials didn't advance international law---they corrupted it.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: living trusts
From: hilary.miller@execnet.com (hilary miller)
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:05:44 GMT
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Michael Nagatkin, in a message to All on 04-12-92 at 11:37pm, said:

MN>|  Does making a Living Trust amount to just filling out
   |  a form and getting it signed? I would like to find out
   |  a quick and simple way to deal with avoiding probate.
   |________________________________________________________

          It COULD amount to no more than that.  Properly done, it
          SHOULD amount to considerably more.  You need to have a
          comprehensive understanding of estate planning in order to
          know whether inter vivos trusts are appropriate for you and
          whether they should be revocable or irrevocable, etc.  There
          are many considerations in estate planning other than elimi-
          nation of the costs of probate, such as income tax and estate
          tax planning, as well as creditors' rights issues.  If you
          have enough money to be worried about avoiding probate, you
          have enough money to afford a brief consultation with an
          attorney.  It's money well spent.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
   s r
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.25a #11645 ~ "I've got a hunch!" -- Quasimodo.
--
Executive Network Information System   (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Laser Speed Detectors (was Re: On the legalit
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:17:43 EST
Organization: Logicon Technical Services, Inc.

In article <1992Apr8.173136.5838@CERIS.Purdue.EDU>, jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath) writes:
> From article <1992Apr8.085331.25527@leland.Stanford.EDU>, by tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen):
>> In article <1992Mar27.130902.1161@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil> bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:
>>>	Find out what color the locals are using (color of the laser, that is)
>>>and then have your car painted that color :).
>> 
>> what if it's an infrared laser?
> 
> I think you'd want to paint it black.

	You're really up a creek if they use X-ray lasers.
:)

Brett---------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________The best thing about morning________________________________________
__________________________________is that it's over by noon.____________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.sex:13982 misc.legal:9102 rec.arts.tv:9403
From: sik@cs.uow.edu.au (The 24hr man)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Censoship of nudity (was Re: Photo of minor: is it illegal to possess?
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:47:01 GMT
Organization: Sik-SW, Dept-Comp-Sci, Uni-Of-W'gong, NSW 2500, AUSTRALIA
Sik-Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about!
Sik-Revision: 0.01!

In article <1992Apr9.215907.18456@bilver.uucp>
    alex@bilver.uucp (Alex Matulich) wrote:

>"Life of Brian" showed a full-frontal nude shot of Brian at one point.
>The scene where he gets out of bed and walks out the door to face a
>cheering crowd.
>
>It was NOT rated X nor NC-17.

Yes, but was it left dangling - or standing up ?-/

>-- 
> _ |__  Alex Matulich
> /(+__>  Unicorn Research Corp, 4621 N Landmark Dr, Orlando, FL 32817
>//| \     UUCP:  alex@bilver.uucp   {peora|ge-dab|uunet!tous}!bilver!alex
>///__)     Internet:  alex%bilver@peora.sdc.ccur.com

 Stein - sik@cs.uow.edu.au
'When thou walkest through the fire, thou shall not be burned.' -Isaiah 43:2
'I'm not smoking, just keeping the insects away' - Stein I. Krav
Xref: sparky misc.legal:8972 alt.society.civil-liberty:3287
From: arg@huxley.bitstream.com (Adam R. Grossman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: jury nullification
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:23:50 GMT
	<ARG.92Apr1133243@huxley.bitstream.com>
	<1992Apr6.234507.6273@island.COM>
Reply-To: arg@bitstream.com
Organization: Bitstream, Inc. - Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: guido@island.COM's message of 6 Apr 92 23:45:07 GMT

guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
   Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
   Date: 6 Apr 92 23:45:07 GMT

   arg@bitstream.com writes:
   > [For two identical cases,] if one jury convicts in accordance with the
   > statute, but the  other jury  acquits by disregarding and ignoring the
   > law, this would make  our legal system very  capricious and arbitrary,
   > which I think violates a basic tenet of fairness.
   >
   > We should strive to mete out equal punishment for similar crimes.

   But our legal system fails on this count whether or not there is jury
   nullification.  Your ability to hire the counsel of your choice will
   certainly affect your chances of being convicted.  If in your scenario
   above, we say that one defendant had a public defender, and one had a
   highly paid top criminal-defense attorney, the results might very well
   be the same.  Why is one fair, and the other un-fair ?

Discrepancies in quality of counsel also make our  legal system unfair.  So
far, so good: the analogy seems valid because the two things being compared
are similar in this respect.

But how does this unfairness balance the  "rights of defendants  to pay for
quality  counsel" or the "rights  of  juries  to nullify laws"?   Now,  the
analogy is useless because these two "rights" are completely different.

There are reasons that  jury nullification  seems appealing,  and there are
reasons that it seems unappealing.  How you feel  the two  sides balance is
your opinion, but regardless of whether you support  jury nullification you
must still  admit  that jury nullification  makes   our   legal system more
capricious and arbitrary, which is bad.
--
Adam R. Grossman
arg@bitstream.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Does Original Intent Matter? (was: Does technology...)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:37:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.143252.13975@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>I know, it's taken as a given today that it is, but I have to ask
>whether it should be?  Why should the opinions of the forty or so
>men who jointly wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights be
>given any weight at all in interpreting the Constitution?  After
>all, they only _proposed_ the document -- it was the eligible white
>male voters of the thirteen States who actually made it law.

No, it became law via ratifying conventions.  (BTW - The Federalist
papers are also given some weight, and weren't some of them written by
people who weren't delegates at either the ConCon or the ratifying
conventions?)

>Shouldn't it be _their_ interpretation of the words of the document
>that controls, not the interpretation or intent of the men who
>merely wrote it?

There's a slight problem.  We have some records, but we don't have
every possible relevant record.  (The Brits in 1812 helped us lose
things.)  Our preferences can't change that, so we can either go with
what we have, or just make things up as we go along.

Of course, there is also substantial cross-fertilization here as well.
The ConCon delegates went to the states and argued for "their"
constitution.

>(Please note the difference here between Constitutional
>interpretation and the interpretation of legislative statutes.  In
>the latter case, the same body -- say, the U.S. Congress -- both
>wrote and passed the statute, so it's legitimate to look to "What
>the Congress intended the legislation to do" when interpreting it
>[though I have to admit that I've never understood why "What the
>President intended the legislation to do when he signed it into law"
>isn't part of that algorithm too...].

Remember that the Bill of Rights came out of Congress (four years
later), not the ConCon, so even if we go with Starr's argument wrt the
constitution, it doesn't apply to the BoR.  (Of course, the BoR was
ratified at the state level as well, but those records might actually
be available.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: fas@mudlick (Andy Smoak)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Electronic copy of Declaration of Independence
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:26:16 GMT
Distribution: usa

Thanks to those that responded.  I have gotten several copies from the
net.

Andy Smoak
-- 
F. Andrew Smoak                    PHONE: (703) 342-6700,  (800) 423-1183
FiberCom, Inc.                       FAX: (703) 342-5961
P.O. Box 11966                  INTERNET: fas@fibercom.com
Roanoke, VA  24022-1966             UUCP: ...!uunet!fibercom!fas
From: GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson)
Subject: Re: Noreiga
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:14:23 GMT

guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
>I should point out that many people feel that JFK stole his election with
>the assistance of Mayor Daly in Chicago.

The Big Steal was the major election issue -- the Missile Gap.  Only
after the election did it transpire that the missile gap existed, but
in favor of the U.S.    Eisenhower didn't push the issue because he
knew the truth, but the public didn't, and so the election was a
farce.

Then there was the October surprise matter.  Then there was Raegan
stealing Jimmy Carter's TV debate notes.  I doubt if any election in
the U.S. in the last thirty years has been democratic, in the sense
of the public making an informed choice, as the Framers envisioned.
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Another Gun Thread Gets Cross-Posted
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:43:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: dartvax.1992Apr6.224331.11723
 <1992Apr2.043037.1081@midway.uchicago.edu>  <10317@optilink.UUCP>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <10317@optilink.UUCP>
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> So tell me, do we similarly restrict free speech to the sort of
> printing presses used in 1791?  We either take an expansive view
> of "press", "speech", and "arms", or we take the narrow definition
> based on 1791 technology.

Are you claiming that those who prefer an "expansive view" of free
speech but prefer a "narrower definition" of our arms rights are
hypocritical?  If so, would you please explain how you arrived at this
conclusion?

Perhaps if the second amendment had read "...the right of the people to
defend themselves in any way available against right wing bigots who
desire to dictate their private lives using the force of
government...", I would be able to see your point.
From: Brennan.J.Murphy.53@nd.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Patent attorney needed
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:28:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Notre Dame

Can someone suggest a patent attorney from the southwest?  My father in new
mexico wants totake on a big company over a patent.  Although the products
are different, there could some confusion for the consumer.  So, it seems
the case would fall under dilusion(I'm not sure that's the right word)
If anyone can help me or knows someone that can help me please send me their
email address.  I guess I need some help understanding the implications of 
my father's case--some background regarding the laws too.  If this post is 
taboo to this newsgroup, please tell me so.  Thanks.
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Justices
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:05:05 GMT
Organization: The Witherspoon Excludables

In <1992Apr10.042618.17565@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu stated:
>In article <3014@cvbnetPrime.COM> jharring@lulu.UUCP (Joe Harrington) writes:
>
>>Am I remembering correctly that Scalia dissented on Bostic[k] last
>>year, the ruling that allows the police to initiate a warrantless
>>search on a public trasportation vehicle?  
>
>You forgot an important word. It was a *consensual* warrantless search
>on a public transportation vehicle.

With all respect, Jon, you're begging the question.  I think a
reasonable application of the Mendenhall/Royer test suggests that
Bostic's "consent" was in fact the product of coercive circumstances. 

>Remember: never consent to any search. Ever.

Well, not never.  If the cop is holding a gun to your head, I suggest
you "consent".  Bostic may be a gray-area case where reasonable minds
may differ; one would like to think, on the other hand, that even the
Supreme Court would agree that consent under threat of imminent death
is not consent.

-- 
			Sold by weight, not by volume.
  Some settling of contents may have occurred during shipment and handling.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: cek@sdc.boeing.com (Conrad Kimball)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Intent (was Re: Photo of minor, etc./Virtual Ethics)
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:04:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Boeing Computer Services (ESP), Seattle, WA

In article <1992Apr6.163148.27349@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, wooledge@ces.cwru.edu (Gregory Wooledge) writes:
|> minotaur@labyrnth.via.mind.org (The Minotaur) writes:
|> 
|> >Remember, most
|> >courts require that there be *intent* to commit an act in order for it
|> >to be illegal.
|> 
|> >The bruiser:  Is intent alone enough to convict?
|> 
|> Certainly.  "Attempted murder", for example, is a crime.  Someone should not
|> be let go just because (s)he failed in an attempt to perform a crime.  (S)he
|> will probably try again.

Your example of attempted murder simply speaks to the success or
failure of a criminal action, it doesn't address the question of
whether thought (intent) without action is itself criminal.  And the
answer is, a crime (in this case attempted murder) still requires
*some* overt act in furtherance of the intent.  Just what acts are
considered in furtherance of the intent depends on the crime, and is
somewhat fuzzy (at least to me).

For example, to make life easier for the law-and-order types, the
concept arose of making "conspiracy to commit <some crime>" itself a
crime.  Then, simply getting together with someone else to talk about
committing a crime becomes an act of furtherance for the conspiracy
crime, even if you never take any other act in furtherance of the
underlying crime itself.  Neat, huh?  Even if they can't prove you
tried to murder someone (perhaps because you never actually tried it),
they can get you on a different crime (conspiracy) for simply kicking
around the idea with someone else.

--
Conrad Kimball		| Dist. Sys. Tech Support, Boeing Computer Services
cek@sdc.boeing.com	| P.O. Box 24346, MS 7A-35
(206) 865-6410		| Seattle, WA  98124-0346
Xref: sparky alt.sex:13591 misc.legal:8903 rec.arts.tv:9248
From: crl0195@hertz.njit.edu (Curt R Lindmark)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Censoship of nudity -- babies in movies
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:20:32 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <ktv7eoINN1lv@skat.usc.edu> kflores@skat.usc.edu (Kelly Flores) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.163808.22155@news.iastate.edu> txap3@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:
>>>
>>
>>I can't imagine having a nude picture of a child being illegal.  Think of all
>>those "Bare Rug" pictures out there.  Or those many films where the child
>>decides to strip or at least refuses to be clothed.  Or maybe the child at the
>>beach swimming with nothing on.  The list goes on and on.
>
>There's also the movie "Crossing Delancy" with Amy Irving and Peter 
>Rigert(sp?) Where Izzy attends the briss of her friend's son and not only do 
>they show the baby on the table, they also show the fact that he decides to 
>relieve himself 1/2 way through the rabbi's speech. 
>
>Is there an official definiton of what's legal and what isn't? Or is this
>another one of those federal vs. state issues?

  In my 9th grade Civics class, we had a township detective as a guest
speaker.  At that time (6 years ago), the definition of indecent exposure
could not legally apply to pre-pubescent children.  As a side note, a child
under the age of six could not be legally held liable even for manslaughter,
as the law did not see them being old enough to be cognisant (SP) of their
actions.  As always, your mileage may vary (disclaimer from rec.autos.driving).

O========|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<|========0
 Curt R Lindmark      crl0195@hertz.njit.edu         Defender from ages past

 "My mind is racing, but my body's in the lead" -Foreigner

 "Fast, faster, faster, faster, ready to explode
  Don't want nothing left of me to scrape off the road" -Manowar

 "You know where we're going, I know where we are
  Set the rear view mirror for the back seat of the car" -Judas Priest
Disclamier: NJIT is responsible for nothing I don't say which isn't mine.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:8878 alt.society.civil-liberty:3248