HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Tracking down debtors 
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 04:30:31 GMT

psm@nosc.mil (Scot Mcintosh) writes:

>I've gotten a judgement against some individuals and need
>to collect. Only two little things stand in my way:
>finding them and finding out what their assets are. I
>know there are companies out there who sell credit records
>and other financial information. Someone mentioned
>a company or computer program (he couldn't remember
>which it was) called Professional Credit Checker,
>but didn't know where they're located. I'd appreciate
>a pointer to this or any other company in that business.
>General advice or even war stories on the subject of
>judgement collection would also be of interest (I've
>got the Nolo Press book).

I've had good luck finding people that owe money through
a credit bureau. According to the bureau, one of the 
legitimate uses of a credit report is in trying to 
collect on a debt. Equifax has a nice feature, you
can register with them to notify you within 24 hours
of a credit transaction for a specified person. This
can be very helpful when the person you are seeking
if very flaky.

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

Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Attorney v. Lawyer
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:28:30 GMT

In article <BzMxrG.771@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>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.

Well, that's a form of address, and the rules are different there. I don't
think I've ever been called "counselor" by anyone who didn't have bias
against or a fear of lawyers.

But a lawyer will ask someone if he has an attorney, not if he has a
"counselor."


--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 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Copyright of personal likeness?
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:27:45 GMT

uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett) writes:

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

>>In article <1992Dec27.153503.20181@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, 
>>ddaye@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David C Daye) writes:
>>> I'm curious about a person's rights to his/her likeness.  Do ordinary
>>> citizens have any, to the extent that permission to publish a photo
>>> of them is ever required? 

>More interesting for David's question will be the outcome of a French
>case involving the poster from the 1940's of a Paris couple kissing, 
>by that French photographer whose name begins with D-- (Delveaux, maybe?).
>The couple has sued under French law for a piece of the action.  There
>was an article on this in the Guardian (UK newspaper) in the last month
>or so, if David or anyone else is interested.

Well, we are used to following British precent - do you think we are
going to start looking at French?

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

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton)
Subject: Re: OREGON renters rights question
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:10:08 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Allen Warren (allen@tessi.com) wrote:
: 
: One week ago, his girlfriend moved out with their daughter.  In the process
: of leaving, the girlfriend's mother spoke with the complex manager for
: about 1-2 hours. 


:   Management would not give any reasons for the above
: actions and David, needless to say, is in a very difficult situation, 
: compounded
: by the fact that his (probably) ex-girlfriend also managed to clean out their
: joint bank account without his knowledge.
: 
: I informed David that he should do the following:
: 
: 1.  Find his copy of the lease agreement and READ it, or gain free legal
: 	advice and have a lawyer read it.
: 2.  Contact the Renter's Association of Oregon and speak with them about the
: 	whole matter, including whatever wording in the agreement might be
: 	in violation.
: 3.  Find out all the information he can and THEN go back to the rental office
: 	armed to the teeth with facts IF he wants to fight them.
: 
: Any ideas, even guesses, from people out there?
:------------------------------------------------- 

Yea, Forget about the apartment. They did nothing overtly illegal and he has
nothing to gain by staying or fighting. Mom probably mentioned to the land-
lords that her daughter was moving out and would no longer be contributing
to the rent. She may have also mentioned that daughter was going to talk
to the folks at Child Support Enforcement and when they were finished with
your friend that he wouldn't have enough money left over to buy toilet paper.

You are correct in that your friend is facing a very difficult situation but
losing the rental is the least of his worries. Check out some of the horror
stories in alt.child-support if you want a sampling of what might happen.


John Eaton
!hp-vcd!johne
From: lion@netcom.com (carl loeber)
Subject: USA as the first UN or ... and the future
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 10:49:30 GMT

What is the thought on non-US territories, like Mexico, gaining
admission to the Union.

I'd say federalism, more state jurisdiction, is appropriate
and necessary to make it feasible.

Rather than have everyone seek freedom by coming here, let's take the freedom 
there.   OK you all come on in ... just bring your own space (land).

It seems that in the past, new states have always been territories
before applying for admission.

Yes we need democratic reforms and decentralization here first.

Comment?

Pls Email copy.

Thanks.
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Capital Punishment '91 (BJS Press Release)
Summary: Who is working to speed the execution of death row inmates?
Keywords: Vicious; Brutal; Scum
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:34:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: oregon.30DEC199212345202
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Oregon
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <19504@smoke.brl.mil>,
 matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes...
>Now, I'm personally opposed to the death penalty, but I wonder:
>Has anyone proposed "clearing the air" -- that is, executing 
>every one of these 2,482 killers, and giving the criminal justice
>system a chance to start afresh?

Does this perhaps raise constitutional questions?  :-)

>. . . .
>Maryland, huh?  For all practical purposes, Miss Barreau could have
>added Maryland to the list of "jurisdictions without a death penalty."
>That's because Maryland has not executed *anyone*, no matter how
>vicious a killer or how heinous and brutal his crime, since the
>Supreme Court reinstated the constitutionality of the death penalty.
>In fact, the last execution in Maryland was sometime in the '60's.

So?  Oregon has not executed anyone since the 1960's, and there are a few cases
pending.  One waived his appeals, then changed his mind.  Also, Washington
hasn't executed anyone since 1964, but would you say that it doesn't have
capital punishment after next Wednesday?

>. . . . 
>He
>was sentenced to death, but when it comes to finding loopholes in
>the death penalty, the Maryland Court of Appeals is as resourceful
>as the old California Supreme Court under Chief Justice Rose Bird
>and her bleeding-heart, fuzzy-minded, knee-jerk liberal colleagues.

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks.  I could go all out criticizing the
Oregon Supreme Court for its failure to allow common law to evolve.

In Connecticut, no one has been executed since the 1960's as well; several
appeals are pending.  One case which led to a short-lived attempt to widen the
death penalty statutes, however, occured several years ago.  A defendant
pleaded guilty under the Alford doctrine to murder and was sentenced to life
because the court found cocaine intoxication a mitigating factor, which in
Connecticut will bar the death penalty.  While I'm also opposed to captial
punishment, the court and the General Assembly were both roundly criticized for
this one. 

						Daniel Reitman
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: scott@ryptyde.cts.com (Scott McClure)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: Ryptyde TimeSharing, San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:14:07 GMT

patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger) writes:

>In article <1992Dec28.200756.18681@cs.ucla.edu> pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>>In article <BzzH4s.M60@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
>>writes in "alt.conspiracy":
>>

[..]

>>|I applaud President Bush's pardon of Cap Weinberger and the others.  It is
>>|not a question that these patriots are "above the law" as President Clinton
>>
>>  "Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy."
>>        -- George Bernard Shaw

Well, you know what they say about opinions...  8-)

>>|fears. The real issue is justice and the balance of power between the
>>|Congress and the Executive. Nazi Germany made racial laws, were they just?
>>
>	The "real issue" is that Special Prosecutor Lawrence E.
>	Walsh was appointed by the RayGun Administration to find
>	the truth and ferret out the weasels involved in 
>	Iran/Contra-Gate! One of Walsh's initial reactions was
>	** the fish smells from the head down **

So?  What's the big deal about?  It's all just a big liberal-sponsored
witch-hunt.  Why should such a powerful position be given to just one
person?  He doesn't have to answer to *anyone*.  That's just not right,
IMHO.

>	Line 'em up right alongside the lies, bank deals, oil
>	deals, arms deals, etc. of soon to be Ex-President Bush!

Right, like the Clinton administration will be any different.  It's always
the same.  It doesn't matter if it's Republicans or Democrats.  Sometimes,
you have to do "unpopular" and "politically incorrect" things to get
the job done.  It's the way the world works.  It may not sit well with
the average citizen whose only link to the rest of the world is CNN Headline
News.

>	what some view as Walsh's fanaticism others view as
>	his passion to uphold and defend the law and to bring
>	to justice those who would trash it for their own
>	power and greed.

Ah, but this is all speculation on our part.  The only one who knows
the "real" story are the people involved.

>	Yeah - let's throw Special Prosecutor Walsh right
>	off the podium; then we won't have to look at the
>	uglinees and greed of 12 years under a Republican
>	administration!

Naw, let's keep him around to do the same thing when we've had a few
years of ugliness and greed under a Democratic administration!

>-- 
>Patricia Ann Bromberger                            patth@panix.com

Just my $0.02.  8-)

Scott

-- 
INTERNET:  scott@ryptyde.cts.com                     | "Nuke the homeless gay
ARPANET:   ryptyde!scott@nosc.mil                    |  baby whales for Jesus!"
UUCP:      {crash, nosc}!ryptyde!scott               |    - bumper sticker
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 20:19:55 GMT

linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:
>
>Well, I have about $75 in U.S. silver certificates, which unlike the 'notes'
>(which they bear an uncanny resemblance to), say that they're redeemable for
>silver ON DEMAND. But I'll be dammed if I'm going to spend those just to
>please Federal Express.
>
>The reason I'm upset about the refusal to accept cash is that it can lead to
>a dangerous situation. Consider the following: MasterCard offers retailers
>all over the U.S. incentives (read: bribes) to refuse all forms of payments
>other than MasterCharge. If enough retailers comply we'll end up in a 
>situation where MasterCard is in a position to control the effective supply,
>flow, and value of money in the U.S. A bad credit rating can now totally ruin
>an individual (more than it can now). The federal reserve board will be
>rendered useless. And MasterCard can now exert enormous political control
>over industry and individuals (government? who needs that?)

#1 unless I'm mistaken you can no longer redeem those silver certificates
for silver regardless of the "promise".  But more to the point we can
demonstrate why a delivery service would not accept cash quite handily,
we place you in a Fed.Ex. truck and let you collect cash on deliveries
through oh... South Central L.A.

More directed toward the original poster (I always worry when replying to
people who turn "we don't accept cash" into "and then Mastercard takes
over the world") it is quite possible it is simply a matter of policy.

The drivers would have to carry possibly large amounts of cash, some cash
every day to make change, would get robbed more often than they do and
would have to settle up their account each night after deliveries.  It
would end up costing more and you would pay the price.

If you really want to find out "why" Fed.Ex. doesn't accept cash you can
probably phone Fed.Ex. and get "the" answer rather than a dozen guesses
on the net.

tom

Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 10:04:00 GMT

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>
>So far, it is only Republican adminstrations that show a disdain
>for the law and a contempt for the public.  If Clinton acts the same
>way, I will work to get him out as soon as possible.

Well if we're willing to close our eyes then "so far only Mike Polen has
demonstrated a disdain for the law and a contempt for the public".

Don't you at least recognize that you're making this "only Republican"
stuff up ?  We all realize it... maybe you're only 12 - 16 years old
and only remember the last few adminstrations.

Perhaps you only think disdain exists at the Presidential level.

Would you be happier if George Bush smoked crack like the last Mayor
of D.C. ?  Oh that wasn't contempt for the law, the hooker he had in
the motel made him do it.

Am I mistaken in recalling that the Kennedy administration admitted to
planning an assassination attempt on Castro ?

I'm not asking you to kiss Bush's feet but raise your eyes and look
out over the horizon.

tom

Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.sys.sun.misc
From: horen@netcom.com (Jonathan B. Horen -- [408] 736-3923)
Subject: Re: Put away your Motif manual; Sun's lawyers are at the door!
Organization: NetCom -- OnLine Communication Services
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:25:58 GMT

In article <1h80cpINNevp@spud.Hyperion.COM> koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm) writes:
>From the license agreement on the back of the Solaris 2.1 CD:
>
>2. License to Develop.  In the event that Customer desires to develop software
>programs which incorporate portions of Software ("Developed Programs"), the
>following provisions apply, to the extent applicable: Developed Programs are
>to be OPEN LOOK(R) compliant and have an application programming interface
>that is the same as that of Software; fonts within Software are to remain
>associated with their toolkit or server; Developed Programs may be used and
>distributed, but only on computer equipment licensed to utilize Solaris
>operating system software, unless an additional Developer's License Agreement
>has been executed by SunSoft and Customer; Customer is not licensed to
>develop printing applications or print using fonts in F3(TM) format, unless
>Customer has secured a license for NeWSprint(TM); and Customer agrees to
>indeminfy, hold harmless and defend SunSoft from and against any claims or
>suits, including attorneys' fees, which arise or result from distribution
>or use of Developed Programs.
>
>Whew.  So, in a nutshell, as I read it:
>
>- I can't port a Motif application to Solaris 2.1.

No -- rather, you can't port your Solaris 2.1 to Motif.

>- My program can't send things to my line printer unless I buy NeWSprint.

No -- rather, you can't develop applications that print and/or use T3
format fonts unless you also have a license for NewsPrint.

>- If I develop a library, its API has to look the same as Solaris' (whatever
>  THAT means).

Good question -- what *does* it mean?

>- If a Solaris bug causes disk corruption while someone is using my software,
>  I have to hire attorneys to defend SunSoft if the user decides to sue,
>  even if the suit doesn't involve me at all.

I think it's like "Joe" being able to sue GM if I rear-end him with my
Z-28 Camaro (or, better yet, like not being able to sue AT&T if a user
on your SysV machine destroys months of work via rm -fr *)

>Sun pays people to write this drivel?  Is there even a remote possibility
>that half these provisions wouldn't be laughed immediately out of court?
>Am I the only one who thinks the above is pretty ridiculous?

a. Yes, with the money they make from us.
b. Try it and see.
c. Some (of the above), but not all.


Jonathan B. Horen       | A man should not strive to eliminate his complexes,
SysAdmin/SrTechWriter   | but to get in accord with them; they are 
Tel: (408) 736-3923     | legitimately what directs his conduct in the world.
Email: horen@netcom.com |                     -- Sigmund Freud
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Adverse Possession
Keywords: Sovereign
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:32:04 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <19486@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>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?

Oops.  In general, no, no, and probably, though there are exceptions to
the first two.

Like I said, property was my worst subject (at least until I get my
Secured Transactions exam back).

I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: porges@beretta.camb.inmet.com (Don Porges)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: Intermetrics Inc.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:12:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.102246.6188@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <bhayden.725784933@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:
>
>
>
>>Where is the ACLU here. They should be up in arms about this
>
>Many civil libertarians, including me, are concerned about the problems
>raised by compelling testimony before Congress. Given that Walsh could not
>order Congress *not* to conduct hearings, it seems to me that North's
>prosecutors did everything humanly possible to prevent compelled testimony
>from affecting the case. Don't forget that they had a greater interest in
>achieving this result than Brendan Sullivan did; the prosecutors wanted
>any convictions to survive an appeal.

In fact, just to be clear:  where the ACLU is (well, was) on this, was
in court, filing a friend-of-the-court brief in North's defense.  
Something to remember when anyone calls the ACLU a liberal-only group
(and, of course, "the criminals' lobby").
-- 
					-- Don Porges
					porges@inmet.camb.inmet.com
					..uunet!inmet!porges
From: dpassage@soda.berkeley.edu (David G. Paschich)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: ADDRESS
Date: 2 Jan 1993 23:46:55 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <158.720.uupcb@ehbbs.gwinnett.com> dan.baer@ehbbs.gwinnett.com (Dan Baer)  writes:
> Question: Does anyone know a good way to find the address of a person
>when you only have their phone number. I have tried 'PhoneFile' on
>CI$ but they do not have the phone number in their database. The
>phone number should be in Carroll County Georgia (prefix 562).
>  Any help in this matter is appreciated!

Yes.

Call the number.

Ask the person who answers what their address is.

Not only is the answer likely to be reliable, but the person whose
address it is will get the chance to decide whether or not they 
want you to have it, ensuring that their privacy will not be violated.



-- 
David G. Paschich	Comp Sci Undergrad Association		UC Berkeley
dpassage@soda.berkeley.edu			  dpassage@ana-ng.chaos.org
"We will create a new political climate where the system does not
attract ego-driven, power-hungry people." -- Ross Perot
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: hank@well.sf.ca.us (Hank Roberts)
Subject: Legal Word Processing? (Tables of Authorities, WPerf, WfWindows)?
Summary: What's your experience with legal word proc., esp Word forWindows
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 05:15:35 GMT


A query from some coworkers (who will be most surprised and impressed
if this strange thing called "the Net" actually answers their questions).

They're asking:

How are lawyers creating Tables of Authorities using WfWindows 2.0B?

How good is WfW2.0B at importing Word Perfect files?

And what pitfalls have you fallen into, or stepped carefully around?

(They have _lots_ of advice on these matters from "consultants"
which is probably why they're willing to ask me to ask the Net)
From: james.salery@rsbbs.uucp (James Salery) 
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: FCC INTERCONNECT TARRIFFS
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:50:00 GMT
Reply-To: james.salery@rsbbs.uucp (James Salery) 
Distribution: world
Organization: R's Little BBs - Stone Mtn, Ga - 404-879-1600

I am havinf trouble locating the FCC Interconnect Tarriffs 1 & 2 for the
long distance rates as they apply to ATT. I only know that these
tarriffs are the basis for the resellers and aggreators marketing
program and a understanding must be had to effect a relationship with
ATT. WOULD LIKE TO KNOW AND WOULD LIKE TO DO IT!!!! JAMES SALERY
                                             
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing