HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 7 Jan 93 00:59:43 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <ART.93Jan2112524@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com (Al
Thompson) wrote:
> 
> In article <1hqqbuINN5qa@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

> It has come out that the Tonkin Gulf incident was cooked up.  This
> incident was used by LBJ to get from congress the authorization to
> conduct war in Viet Nam without a formal declaration.  This lie lead to
> the deaths of over 50,000 Americans and countless Viet Namese.  Somehow
> the Iran-Contra hanky panky pales in comparison.  LBJ was a Democrat,
> remember?

Yup, and the Republicans were with him every step of the way, as far as the
Viet Nam War was concerned.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!
From: cho@wdl1.wdl.loral.com (Il Hyung Cho)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Rights of Selling a CAR in CA
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:26:47 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: LORAL - Western Development Labs

I need some information reguarding the following:

Someone purchased a car from me a couple of weeks ago.
Well he came back yesterday (Jan 6) and demanded that
I return $1500 to him because the engine is bad and needs
to be replaced.  Otherwise, he'll take me to court.


My question is:  Does he have a case against me?  What rights
does he have?  What rights do I have?


If possible, please send replies through email.



Thanks.

Il Hyung Cho
Macintosh Systems Support
LORAL - Western Development Labs
Internet:  cho@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
Xref: sparky misc.legal:22235 comp.sys.mac.apps:19556
From: mirsky@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (David Joshua Mirsky)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Looking for Mac LSAT software
Date: 8 Jan 1993 21:30:29 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu


Hi. I looking to buy some LSAT software which is Mac compatible.
If someone has some they are not using anymore, please leave me email
Thanks
David
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley)
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, UCLA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:39:08 GMT

In a previous article tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) spake...
>Are you proposing that Fed.Ex. be forced to accept cash ?  Start your
>own damn delivery service and demonstrate how stupid they are.
>
(1) Yup.
(2) Already been done. Look at other parcel services- UPS, DHL, Airborne, ...

>Taxi drivers are mugged all the time and 7-11's are notorious for being
>robbed would it bother you that much if a Fed.Ex. driver or the company
>that hires him would rather not be shot for some cash ?
>
Banks get robbed. So do Brinks' Trucks; people at ATM machines, pedestrians,
the paper boy, gas stations, liquor stores, supermarkets, restaurants, ...
I guess, by your 'logic', that cash should be abolished all together.
Hey, look at that 'carjacking' trend. It's just too risky to have people
driving out there on the roads. Let's get rid of the cars too.

Life's full of risks, pal. Deal with it or jump ship.

>Listen, if you think you have a legal case take them to court I'm about
>as fed up with stupid dopes as I can be on this net.
>
Freedom of speech means having to put up with stuff you may or may not like
to hear. Le choix, c'est le votre. Kill file? What's that?

>
>They don't want to handle cash okay ?
>
No. It's not. A universal monetary standard is necessary must be accepted by
ALL to have a stable economy. (Why's Europe trying to unify their currency?)

>Don't you have anything better to do than dream up crap like this ?
>
Don't like it? Don't read it. I'm not here to please YOU. I'm simply
encouraging discussion. You're free to leave.

>tom
-- 
Bruce James Robert Linley | "Well, I tried shoving a weiner in the warp drive,
Comp Sci & Engr, UCLA     |  but it didn't do a bit o' good."
<linley@netcom.com>       | - Star Dreck, c/o Dr. Demento
<linley@seas.ucla.edu>    |
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Oppose the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:53:11 GMT


In article <1993Jan8.004555.27609@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, 
titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) said:

|> the _Smith_ decision along the lines suggested by Merlyn LeRoy.  In
|> my opinion, the best thing the Court could do would be to discard
|> _Smith_ entirely and restore the old "compelling interest" standard
|> as a matter of Constitutional law.  Such a decision would render the
|> "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" unnecessary.  [Matthew Rosenblatt]

> Could some of the net lawyers please explain with some precision
> what this term "compelling interest" means, how it's different than
> the class prejudices of judges, and why it is that compelling
> interest is not needed for all laws.

There will now be a brief delay while everyone on the net who's ever
studied constitutional law collapses in gales of laughter at the idea
of explaining with _any_ precision exactly what "compelling interest"
means...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 09:16:09 GMT

In <TT.93Jan5163855@marius.jyu.fi> tt@marius.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
>In article <1ia0grINNfdt@agate.berkeley.edu> wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:

>>I think the pardon is an important part of our system of law that should
>>not be taken away.  Presidents to take a risk publicly by pardoning
>>someone.  The poll I saw showed strong disapproval for the pardoning
>>of Weinburger.  Ford was certainly not made popular by pardoning
>>Nixon.

>I agree, but I think pardon should be possible only _after_ conviction
>and sentencing.  

I'm inclined to agree, but there is another way to look at it.  What if
a president feels that the prosecution is simply designed to harrass the
pardonee?  Or what if he feels that it is simply an unjust prosecution?

Wouldn't it make sense for him to be able to pardon the person and spare
him the suffering of a trial?

Especially if he's planning to pardon him, anyway -- it would be awfully
silly to go through the time and energy of a trial if there was just
going to be a pardon, anyway.

>Hmm.  Does the US president's power to pardon any limits at all: 
>Could he pardon himself?

Yes, I suppose, but could you imagine the outcry if a president did 
this, though?

>Could he pardon someone "for any and all crimes he may have committed"?

Isn't this what a pardon does?

>What about future crimes as well?

Not a chance.

>For that matter, who could control it -- can the Supreme Court judge
>such a pardon unconstitutional?  Could a presidential pardon be

No; a pardon cannot be unconstitutional -- it doesn't make sense to say
that.  Now, if the president tried to give an invalid pardon, such as
for future crimes, the courts would be free to ignore it if a person
later commits a crime and is prosecuted for it.

>overruled by anything short of impeachment (if even by that)?

The Constitution explicitly states that a pardon doesn't extend to
impeachment.  But impeachment isn't punishment -- it's simply removal
from office.  Impeachment doesn't overrule a pardon; it's a separate issue. 

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
From: jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:03:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1993Jan4.002357.23997@netcom.com> linley@netcom.com 
	(Bruce James Robert Linley) writes:

>Anyway,
>I feel that it's necessary to have some physical item that I can hold in my
>hand and say, "This is a basic form of value that everyone (in the US) accepts
>as payment for ANY debt, and must accept, i.e. cannot refuse, regardless of a
>preferred form of payment, or the conveinence or inconveinence of having to
>accept this method of payment." I believe that the US dollar is STILL this
>item. Those who say it is not, please tell me what is, in your opinion.

I don't HAVE to accept any form of payment if I don't want to.  I can
even refuse to deal in dollars at all, and sell my shirts for ten bricks
each if I want to.  Of course, that's probably bad business, and I would
suffer for it, and besides, I can't buy my food with a pile of bricks ;-). 

-- 
 ________________________________________________________________________
|   John      jfw@neuro.duke.edu          Duke University Medical Center |
| Whitehead   jfw@well.sf.ca.us           Department of Neurobiology     |
|________________________________________ Durham, North Carolina ________|
Xref: sparky misc.legal:22208 talk.politics.misc:66747
From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:52:22 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1993Jan8.073836.6197@psg.com> michaels@psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:

>If an Impeachment can override a Pardon, could the Senate use
>impeachment proceedings to override _Weinberger's_ Pardon?

 
Nope, and it would be a waste of time anyway. For, as the Constitution says:

"Judgement in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to
removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office
of honor, trust, or profit under the United States; but the party
convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment,
trial, judgement and punishment, according to law."

Weinberger has already been pardoned for any "crimes" he may have committed.
So a trial will be a waste of money and effort.

He doesn't hold any office now, and won't ever (too old + the Administration
is of the wrong party), so an impeachment will also be a waste of time, money
and effort for the House and Senate. Besides, I don't think an impeachment is
even POSSIBLE, given that he is no longer a "civil officer" of the United States.


-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Subject: Re: Pardon stuff..Define please
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:15:24 GMT

In article <TT.93Jan11220850@tarzan.jyu.fi> tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:

>>A pardon does not indicate guilt. It therefore can be used to stop the
>>prosecution of an alledged crime.
>
>That reasoning isn't necessarily valid, however.  What I don't like
>is using pardon to prevent the facts from coming out.

The facts are already basically out. Arms were sold to Iran to obtain the
release of hostages. Profits from the sale of these arms went to the contras
in Nicaragua. Fait accompli. The question is, is this really something that
should not have happened to the extent of running up $40 million is costs
(so far) and prosecuting anyone you can? Remember the indictment that came
down right before the election? Got thrown out three weeks later, so
Walsh tried again. Is this guy after facts or kills? So far he has come
up empty. No, I don't care who knew (even Reagan could have know, for all
I care) I do not think it was so bad as to go through six years of this
silly circus.

Also remember, that a trial is not a fact-finding function. The prosecutor
is already supposed to HAVE the facts. If so, he can have them published
and let the public decide for themselves. But I don't think that's what
Walsh wants.

>Or if you think he may be innocent but want to find out for sure,
>whether any punishment follows or not.

Again, that is not what criminal prosecution is for.

>That was behind my original idea of allowing pardon only after
>conviction.  In view of the cost of a trial, and the fact that it may
>in itself be a punishment of sorts, I'm no longer sure that would be a
>good idea either.  Life seldom offers simple solutions, alas.

In the minds of most people Nixon is guilty. Of what, they do not know, but
they consider him guilty. All that could be shown (and that inconclusively,
in my opinion) was obstruction of justice, but most people blame him as
the ringleader of the break-in itself, which even his detractors who were
close to the case do not believe.

Yet, he was pardoned, without any prosecution. It is almost as if the
pardon MADE him guilty. However, the press had already convicted him, so
what difference did it make.

I see the same thing happening here. I see both of these being blown
WAY out of proportion. I consider the House banking scandal far worse, but
since the executive branch cannot prosecute the Legislative in the same
manner that the Legislative can prosecute the Executive...(shrug)

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                (This sig intentionally left blank)                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: michaels@psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 07:38:36 GMT


If an Impeachment can override a Pardon, could the Senate use
impeachment proceedings to override _Weinberger's_ Pardon?


-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"I resolve to make no non-tautological New Year's Resolutions!"
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 11:04:09 GMT

lrabe@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lee A Rabe) writes:

>until very recently, I had neither a checking account or a credit card, yet
>I fairly regularly received packages.

>If someone had sent something FedEx, I would have HAD to pay cash.  Would they
>have been forced to accept it?

Lee Ann,  I can't speak in the absolute legal sense like if you took them
to court whether you would win after the 3rd appeal but from a practical
standpoint... Nope.

Forced to accept it ?  Even the sound of it bothers me.

The discussion has been whether FedEx "drivers" should accept cash and if
it is the policy of the corporation that they can't then you couldn't force
them regardless of what you told the driver.

FedEx of course will accept cash (I guess I should call them but somebody
else can confirm it along with whether FedEx drivers do indeed not accept
cash) if you go to the FedEx depot to pick something up.

Contrary to what at least one poster is trying desperately to prove, FedEx
isn't operated by incompetent business people, they realize (I'm fairly
certain) that accepting cash at their drop off facilities is a normal
part of doing business.

The key to so many question like "what does FedEx do..." is to call them
an ask.  Propose the "I don't have a bank account" question to the kind
person answering the phone and find out what the policy is.

My bet is they suggest that you open an account... I send stuff out and
just sign for it.

tom

Xref: sparky misc.legal:22024 talk.politics.misc:66184 alt.president.clinton:1332
From: wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 4 Jan 1993 18:43:39 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu


I think the pardon is an important part of our system of law that should
not be taken away.  Presidents to take a risk publicly by pardoning
someone.  The poll I saw showed strong disapproval for the pardoning
of Weinburger.  Ford was certainly not made popular by pardoning
Nixon.

Haven't most or all of the Iran-Contra convictions that went to trial
(like Poindexter's and North's) been overturned on appeal?  Why doesn't
Walsh give it up already?   

WFT

Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 20:13:27 GMT

niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>>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.

>>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.

>>Am I mistaken in recalling that the Kennedy administration admitted to
>>planning an assassination attempt on Castro ?
>
>Huh?  Relevance?  Congress hadn't forbidden this, unlike, say, sending
>money to the contras or arms to Iran.

David: You can argue with the specific examples that I offer all you
want but that isn't the topic of discussion.  Mike Polen wrote "so far
only Republican administrations show a disdain".  I disagree and so far
we don't know what your position is except that you're attempting to
define "disdain for the law and contempt for the public" as only doing
things that Congress forbids.

So... is it true that "only Republican administrations show disdain for
the law" ?

tom
>
Xref: sparky misc.legal:22159 talk.politics.misc:66616 alt.president.clinton:1401
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 7 Jan 1993 14:04 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan7.131123.16469@cis.ohio-state.edu>,
 csmith@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes...
>Americans did not find this incident nearly as scandalous as the liberal media
>did. The constant barrage of the media has shaped public opinion somewhat (just
>as it has made Anita Hill a martyr when the real martyr is Judge Thomas) but
>Americans still don't think it is that much of a scandal.

If it's not much of a scandal, I think that the public has been asleep at the
wheel, and we deserved what we got.

As for the Anita Hill issue, I must disagree with you on Justice Thomas'
status as a martyr.  There were reportedly attempts by Senators to rescind 
Professor Hill's tenure over her accusations and testimony.  She also had
problems with more than a few African-American political leaders for rocking
the boat.  As for the hearings, please remember that there was no real attempt
to find out what actually happened; the witness, and in my opinion, probable
victim, was dragged through deeper mud than the alleged actor.

							Daniel Reitman
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: haluk@merlin.dev.cdx.mot.com (Haluk Gumrukcu)
Subject: Just a Question
Originator: haluk@turlough.dev.cdx.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Codex, Canton, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:26:20 GMT


How fair/legal for non-smokers (along with smokers) to decide on cigarette
prices?

Just out of curiosity.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: pas@cc.gatech.edu (Paulo Santos)
Subject: Recording conversations
Organization: College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:00:09 GMT

Is it legal to record conversations (meetings, etc.) without everyone
involved explicitly knowing that they are being recorded?

I often record parts of meetings with other people so that I can later
review the tape and make sure I did not miss anything.  I have never
used the tape for public boadcasting, evidence in court, or any such things,
nor do I intend to.  It's just for my personal use.

I always display the recorder, so anyone who is observant may see it.
However, today one of the participants in the meeting brought up the
question of legality of what I was doing (recording without explicitly
notifying them).  He didn't say it was illegal -- just that he wasn't sure
it was legal.

So, what do you think?  Is it OK to record?  Do I have to do anything
more than display the recorder?  Does it have to be very visible
or could it be inside its leather case?

Additionally, just in case, it is interesting to know what uses of the tape
are not OK.

Would anyone care to answer?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Paulo Santos                         Internet: pas@cc.gatech.edu
   Georgia Tech, College of Computing       uucp: ...!gatech!cc!pas
   Atlanta GA 30332-0280, U.S.A.           Voice: (404) 853-9393
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 13:20:29 GMT

With all of this talk regarding pardons and the possibility of removing the
ability of the president to pardon, why don't we, at the same time, either
eliminate the special persecutor...uh, I mean prosecutor, or eliminate the
power of the "unendicted co-conspirator" endictment. If that is not a title
intended purely for persecution and media gradstanding, I don't know what is.
How do you defend yourself against it? It says, effectively, "He's guilty, but
we can't prove it." If you can't prove it, SHUT UP!
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                (This sig intentionally left blank)                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)

Newsgroups: misc.legal