HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Self-Defense
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:26:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.035153.2572@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

)Situation: You're a prisoner in a cell.  Your prisonmate, who's five
)inches taller, and a hundred pounds heavier, whom you have no hope 
)of defending yourself against tells you one night: "When dawn comes,
)I'm going to kill you."  He then goes to sleep.  Assume that going to
)a guard for assistance has proven futile in the past, and that you have
)no reason to believe otherwise now.  What do you do?  What should the
)law be?
)
)It's not as obvious as you seem to think.

It's hard to say what one would or should do in such a situation.  It does
seem clear to me, though, that if the prision authorities find out who did
it, they will charge the perpetrator with the murder - and this is as it
should be.  Otherwise, anybody could kill their cellmate and claim that they
did it because 'they were threatened'.

If one has good strong evidence of the threat, I can imagine the sentence
would be lenient - but it's fairly unlikely that one will get off scott
free, IMO.

Logically,  in this situation,one would have to weigh the probability (high)
of being caught and sentenced vs. the probability of actually being killed
(hard to judge on the basis of the example).  One might also reconsider the
allegedly hopeless option of self-defense when/if the attack comes.

This is all a bit contrived, of course - as Nosy points out, the burning bed
case did not take place in a prison.  This opens up a lot more alternatives.
From: gourdol@imag.fr (Arno Gourdol)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Getting a green card after a J-1 visa
Date: 26 Jul 92 21:24:19 GMT
Organization: University of Grenoble
X-Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 23:24:49 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d3


Hi,

I'm trying to understand the maze of INS regulations.
Does any of you know if it is possible to get a green card after
having benefited a J-1 (exchange student) visa. I've been told there is
a two year waiting period before applying for a work visa. Is this 
right? Is there any way to avoid this waiting period?

Arno.

--
Arno Gourdol.  <Gourdol@imag.fr>
Minds, like parachutes, only function when open.
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Lawsuit to compel a fraud to run for President!
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:07:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA

In article <1992Jul21.180155.5393@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson) writes:
:thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
:>Can you say "Rule 11 Sanctions"?
:
:Not necessarily,as the Plaintiff might be seeking the alternative
:relief of monetary compensation for her induced spending of time
:and money.  The fact that now she wouldn't vote for Perot anyway
:does not throw out her injury.


Suppose that I had contributed money to the Tsongas campaign.

Could I now sue to get it back, claiming that his withdrawal from the
race constituted breech of contract?? Could I claim that I would NOT
have made the contribution if I had known that Tsongas would withdraw?

Think of the precedent this would set! Once a person publicly announces
his/her candidacy and accepts money for the campaign, he/she could not
withdraw (unless he lost, of course) without giving the donations back!

--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Physical Evidence
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:56:31 GMT
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma

In article <1992Jul16.204715.5887@wri.com> markm@wri.com writes:
>In article <1992Jul10.064839.16009@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>  
>dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>> Is there such thing as a publication that lists the physical evidence
>> of the jfk case that still exists today and where it is kept?
>>
>
>I don't know about Oswald's revolver.  Do you mean Ruby's?  I seem to remember  
>hearing something on CNN several months ago about the revolver Ruby used to  
>shoot Oswald.  Apparently it was sold at an auction somewhere.  An agent of the  
>man who purchased the weapon was stopped in Washington DC for an unrelated  
>(non-weapons) offense.  The gun was found an confiscated since it was not  

He wasn't stopped for an offense; he voluntarily disclosed that he had it (I think
he was going to show it to someone).

>registered.  Washington DC has an ordinance stating that all  
>unregistered/illegal weapons confiscated by the police must be destroyed.

Washington DC has not permitted registration of handguns since 1976.  Handguns
registered before that must be stored disassembled or otherwise inoperable so they
may not be used defensively, even in the home.

>
>Last I heard, the gun's rightful owner was working feverishly to try and get a  
>court injunction or something to stop the destruction of this weapon.
>

The weapon was given back since the DC law has certain exemptions, including posession
by federally licensed firearms dealers and their agents (subject to certain
restrictions I'm not very familiar with).

>--Mark


Rob Boudrie
rboudrie@chpc.org
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:00:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.031807.26821@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher) writes:
># >Using kill files IS a form of censorship.
>
>I suppose, then, if I unsubscribe to this group, I go down in
>history with Hannibal Lector? 

Lack of perspective is not an argument.  The reduction to absurdity is
within you.  Using kill files remains a form of (micro) censorship,
which gives the lie to (undercuts) (deconstructs) (runs across the grain
of) the loud adherence to "free speech" on the part of its "defenders."

But "I've just unsubscribed and I can't log off" IS funny.  Thanks.



Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.men,soc.women
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Self-Defense
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:55:39 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul24110120@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <1992Jul23.035153.2572@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
><   In article <1992Jul22.225007.275@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
><   >In article <1992Jul22.104724.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
><   >)You're worried about playing FAIR all of a sudden?  Murder is still
><   >)murder no matter how it's done.
><   >
><   >Self defense isn't murder.  However, killing someone in their sleep is
><   >*obviously* not self defense.
>
><   Situation: You're a prisoner in a cell.  Your prisonmate, who's five
><   inches taller, and a hundred pounds heavier, whom you have no hope 
><   of defending yourself against tells you one night: "When dawn comes,
><   I'm going to kill you."  He then goes to sleep.  Assume that going to
><   a guard for assistance has proven futile in the past, and that you have
><   no reason to believe otherwise now.  What do you do?  What should the
><   law be?
>
>	You mean that the "burning bed" case took place in a prison?

1. Where do I say that?  "Murder is still murder no matter how it's done."
   "Killing someone in their sleep is obviously not self-defense."  That's
   what I'm responding to.  Note that I changed the thread-title.  I see
   no reason to be handcuffed to what you want to discuss when there are
   more interesting issues being brought up.

>	Odd, I thought it was in a house; you know, with a front door,
>	back door, windows....openings in the buildings through
>	which one may exit?

2. Odd, I thought that someone acting in self-defense had no duty to
   retreat from their own home.  (Though some states do require retreat
   from one's own home in cases where the original aggressor is also a
   resident.)

><			 ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
><			 the university of chicago law school 
><			 official member of the cultural elit
>
>	I'm glad to see that the cultural "elit" obviously 
>	learned how to spell in public schools.

3. I'm glad to see your grasp of irony is as strong as ever.
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:43:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.140918.17178@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.214515.9958@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul26.204757.19969@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>
>>>What has happened that an enormous,
>>>across-the-board decline in educational standards has entailed that even
>>>elite law schools have in reality given up on training their aliterate
>>>students in reading and thinking.
>>
>>When you speak of what happens at "elite law schools," Ed, are you
>>speaking from experience? Or are you just making this up as you go along?
>
>Neither.  I've taught at the university level and witnessed, in the
>period 1970-, a wide decline in writing and thinking ability.  You
>don't have to believe me; take a look at SATs.  The Urban Legend is that
>students from poor backgrounds are getting stupider, but the decline is
>across the board.  I have also seen accounts of life at Stanford Law in
>which it is said that students don't feel they have to work hard, since
>admission to Stanford Law is admission to the elite.  

This ignores that:

(1) Though Stanford is an "elite" law school, not all "elite" law schools
    are Stanford.  Check out U of C some time, Ed.

(2) It assumes that the type of students going to law school in the 1970's
    are the same students going to law school in the 1990's, which isn't
    true, either -- law school applications are up greatly, the "elite"
    schools are far more selective, and LSAT scores are up in the last ten
    years at every major law school.

(3) It further assumes that it's the same subset of people taking SAT's
    in 1970 as today, when in reality more people than ever are taking
    SATs.  It used to be that just the top college-bound students took them,
    now nearly every high-schooler takes them.

>After 20 years in computer science, I considered returning to law school
>because of an interest sparked by the critical legal studies movement
>(giving the lie to their reputation as academic hothouse flowers, just
>as the praise of the practicing attorney Gerry Spence for the CLS
>movement gives the lie to this reputation.)  But the combination of
>toadying and bullying that goes on in law school is, to put it mildly,
>off-putting.

Proof?  Or another assertion of faith?
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: ADL/Hate Crime Laws
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:07:38 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <dfs.712330620@ro>, dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:
> But to suggest that such a process is infallible, or that such a
> document is flawless, is a bit silly.  And it seems that many who
> argue about these things use interpretations of the American
> Constitution as some kind of final, unanswerable argument.
> 
> Look at American society.  Is it perfect?  Wouldn't you say that a
> country's constitution has a profound impact on shaping its society?
> 
> David F. Skoll

As the saying goes, "The Constitution isn't perfect, but it's a damn
sight better than what we've got."  Unfortunately, the Constitution
has been warped around by the legal positivists to be what THEY want
it to be, rather than what it was intended to be.  We no longer live
under Constitutional government.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
From: cw1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Chi-Tai (Frank) Wu)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: traffic ticket
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:51:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.cePmb4C00VorEDF0Yj
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Hi there,

        I got a traffic ticket in San Jose 2 Saturday's ago and I
will contest it in court on Sept. 1st.

        I took a left turn at a no left turn intersection.

        My defense is that the sign at the intersection was placed
at a low visibility position for the drivers.  Also due to major
construction at that intersection, normal traffic patterns were
altered.  I took several pictures of the intersection the day
after I got the citation and I plan to show the judge of where the
sign was located at and thus show him or her how difficult it is
to see the no left turn sign.

        Anyone out there have any comments about this or experiences
that you're willing to share with me?

Thanx,
Frank
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Legal criticism (was: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:39:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.222845.359@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>
>>  "Race" is an outdated,
>>nineteenth-century concept which we should
>
>no longer use.
>
Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

>> use only to redress the
>>considerable amount of mischief caused by "race."
>
>Thereby causing more mischief [sic] in a never-ending cycle.

Doing nothing also causes mischief.  "Benign neglect" has resulted in
health statistics for the Bronx at Third World levels, and black male
life expectancy is in decline.
>
>
>
>>(as was Anita Hill.)
>
>Is there a purpose to bringing up her name?  How destroyed was she?
>Was she murdered?  Imprisoned?  Does she still have a job?  Or did
>people say unnice things about her?

(For the last time) there is no clearcut division between speech, and
victimizing others using speech, and action, and victimizing others
through our actions.  You want, it appears, to say that Anita Hill was
not harmed for telling what seems to be the truth about Clarence
Thomas.  Not only do I contend that she was harmed, I find a double
standard at work.  Thomas and Judge Posner are treated as beyond
criticism; although the one probably said "who put the pubic hair in my
coke can" and the other published a racist statement concerning Othello,
Shakespeare's  "black miscegenator", people with the temerity to point
this out are subject to character assasination.  I do not class myself
with Anita Hill for I don't know if I have her courage.  Yet I do note a
tendency to suck up to power in those who would allow Posner/Thomas to
say anything they please, and make the penalty for criticizing either
individual a form of death by flamage.

There seems to be a presumption on your part that a victim of speech is
never harmed and indeed the "urban legend" is that such people profit by
it.  During a recent discussion here on the net concerning the
victimization of Kim Pring by Hustler Magazine in 1978, posters were
generally unaware that Pring was completely unable to find a job owing
to Hustler's characterization of her, and that Pring had to join the
Army as a result.  

No, Hill was not "murdered" (was that a threat?)  Speech, however, is
often the way in which people in our society are kept in line and
abusive speech is reserved for the Anita Hills, whereas it is the
Posners and the Thomases that need to be curbed.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson)
Subject: Stare Decisis - ha ha ha
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:42:46 GMT

tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>When they really don't like the prior rule, they do one of four things:
>1) follow it anyway, and make a comment in the opinion that the rule really
>2) Overrule it.
>3) Claim to follow it, but seize on trivial distinctions to claim that it
>4) Declare that the decision is "confined to its specific facts", which sort

The most common thing in this case is to ignore the rule, and simply
not follow.  A summary sort of denial of appeal will do from the
appeal court, and the trial court doesn't even have to bother with
a coherent reason.

That's how I got pre-trial expert witness fees awarded against me as
costs.  Me, the opposition, the trial court, and the court of appeal
all knew it was disallowed.

No-one cares and there's nothing can be done about it.
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Reporting someone to the IRS
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:19:53 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Jul31.174722.24507@ichips.intel.com>, jmarshal@ichips.intel.com (Jon Marshall) writes:
> How does one go about reporting someone to the IRS that does not file
> taxes and yet is making an income "under the table"? 
> 
> -- 
>   J. Marshall
>   jmarshal@ichips.intel.com  

I know.  You're trying to start a flame war.  Call the IRS.  They've
got offices in almost every city.  They also have a toll free number. 
Call them and ask. === Al Sparks
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson)
Subject: Re: Defamation cause of action a federal right?
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:29:00 GMT

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: esther@verdix.com (Esther Lumsdon)
Subject: Re: Sexual Misconduct Laws
Organization: Verdix Corp.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:12:01 GMT

fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:

>When I was in the military, I never saw anything in the Uniform Code
>of Military Justice (UCMJ) that made homosexuality illegal.  Sodomy
>was, but not homosexuality.  Of course the UCMJ that I read was the
>version that is distributed to all personnel.  I'm sure there is a
>longer version.

>In any case, if homosexuality is a court-martial offense, what are the
>penalties (and I'm talking about the "being homosexual" not the acts
>involved)?  If the only penalty is bad a conduct discharge (BCD) then
>all that means is if you are a homosexual in the U.S. military, then
>you can be fired.  === Al Sparks

The Washington Post did a story about the intensity of NIS efforts to
track down homosexual sailors and get them to admit homosexuality about
a month ago.  All of the former sailors interviewed for the story had 
received general discharges.  None of the former sailors interviewed
had admitted to having sex (with anyone) onboard a Navy ship, or during
duty hours.  The Navy has rules against sex on ships.  
-- 
------ Esther Lumsdon   employed by, not speaking for, Verdix Corporation
     It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
  esther@verdix.com  or  esther%verdix.com@uunet.uu.net   
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: darknite@camelot.bradley.edu (John S. Novak III)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: Bradley University
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:39:11 GMT

Ed Nilges writes:

>># >Using kill files IS a form of censorship.

>>I suppose, then, if I unsubscribe to this group, I go down in
>>history with Hannibal Lector? 

>Lack of perspective is not an argument.  The reduction to absurdity is
>within you.  Using kill files remains a form of (micro) censorship,
>which gives the lie to (undercuts) (deconstructs) (runs across the grain
>of) the loud adherence to "free speech" on the part of its "defenders."

There is no lack of perspective here.
There is, however, a lack of ability to think logically on your
part.  Not reading some articles is censorship, but not reading
any of them is fine?

I don't get it.

--
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than
Christianity has made them good."
		-- H. L. Mencken
John S. Novak, III		darknite@camelot.bradley.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 20:48:07 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Jul25.180444.14954@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>     *  It's "Nilges", not "Nigles"                 

	I spell it "pathetic".

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Lawsuit to compel a fraud to run for President!
From: jf@pacnet.wesleyan.edu (JOHN FINN)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:25:07 GMT
Organization: Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT USA

In article <1992Jul21.020754.10150@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes:

>Yes, I forgot about Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.  The federal courts (S.D. Fl.) would make 
>an example of the lawyer here.

One hopes so, at least!  Does anyone know what remedy the suit asks for?  I 
don't want to believe any lawyer would really ask for specific 
performance... but if so, that raises constitutional issues, I would think.


John E. Finn
Wesleyan University
Xref: sparky misc.legal:15053 soc.history:6751
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.history
Subject: Re: Free Blacks Protected By Southern Courts
Date: 29 Jul 92 05:44:44 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <11434@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>                       They were reluctant to specify how far those
> protections went, but did find that a whipping of a free black
> without jury trial was a violation of the Kentucky Constitution.
> The case is Ely v. Thompson, 3 A.K. Marshall (Ky.) 70 (1820).

Was whipping a legal punishment for white men at that time? === Al Sparks