HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: C08926RC@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu (Rob)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: RE: dealing with a police officer
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:51:54 GMT


#The latest trend in the Detroit area is thugs who dress up as cops and
#rob people.  My question is thus, what is a good way to question a cop
#as to his authenticity?

I believe this procedure would be valid:

Keep your door locked.  When the officer approaches, crack the window
and ask to see his police identification.

This advice was given by police in a local county after it became
known that they now have plainclothes officers in completely unmarked
cars pulling people over.  They also recommend that if you are unsure
if the car pulling you over is an officer's car, drive to the closest
area with a lot of people or a police station befire stopping.  This
does not, however, guarantee that you won't get an additional citation,
although most officers would understand.

Rob
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: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:23:57 GMT

In a previous article tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) spake...
>>because it is not a good idea to send cash through the mail. I would, however,
>>expect any company (credit card/gas/phone/etc.) to take cash If I paid at
>>their office in person.
>
>What if almost all customers of the company do not use cash?  As an extreme
>example, would you really expect to be able to walk into Boeing and pay
>cash for a 767?  So few of their customers pay cash (none, probably), that
>they probably do not have a procedure set up to deal with a large amount
>of cash.
>
Extreme, yes; but acceptable. Cars and real-estate have been purchased with
currency. It's unusual, but it does happen once in a while.
 
But here's one for all you people (no Perot pun intended) teetering on the
the word tender and saying that money is debt and can be refused, etc, etc, ad
nauseum: What is the 'lowest common denominator' form of money (btw, only the
treasury can print MONEY. Everything else is 'scrip' or 'tokens') that everyone
can accept and agree on (within the US)? Originally, it was gold and sivler
(in the raw, or made into coins), and notes backed up by gold and silver.
and redeemable for metal on demand (They did say this on the bills up to 1964).
The silver standard ended in 1964 and the gold std. in the mid 1800s (?)
Note that 1965 was the first year that coins ($.10, $.25, $.50, $1.00) were
made out of something other than pure silver- the "sandwich" coins. And
this, I believe, is the source of all the bickering on this thread. Neverthe-
less, these green bills we pass around, are they not mandated by law to be
an acceptable method of payment of any debt within the US regardless of what
actually backs up the paper (gold, silver, debt, goodwill, air, etc.). 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.
 
-- 
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>    |
From: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Subject: Re: Know the source of Liberty's quote, "tired,huddled masses"?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:42:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.190453.16688@linus.mitre.org> ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei) writes:
>In article <7kRLwB5w165w@netlink.cts.com> gregb@netlink.cts.com (Greg Beron) writes:
>>lion@netcom.com (carl loeber) writes:
>>> Anyone know where that phrase derived on the Statue of Liberty?
>>
>>It's part of a poem by Emma (?) Lazarus. 
>
>     The quote is from "The New Colossus", a poem by Emma Lazarus,
>which is an ode to the Statue of Liberty. It closes:
>
>     Give me your poor, your tired,
>     Your huddled masses yearning to breath free.
>     Send these, the tempest-tossed, to me:
>     I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door!
>
>     Liberty stands on a small island in New York Harbour. Nearby is
>the larger Ellis Island, for many years the main immigrant processing
>station for the United States. Millions of immigrants (including my
>grandfather) spent their first day on US soil in the Liberty's shadow.

For many years the statue was located on Bedloe's Island, until
David Coperfield relocated it to Liberty Island.  Roddy McDowell
later discovered it had sunk quite a bit :^)

(Bedloe's Island was later renamed Liberty Island.)

>>  The full text of the poem is on the tablet Lady Liberty is holding in
>> her left hand.
>
>     Nope. The statue is a gift from France. The poem was written
>years later (I doubt that Bartholdi had every heard of Emma Lazarus).
>The tablet bears a date: IV JULY MDCCLXXVI.

The poem celebrates the Statue of Liberty.  First was the statue,
later the poem.

>
>     The poem's text is on a brass plate attached to the pedestal of
>the statue. If you visit the museum of immigration which wraps around
>the base you can see it.

    Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
    With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
    Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
    Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
    Mother of Exiles.  From her beacon-hand
    Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
    The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
    "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
    With silent lips.  "Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me,
    I life my lamp beside the golden door!"
Emma Lazarus
The New Colossus


[ The "ancient lands" cite in the poem is a reference to Shelley's
  Ozymandias - a  different "colossus" statue fallen with old age
  and disuse: ]

     I met a traveler from an Ancient Land
     who said, Two vast and trunkless legs of stone stand in the
     desert ...   - Shelley
-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Xref: sparky misc.legal:21908 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1363
From: rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: why has statutory law been replacing common law?
Date: 31 Dec 92 21:11:32 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, California

In article <C045rp.64o@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
   Also, all charges of rape are statutory in both New York and New
   Jersey; neither state has common law crimes.

Not being an attorney, I can see no benefit in replacing common law with
statutory law.  Article VI, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution reads:

   "All ... engagements entered into, before the adoption of this
   Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under
   this Constitution, as under the Confederation."

Doesn't this mean that the Magna Carta still has force of law through
the 14th Amendment?

If yes, then does this have something to do with Erie Railroad Co. v.
Tompkins, 304 US 54 overturning Swift v. Tyson (1-8 Pet 1-8 (1842)?

Can someone please explain it to me?

--
Ronald Cole           +----------------------+  internet: rjc@unify.com
Software Engineer II  |    Lord/Genis '96    |  uucp:     uunet!unify!rjc
Unify Corporation     +----------------------+  voice:    +1 916 928 6238
          "THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: randolph@netcom.com (Randolph Fritz)
Subject: Wanted: employement or labor lawyer in south bay
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:24:17 GMT

If you know a good employment or labor lawyer in the south SF bay area, please 
send me a referral.

__Randolph Fritz, randolph@netcom.com
Xref: sparky misc.legal:21896 talk.politics.misc:65878 alt.president.clinton:1315
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 31 Dec 92 18:26:01 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Tom Leylan) writes:
|> 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.

I only referred to "administrations."
|> 
|> 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.

Obviously I thought that you would understand I was referring to how
they performed their job.  Apparently you missed the point.
|> 
|> Am I mistaken in recalling that the Kennedy administration admitted to
|> planning an assassination attempt on Castro ?

Ah.  You have discovered the whole point.  The Kennedy administration
admitted it.  The Reagan and Bush administrations are telling you
they didn't do it, and that you can't ask any questions, and if you
think they did it you are a no good anti-american, commie dupe.  Or
worse, a liberal.
|> 
|> I'm not asking you to kiss Bush's feet but raise your eyes and look
|> out over the horizon.

Bush has put a curtain up hiding the horizon.
---
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Diplomatic Immunity
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 12:44:56 GMT


In article <1h8dpvINN3sh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, 
wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher) said:

> Don't expect the Boob Tube to have things correct...
>
> There are several degrees of diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic
> officers differ from consular officers who differ from other staff
> members.
>
> You have immunity ONLY when your name and title are submitted to,
> AND ACCEPTED BY, the host government. Your government can waive your
> immunity (i.e. throw you to the wolves) if they feel like it.  The
> host government, lacking that, can declare you PNG and boot you out.

In defense of "Law and Order" -- the seven or eight episodes of which
I've seen since I started watching it were uniformly very good in
their handling of legal issues, imho -- I'll point out that they
probably _did_ have things correct.  In keeping with what Mr. Lesher
reported, above, the accused in that episode of L&O was indeed a
consular officer (from, um, Nigeria, I think) and the script made it
clear that what he had was "consular immunity," which did not protect
him from prosecution for certain grave offenses.

(I have no idea what went on the episode of "The Commish" that someone
referred to.  And, regarding somebody's reference to "the Danny Glover
method of revoking diplomatic immunity," I believe I can categorically
state that, legally speaking, absolutely nothing that happened in the
movie "Lethal Weapon 2" took place on the planet Earth. :-)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Forces of Darkness and Ee-vil
Summary: Give light, and the people shall see their own way.
Keywords: Mazda v. Harriman
Date: 24 Dec 92 15:47:00 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Dec23.181912.10127@midway.uchicago.edu> 
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>In article <19495@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) 
>writes:

>>the forces of Darkness (e.g., War, Feminism, Pestilence and Death).  
>>[Matt Rosenblatt]

>I hear Somalia's suffering from an outbreak of the Horsewoman of Feminism.
>[Ted Frank]                                             ^^^^^
 
That's, "horsePERSON."

Here I go bringing gender diversity to what was formerly an exclusively 
male equestrian club (Revelation 6), and instead of congratulations on 
an EEO accomplishment, I get scoffed at.

>Ted "how did 'Ivy' get classified with the Forces of Light?" Frank

Yale, Hebrew motto:  _Urim v'Thummim_ (lights and perfections)
Yale, Latin motto: _Lux et Veritas_ (light and truth)
Columbia, Latin motto: _In lumine Tuo videbemus lumen_ (by Thy 
                        radiance we see light; (Psalm 36:9, Vulgate))

. . . and there may be others from Princeton, Dartmouth, Cornell,
Penn and Brown with which I am unfamiliar.  However, once one leaves 
the Ivy League, moving only a short MTA ride away, one encounters 
stuff like:

MIT, English motto: If we should find a Harvard man within our sacred walls,
                    We'll take him to the Physics lab and cut away his . . ..


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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fired for bad email postings
Date: 22 Dec 92 03:16:42 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <H92VVB1w163w@peewee> peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer) writes:
>I was fired from my job earlier this year for making crass statements
>on alt.tasteless and alt.flame.
>

Well Phil, it wasn't only there, now was it? I have never read either
of those newsgroups, but I was nevertheless treated to your ranting
about how AIDS is just the greatest thing, because it is killing all
the gays, etc, etc. 

The mystery is how Sun ever hired you in the first place.
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Keywords: Guilty
Date: 22 Dec 92 15:50:22 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Dec18.171423.16798@leland.Stanford.EDU> 
dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:

>In article <19483@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) 
>writes:

>>If a man wants the kind of reproductive freedom that the ladies and
>>girls currently have, he should have been born a girl.  [Matt Rosenblatt]

>You often post this sort of thing Matt, and in some instances
>I even agree with you. But how far are you willing to take it?

>Let's invoke Godwin's Law here for a moment.

>If my relatives who were carted off to concentration camps in
>Hitler's Germany had come to you complaining about certain
>social policies of the German government, would you have
>replied "If a Jew wants the kind of freedom to come and go
>as he pleases that Christians currently have, he should have
>been born a Christian"?   [Dave Eisen]

What happened to the Jews in Hitler's Germany shouldn't happen
to *anyone*.  Would it have been any less wrong if Hitler's Nazis
had gone and rounded up people indiscriminately for imprisonment
and later murder in concentration camps?

On the other hand, if men are *supposed* to support the children
they conceive, there's nothing wrong with making them do so, even
if women can get out of it.  

>I agree with you that it is not the function of governmental
>policy to assuage the ENVY and RESENTMENT of everyone who loses
>under an existing social system.  But you seem to take this to
>the extreme that the fact that the losers under this system
>are acting out of ENVY and RESENTMENT automatically weakens
>their case. I can't imagine why anyone would think this.

There's gotta be a better reason for taking from A and giving to B
-- which is what redistributionist government policies do -- than
the mere fact that A has more than B and B therefore ENVIES and
RESENTS A.  If there is no better reason, we should let A alone
to keep what he has, and tell B to be content with what *he* has.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: why has statutory law been replacing common law?
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 08:22:54 GMT
Organization: The Devil's Advocate

In <RJC.92Dec31131132@devo.unify.com> rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes:


>   "All ... engagements entered into, before the adoption of this
>   Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under
>   this Constitution, as under the Confederation."

>Doesn't this mean that the Magna Carta still has force of law through
>the 14th Amendment?

Since the Magna Carta is a British constitutional document, it has
absolutely nothing to do with "engagements ... valid against the
United States."  This clause obviously refers to treaties and
contracts which were entered into under the Articles of Confederation.

And from where did you pull in the 14th amendement?


>If yes, then does this have something to do with Erie Railroad Co. v.
>Tompkins, 304 US 54 overturning Swift v. Tyson (1-8 Pet 1-8 (1842)?

*Erie* declared that there was no federal common law (at least as to
diversity jurisdiction cases), and that common law suits in federal
court were to be tried under state common law principles for the state
in which the federal court sits.

*Swift* had earlier held that suits in federal court were to be tried
under federal common law.  The *Eire* court recognized that the
*Swift* doctrine created inconsistent verdicts based solely on the
happenstance of whether the parties to the suit had diverse state
citizenship or not.

>Can someone please explain it to me?

What this has to do with the Magna Carta or the clause you cited is
beyond me.




>--
>Ronald Cole           +----------------------+  internet: rjc@unify.com
>Software Engineer II  |    Lord/Genis '96    |  uucp:     uunet!unify!rjc
>Unify Corporation     +----------------------+  voice:    +1 916 928 6238
>          "THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"
-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
From: djg@phoenix.genrad.com (Deborah J. Graham)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,sci.med,rec.arts.tv.soaps
Subject: Question of Legality
Followup-To: poster
Date: 29 Dec 1992 13:33:51 -0500
Organization: GenRad, Inc.
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: phoenix.genrad.com

I have a question. I hope someone can help me.

On a soap recently (please don't get into a discussion on the merits
of soap watching), a doctor gave a person a drug to calm her down. The
background is that her husband is gaslighting her and she is sure her
dead husband is alive. Now, everyone thinks she is crazy. Her current
husband has an actor call and talk to her to convince her that her
dead husband is alive. This has been going on for awhile, and now she
is sure her current husband will kill her and her kids if he finds out
that she suspect he had anything to do with her dead husband's death.

Her husband told people that he is worried about her, and feels he may
commit suicide, she's so depressed. At a party, he told people that he
was takling her and the kids to a remote ski area. She freeked. She
pulled out a steak knife and warned him that he was not taking her
anywhere. She ran upstairs. later, a doctor (called by the husband)
came and when the doctor went to the patient, she was hysterical and
ranting and raving. She did not want to be calmed down, and she
specifically said she did not want drugs. The husband told the doctor
to give his wife the drug to calm her dowm.

The doctor gave her the drugs.

I was wondering if this is legal.

I know - It's Only A Soap...but I have had a discussion about this and
I was wondering if this could happen in real life. I know EMTs cannot
give medication if the patient declines or unless they are unconscious
(I learned this from Emergency! so it may not be true).

Please remember that this is posted in three newsgroups...I'm sure the 
nice people in sci.med don't want to hear about other soaps this has
happened in.

Thanks for your help.

deb
(djg@genrad.com)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Keywords: Guilty
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 07:33:54 GMT

In article <19491@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.171423.16798@leland.Stanford.EDU> 
>dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
>
>>In article <19483@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) 
>>writes:
>
>>>If a man wants the kind of reproductive freedom that the ladies and
>>>girls currently have, he should have been born a girl.  [Matt Rosenblatt]
>
>>You often post this sort of thing Matt, and in some instances
>>I even agree with you. But how far are you willing to take it?
>
>>Let's invoke Godwin's Law here for a moment.
>
>>If my relatives who were carted off to concentration camps in
>>Hitler's Germany had come to you complaining about certain
>>social policies of the German government, would you have
>>replied "If a Jew wants the kind of freedom to come and go
>>as he pleases that Christians currently have, he should have
>>been born a Christian"?   [Dave Eisen]
>
>What happened to the Jews in Hitler's Germany shouldn't happen
>to *anyone*.  Would it have been any less wrong if Hitler's Nazis
>had gone and rounded up people indiscriminately for imprisonment
>and later murder in concentration camps?
>
>On the other hand, if men are *supposed* to support the children
>they conceive, there's nothing wrong with making them do so, even
>if women can get out of it.  

Okay, so you admit that all this "ENVY and RESENTMENT" bullshit neither
adds to nor subtracts from the justification for paternity child support,
and what really matters is whether the way it works now is the way it's 
"supposed" [sic] to work, according to some no doubt marvellously quaint
Natural Law line of reasoning, right?

>>I agree with you that it is not the function of governmental
>>policy to assuage the ENVY and RESENTMENT of everyone who loses
>>under an existing social system.  But you seem to take this to
>>the extreme that the fact that the losers under this system
>>are acting out of ENVY and RESENTMENT automatically weakens
>>their case. I can't imagine why anyone would think this.
>
>There's gotta be a better reason for taking from A and giving to B
>-- which is what redistributionist government policies do -- than
>the mere fact that A has more than B and B therefore ENVIES and
>RESENTS A.  If there is no better reason, we should let A alone
>to keep what he has, and tell B to be content with what *he* has.

Sounds good to me. How do you justify the current redistributionist
government policies implicit in paternity child support? What underpins
the current system besides the "ENVY and RESENTMENT" [sic] by women of 
men, because the maternal instinct is, according to the Conventional Wisdom,
stronger and less controllable than the paternal instinct, or their "ENVY
and RESENTMENT" [sic] of men's statistically-higher rates of income (a
disparity I assume you would defend as part of "Male Privilege" [sic])?

(Heh. Oughta be fun watching Rosenblatt dance around this one.)

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: misc.legal