HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Tort Reform (was: Number of Lawyers)
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:56:29 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Sep2.193125.17215@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, dsc@gemini.tmc.edu 
(Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:
> In article <16uq02SN20=301@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com 
> (Terry Carroll) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug31.175134.23190@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, 
dsc@gemini.tmc.edu 
> >(Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:
> >> How about having punative damages acrue to the state, rather than to the 
> >> plaintiff?  The successful plaintiff would still receive compensatory 
> >damages, 
> >> and thus would not be deprived of anything they have a clear right to, 
but,
> >> much of the motivation for seeking punative damages would be lost.
> >
> >Then no plaintiffs would seek punitive damages.  If that's the goal, why 
not 
> >just eliminate punitive damages?
> >
> 
> The pupose behind punative damages would seem to be, from the name alone,
> to be punishment.  A aggrieved party could concievably still justify seeking
> to punish a defendent as a means of dissuading them from repeating the tort.
> Especially, in a class action suit.

They conceivably could.  But what's in it for them?  Why would they, aside 
from pure vindictiveness?  Remember, proving the elements necessary to 
justify punitive damages isn't free.  It costs time in lawyers' fees (in- and 
outof-court work), as well as the costs associated with the investigations to 
support the sought-after award.  If I was the plaintiff, I wouldn't sink 
additional money into the case so the gov't might get some money.  It's a 
lose-lose proposition.

Unless, of course, the real goal is to eliminate punies (which has, from time 
to time, been suggested).  But if that's the goal, that's the way the merits 
and lack of merits should be addressed.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16702 alt.dads-rights:2151 soc.men:15707
From: woody@wolves.uucp (Woody Muller)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.dads-rights,soc.men
Subject: Re: NO SUBJECT (1)
Date: 30 Aug 92 14:50:55 GMT
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
X-Md4-Signature: 5abbedc93ab0a92cc685f81f19fc0149

In <1992Aug29.032604.28702@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:

>James, from what I know, a simple blood test will only detect inconsistencies
>in blood types between father, mother, and child (I *think* that the mother's
>blood *is* needed ... Can SOMEONE please confirm whether this is correct or
>not - Very Important), and therefore can only tell you whether you are *not*
>the father.

Yes, a blood test requires samples from father, mother, and child.  The
Paternity Evaluation Report I just pulled from my records (from early 1990)
columnates about 10 separate tests and assigns a probability factor
they call a "paternity index."  They multiply the 9 or 10 probabilities
into an "aggregate paternity index."

================ [document text portions]
                         Alleged  Paternity
System   Mother   Child  Father    Index
______   _______  _____  _______  _________
ABO         B       O       A      0.63
Rh        dce      DCce    DCce    1.16
MNNs      MNs      MNs      Ms     1.45
Kell     
Duffy        etc      etc        etc
Kidd
PGMl          etc   etc  etc  etc  8.93
ACP
HLA-A
HLA-B                              116.3
________________________________________
                                   Aggregate = 1461:1

CONCLUSIONS:
"The alleged father, [me], cannot be excluded as the biological father
of [Peter].  Based on the above genetic testing results, the probability
of paternity is 99.93%, as compared to an untested random man of the
North American Caucasian population.  (Prior Probability = .5)"

==================[end report extract]
-- 
woody@wolves.durham.nc.us
"Nothing in human affairs is worth any great anxiety."  -Plato
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 03:36:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.145527.2582@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>Malcolm became a socialist before his death; it was this that cured his
>"racism" (I prefer the quotes since antiwhite "racism" is a different
>thing from racism, which whites invented.)
>
>Anyhow, the fact that one of the most extreme spokesmen for the "racist"
>black view had this change of heart speaks for the notion of racism as
>white "thang."

George Wallace ceased being a racist, too.  The fact that one of the
most extreme spokesmen for the racist white view had this change of
heart speaks for the notion of racism as not a white "thang".  Maybe
it's all just a figment of Ed Nilges' imagination?

>  Is it not white people, from Indianapolis to Munich, who
>are reviving racism in the form of a KKK and German Nazi renaissance?

Unlike, say, Farrakhan, who is reviving racism in some other form.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Discrimination in employment on the basis of political belief
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 14:58:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.060235.28914@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>>I would be quite surprised if one can be fired because of their political
>>orientation legally without further cause.
>[...]
>
>It depends on your state and your circumstances. If you live in
>Louisiana and work for an employer with more than 20 employees, you
>are protected. Likewise, if you work for the government your are
>protected (although the Hatch Act can restrict your political
>activities).
>
>By default in the U.S., however, you are employed at will, this means
>that you can be fired for almost any reason or for no reason. Some
>states have changed this default. (Montana was the first in 1987.)
>Alternatively, you may have an employment contract that supersedes the
>default.

Additional pertinent comments by Carl K. deleted for brevity.....

In terms of firing for political affiliation, watch the host of
personnel changes that happens every time there is a political party
change of the higher elected officials in all levels of government.
When Jim Florio (democrat) replaced former Republican governor of NJ 
Tom Kean, he wiped the slate clean in many areas and then
appointed his own people.  True, many of the former governor's 
appointed people submitted resignations that aided the process,
but not all of them did and those that Florio didn't want any
more were sacked and usually replaced with an individual
that was a democrat.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:27:15 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug27.213055.17263@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
>
>Who is this "we"?  Does it comprise of any minority or woman?  Ofcourse not.
>I guess the old white boy network is always and unconditionally united!  And 
>correct of course! (Just in case, the last sentence was sarcastic!)

Sheheryar, a scan of names shows, unfortunately, that the net is
composed of a preponderance of white, Northern European males.  This
fact is innocuous in and of itself since it reflects the historical
provenance of the net.

What is NOT innocuous is what happens to people with names that are not
of Northern European or American origin and to many women on the net.
Of these people express an opinion outside the basket of commonly
received opinions, they attract a lot of flamage.

For example, a white, northern European man who happened to have the
name "Dave Peru" was attacked viciously on the basis of his surname in
private email communications after he expressed some opinions in a
philosophy conference that appeared to some posters to be naive but
which actually had much to do with philosophy.  I also recall the shabby
treatment meted out to Mark Ethan Smith and Cheryl Stewart by some self
appointed net.gods a few years back.  My take is that Mark was a woman
who wanted a male name on the net in order to get some respect for her
opinions, and Ms. Stewart happened to express some feminist convictions
outside of soc.feminism, a sort of "walled city" in which feminists
enjoy the freedom and protection afforded by a moderator (further
displayiong the need for moderated groups, by the way).

Although the name Nilges is uncommon and some posters may think it's
Hispanic (a business card printer once mistook my name as Hispanic and
printed thousands of cards for "Edwardo Nilges"), I am a white, northern
European male who's ashamed of the behavior of my tribe.  The key to
attracting flamage is expressing non-mainstream views AND having an
obviously non-Northern European or female name (it appears that if you
have such a name and express mainstream views, like Charlene
Bungiovianna Stoner, you will be welcomed as a valuable ally).

Jewish names are "Northern European" in this context; having a Jewish
name does not attract flamage.  This is good; but I am convinced that
had the network been invented prior to World War II, such names would
have attracted flamage in exactly the same way your name attracted
flamage, for as Edward Said points out, hip anti-Semitism is anti-Arab
rather than anti-Jewish.

Keep posting.  I welcome hearing from you.
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: HP managers read my private e-mail!
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:55:04 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <9208271342.AA09486@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com>, 
GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu writes:
>       The title says it all.

NOt quite; are you an HP employee, and athey're reading the mail addressed to 
you on their system, or messahes being passed through their system to you?  
Have they told you that's policy, or are they doing so surrepticiously?

>       What should I do?
>       What can I do?

This is a grey area right now, not yet fully explored by the courts, but 
assuming your company is reading your email and warned you that you have no 
expectation of privacy, I think that there is little you can do.

Carl Kadie might be able to provide some references to material dealing with 
this topic.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: doug@isuee1.ee.iastate.edu (Doug Jacobson)
Subject: Law suit, software licnese
Summary: I need help
Keywords: law suit
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 20:18:55 GMT


I'm Not sure sure if this is the right place to ask this question so please
don't flame me.  I'm a board member of a NON-Profit childcare center.  A
suit was filed in small claims court against the center for about $1700.
The suit was filed because a former employee stole some copyrighted software
that was developed by a local software developer.  The person who wrote the
software want's to be pay to remove the stolen software from the former
employees computer.  I'm looking for any legal ruling regarding the liability
of a corporation to police the copyright laws of the software that it has
purchased.

Please email any suggestions or legal references to me directly.  Since
the childcare is non-profit and the board is all volenteer we do not have a lot
of time or money to research this issue.  Thanks in advance for your help.

Doug Jacobson
Assoc Professor
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011
(515) 294-8307

doug@isuee1.ee.iastate.edu
From: zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff Lane)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: HP managers read my private e-mail
Date: 28 Aug 92 08:24:42 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre, Manchester, England, M13 9PL.

In article <9208271904.AA24654@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>      My e-mail was dragged up into my exit interview in an attempt
>   to discredit my work as an HP employee.  I had previously given
>   my notice and had every belief that I was ending my time with HP
>   on a good note.
>
>      Printouts of this e-mail had been entered into my personnel file,
>   but upon requesting copies for myself, suddenly they are GONE.
>   Upon pressing the issue, I obtained copies of my e-mail from
>   what I can only assume was my personnel "drop" file.




If HP managers have the *time* to wade through all the email then the
division and possibly the company is not long for this world! 










-- 
Geoff. Lane.                                  Janet: zzassgl@uk.ac.mcc.uts
UTS Sys Admin, Manchester Computing Centre, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9PL
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: J.Newman@qmcc.curtin.edu.au (John Newman)
Subject: Re: Software "stealing" was Law suit
Keywords: Piracy
Organization: Computing Centre, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:17:47 GMT

In article <doug.714676026@isuee1> writes:
>Subject: Law suit
>Keywords: software stealing
>Date: 24 Aug 92 17:07:06 GMT

>-- The suit was filed because a former employee stole some copyrighted
>software....                                     ^^^^^

This may not be relevant in the US, but be careful about calling
anyone a software thief or pirate. (Particularly in correspondance.)
Here in Australia, one of the Supreme courts has ruled that this
is defamatory.
A friend of mine called one of his employees a software thief
and was promptly sued for defamation. He lost. This eventually
cost him about $50,000.
(BTW The employee HAD infringed copyright, but the judge considered
this to be irrelevant as nothing physical had been stolen.)


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 
\  John Newman                Internet: J.Newman@qmcc.curtin.edu.au      /
/  Computing Centre,                                                     \
\  Curtin University,        "There is less to this than meets the eye." /                         
/  Perth,  Western Australia          - Tallulah Bankhead                \
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: HP managers read my private e-mail!
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:07:04 GMT


The legality may depend on the state. California's constitution, for
example, may protect rights that the federal constitution does not.
There were a couple of lawsuits, but I don't know if they are
resolved.

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
law/email.bib
=================
I have been having an e-mail conversation with Stacy Veeder for several 
days on the topic of e-mail privacy. She mailed me this bibliography
which she has compiled for two papers which she is currently writing.

I post it here with permission.

PS - She is interested in talking with anyone who has some views on the 
topic/information to share.

Mark N.

=================
law/privacy.email
=================
"Computer Electronic Mail and Privacy", an edited version of a law
school seminar paper by Ruel T. Hernadex

=================
law/privacy.workplace
=================
Comments from and about _The new hazards of the high technology
workplace_ see (1991) 104 _Harvard Law Review_ 1898. Talks about email
and other electronic monitoring.

=================
civil-liberty/campaign-92.aclu
=================
The American Civil Liberties Union's planks for its "Campaign for the
Bill of Rights '92". The planks are 1) a national campaign against
bigotry and racism, 2) constitutional protection for a woman's right
to choose, 3) a realistic approach to crime and punishment, 4) a Bill
of Rights for all working people.

=================
=================

These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/law/email.bib
  pub/academic/law/privacy.email
  pub/academic/law/privacy.workplace
  pub/academic/civil-liberty/campaign-92.aclu

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/law email.bib
send acad-freedom/law privacy.email
send acad-freedom/law privacy.workplace
send acad-freedom/civil-liberty campaign-92.aclu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: ca566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Holloway)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: HELP! Judge scared of computers?
Date: 1 Sep 1992 22:31:55 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ca566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Holloway)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc8.ins.cwru.edu


Does anyone know if something called a Bill of Particulars can be used in
small claims court?  Can a motion be filed in small claims court?  Does
anyone know how it works in New York State.  My information is that there
areno bills of particulars or motions to be made in small claims.

I'm trying to recover my money from the seller of a nonfunctional
mother board who isn't going to honor the terms of his warranty.  The
defendant brought a
lawyer to court with him (I'm a graduate student, can't afford one).  When
the case was called the lawyer quickly gets up there first, tells the judge
that the case involves computers and is very complex and that it should be
put in
civil court.  Then the judge and the lawyer had a little discussion that
resulted in the case being set back a month and the judge telling me that I
have to compile with the lawyer's bill of particulars.  At no time am I
allowed to even begin to argue my case.  I did not agree to any of the
decisions.

This bill is a LONG list of frivi
either can not, or will not compile with, even if I felt it necessary to
respond to it at all.  Some of the demands are obvious attempts to confuse
the issue further and make the case even more "complicated" (such as "What
virus detection software did you have running?" and "What bulletin board
systems do
you have access to?").  The case is really
just a very simple nonfunctional product/breach of warranty situation.  The
lawyer seems to have been very successful at scaring the judge away by
uttering the word "computer".

Any help is greatly needed.

Thanks
Mike
-- 
E-mail: mhollowa@ccmail.sunysb.edu (mail to freenet is forwarded)
phone:  (516)444-3612
I would claim to speak for my university but no one is likely to
believe it.
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
Subject:      HP managers read my private e-mail!
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 07:40:58 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA23921; Thu, 27 Aug 92 06:43:09 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA09486; Thu, 27 Aug 92 06:42:16 -0700
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 9448; Thu, 27 Aug 92 07:41:50 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 4343; Thu, 27 Aug 92 07:41:50 MST
X-To: misc.legal.computing.usenet


      The title says it all.

      What should I do?
      What can I do?
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne)
Subject:      HP managers read my private e-mail
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 12:53:43 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA21627; Thu, 27 Aug 92 12:05:31 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA24654; Thu, 27 Aug 92 12:04:07 -0700
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 9609; Thu, 27 Aug 92 13:03:40 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 5715; Thu, 27 Aug 92 13:03:39 MST
X-To: misc.legal.computing.usenet


      I *was* an HP employee.

      I was never given warning of not having any privacy.

      I had previously requested an e-mail account, SPECIFICALLY
   to communicate outside of HP, i.e. over the Internet, which
   I received in November 1991.

      In fact, I have documentation which implies I felt a
   " reasonable assumption of privacy " in that I was alternating
   use between my own personal account, and generic test accounts I
   also had access to.

      E-mail to my personal account was private, between my
   girlfriend and I, and 3 other non-HP people.

      My e-mail was dragged up into my exit interview in an attempt
   to discredit my work as an HP employee.  I had previously given
   my notice and had every belief that I was ending my time with HP
   on a good note.

      Printouts of this e-mail had been entered into my personnel file,
   but upon requesting copies for myself, suddenly they are GONE.
   Upon pressing the issue, I obtained copies of my e-mail from
   what I can only assume was my personnel "drop" file.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.consumers
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Subject: Re: Endorsing checks for deposit via ink stamp?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:42:25 GMT


In article <43972@zygot.ati.com> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.182113.20031@Happy-Man.com> Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com writes:
>
>>In any case, my bank's written policies require that the
>>check be *endorsed* rather than *signed*, so I would
>>expect a proper stamp is technically acceptable.  They
>>never complained when I used one in the past.
>
>Interesting. I have yet to make a mark of any kind on the back of any
>of the checks that I receive for my consulting work. For the past
>twenty years or so, I have simply deposited the checks without stamping
>or signing. The bank stamps, "Deposited to the above account--absence
>of endorsement guaranteed" on the back. No check has ever been
>returned.

Interesting. At my bank, they INSISTED that I sign the back of a check
that I had written for cash. I've had accounts at other banks in the
past, and never had to endorse a check made out to CASH. Clearly,
required endorsements vary from institution to institution.

Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs