HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gottloeb@gumby.dsd.TRW.COM (Jeffrey R. Gottloeb)
Subject: Re: Bankruptcy and divorce in California
Organization: TRW Space & Defense
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:13:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.182011.26562@cello.hpl.hp.com>, renglish@cello.hpl.hp.com (Bob English) writes:
|> Suppose a couple were deeply and debt with a failing marriage, and after
|> separation and filing for divorce, one of the members of the couple
|> files for bankruptcy.  Is the other member liable for the entire debt?
|> 
|> --bob--
|> To the best of my knowledge, H & P are neither getting divorces nor
|> declaring bankruptcy, so I can't see how they might care...

It depends on how the debts were acquired.
If both signed the contract, the answer is yes if the contract
said that each is jointly, and severally (sp?) liable (ie. both are
individually liable for the entire debt).  Most contracts have this clause for
this reason.

If only one signed,  the answer may be yes if they live in a community
property state.  Check with a lawyer.

Disclaimer:  This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.  Check what you
signed and the opinion of a lawyer.


Jeff Gottloeb
gottloeb@gumby.dsd.trw.com
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: The UK System - Fees Recovery - Was Punitive Damages
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:02:27 GMT
Organization: The Devil's Advocate

In <1992Dec10.154252.1@vaxa.strath.ac.uk> cigs13@vaxa.strath.ac.uk writes:


>******************* MY REPLY FOLLOWS TEXT *********************************

>In article <1992Dec3.024003.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
>>> If they don't go to the plaintiff (or the plaintiff's lawyer) why would they
>>> sue for them?
>>
>>That parenthetical comment is quite interesting.  I thought I heard of
>>punitive damage trials where the plaintiff won $1 ($3 if antitrust suit)
>>but the plaintiff's lawyer got tens of thousands of dollars.  What's
>>going on here?  Fact or UL?

>Possible fact.  There are some statutes in recent years (civil rights ones, 
>most notably; also, suits against the government), where
>the "prevailing party" is allowed to collect lawyers' fees from the losing
>party (a.k.a. the "British system").  A jury could decide that the
>plaintiff wins the suit (forcing the defendant to drop the practice, etc.),
>but gets only nominal damages (the $1).  I believe the jurisprudence
>on this issue is that the plaintiff who wins the $1 is the prevailing
>party, then, and is entitled to a "reasonable" lawyer's fee.

There's a case that just appeared in opinions.supreme-court today (I
forgot the name, its from Texas) which held that the reasonable
attorney's fee for a particular $1 judgment was zero.

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
From: THOMASG@epx.cis.umn.edu (Thomas D. Gasser)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Adverse Possession
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:26:18 GMT
Organization: Department of Neurosurgery, University of Minnesota

Hello All,

I have run into an issue with my city government.  I own a home next to the 
old city hall in a small Minnesota town.  The City hall was built in 1904, 
my home in 1913 and my one car garage in about 1945.  In the early 40's a 
water tower was also built on the City hall site behind the hall.  

A new water tower was built last summer and it was discovered that to 
use my driveway or enter my garage I need to drive on city property. This 
was news to both myself and the city government who assumed the the property 
line was about 10 feet the other way.  

The city is planning to build a fence on the property line.  This of coarse 
would deprive me on use of both my driveway and garage.  Do I have any 
recoarse though adverse property laws?  Where is the best place to find out 
what the laws are in this case.  The value of the garage is such that it is 
not worth bringing an lawyer in on the problem.

Thanks.



    *********************************************************************
    *  Thomas D. Gasser                                                 *
    *  Department of Neurosurgery                *******     ******     *
    *  University of Minnesota                    ***  *** *** ***      *
    *  (612) 624-4427                             ***   *****  ***      *
    *  E-Mail:  THOMASG@STAFF.TC.UMN.EDU         *****        *****     *
    *                                                                   *
    *********************************************************************
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: al@gtx.uucp (Alan Filipski)
Subject: parol evidence (was: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?)
Organization: GTX Corporation, Phoenix AZ
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:44:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.163402.7080@panix.com>, lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) 
writes:
> Like any other contract,  you must refer to the
> plain language of the contract [you know, the parol evidence rule], to
> determine what it means. 

Can someone explain this in more detail or give a reference?  what is
"parol evidence"? (I missed a part of this thread, so i apologize if
this has been answered, but I am very interested in knowing more about
this.)


  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 ( Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 8836 N. 23rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA )
 ( INTERNET: al@gtx.com      UUCP: uunet!gtx!al         PHONE: (602)870-1696 )
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Privacy Act?
From: RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg)
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:09:13 EDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Philosophy Dept., Wesleyan University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20Lines: 23

I vaguely remember learning (in the mid-70's) something about a Federal Privacy
Act, which guaranteed a person access to files about himself or herself. 
Unfortunately, my aging brain does not quite recall what I learned about it. 
Does anyone know what I'm talking about?  Is it still in effect?  Does it apply
only to files maintained by governmental agencies, or does it apply to files
maintained by private organizations as well?  

I vaguely remember this from a mid-70's college computer science class, in
which we talked about legal and ethical issues in maintaining a database. One
of the assignments was to go and get a copy of information kept somewhere in a
database about oneself, & I remember lots of students getting military records
(right post-vietnam war era; many students were veterans) or getting police
records or credit-agency reports or even FBI files (esp. anti-war activists). 
Some students got their high school records.

The reason I'm wondering at this particular moment is that I'm wondering if I
have any right to access to the Insurance Co.s' big database which they all
share.  I think it may contain some inaccurate information about me and I would
like to find out if it does.

------------------------
Ruth Ginzberg <rginzberg@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.bio,alt.activism,rec.backcountry
From: HF.SXM@forsythe.stanford.edu (Sara MacGilvra)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: California Police Procedure
Date: 14 Dec 1992 11:06:10 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

Question re: California Police Procedure


When pulling over a vehicle for a moving violation is the officer
required to give any explanation  *before* writing up
the ticket?  Or can they take the license and reg, check them out,
run the plates thru the computer, fill out the ticket and then say
" you did x".  Hand you the ticket and leave.


Any vehicle code references would be appreciated.

Thanks

Sara

Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,chi.general
From: ndallen@r-node.gts.org (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Simon, Braun News Conference Friday to Announce New Rules for Filling Illinois Judicial Vacancies
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 08:07:17 GMT

Here is a press release from Senator Paul Simon.

 Simon, Braun News Conference Friday to Announce New Rules for
Filling Illinois Judicial Vacancies
 To: City and Assignment desks
 Contact: David Carle of the Office of Sen. Paul Simon, 312-353-4952

   News Advisory:

   U.S. Sen. Paul Simon has set a Friday, Dec. 18, news conference in
Chicago to announce significant changes in the selection of
candidates for federal judge, U.S. attorney and U.S. marshal in
Illinois as he assumes that role from U.S. House Minority Leader Bob
Michel.
   The press conference will be held Friday, Dec. 18, at 10 a.m. CST
in the Ceremonial Courtroom, Room 2525 (25th floor), Dirksen Federal
Building, 219 S. Dearborn, in Chicago.
 -30-
-- 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Computer Software for Law Students
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:50:16 GMT

RJB@jhuvm.hcf.jhu.edu (Rodney Baker) writes:
>I am looking for a last minute x-mas gift for my wife who is in her
>1st year of law school.  Does anyone know of a store where I might
>find some software for our 386 MS-DOS machine that could help her
>throughout her school career?

Buy here some games.

I'm serious.  Espically around exam time, it is very nice to be able to
take short breaks from the law.  The second best study aid I bought this
year was a Super Nintendo set and ten games.  (First best was Prosser
and Keeton on Torts).

--Tim Smith
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
Summary: Most Gentlemen Don't Like Love
Keywords: "Leave It to Me"
Date: 14 Dec 92 14:01:50 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Dec12.034910.4543@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org 
(Will Steeves) writes:

>matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes...

>MR> I don't have to imply anything.  I'll come right out and insult the
>MR> "Pro-Male-Choice" posters and say that they don't care about any unwanted
>MR> children they may conceive, nor about anything else except being able
>MR> to enjoy sex without having to worry about the consquences.

Thanks to Will Steeves for reprinting one of my old articles.  That 
gives me a chance to slam the "Pro-Male-Choice" posters once more. 
But this time I'll do it as the great Sophie Tucker did it 55 years ago 
in Cole Porter's musical, "Leave It to Me."  Because the kind of 
reasoning that seeks to let men "copulate and run" away from their 
responsibilities -- that kind of behavior simply gives all men 
an undeserved bad name:

  "Most gentlemen don't like love, they just like to kick it around,
   Most gentlemen don't like love, 'cause most gentlemen can't be profound.
   So just remember when you get that glance,
   A romp and a quickie
   Is all little Dickie
   Means
   When he mentions romance.
   For most gentlemen don't like love, they just like to kick it around.

  "Most gentlemen don't like love, they just like to kick it around,
   Most gentlemen don't like love, 'cause most gentlemen can't be profound.
   In ev'ry land, children, they're all the same,
   A pounce in the clover
   And then when it's over,
   'So long and what is your name?'
   'Cause most gentlemen don't like love, they just like to kick it around."

And if Sophie Tucker could see the "Pre-Sex Contract," I have no doubt
her advice would not be all that different from Debbie Brown's:

  "Most gentlemen don't like love, they just like to kick it around,
   Most gentlemen don't like love, 'cause most gentlemen can't be profound.
   So if your boy friend, some fine night, should say
   He'll love you forever
   And part from you never,
   Just push him out of the hay,
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   'Cause most gentlemen don't like love, they just like to kick it around."

They didn't call her "the last of the red-hot mamas" for nothing.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Second Amendment Arguement
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:35:59 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <92337.154511CB27POLW@MIAMIU.BITNET>, CB27POLW@MIAMIU.BITNET (COLBY BECK) writes:
# The Second Amendment to the Constitution says, "A  well regulated  Militia,
# being  necessary to the security  of a free State,  the  right  of  the
# people to keep and  bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
# 
# Article I sec. 8  of the Constitution says that Congress will, "...provide
# for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the  Militia...reserving to the
# States respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of
# training  the Militia according  to the discipline prescribed  by Congress;"
# 
# Now, the NRA and other pro-gun lobbies argue that the Second Amendment is
# clear cut and the final word on this subject.   However, it is clear that
# the Framers didn't believe this because the Second Amendment didn't and
# doesn't supercede the provisions in Article I sec. 8.  I have checked
# several copies of the Constitution which I  have, as well other sources and
# none even hint that the Second Amendment serves to nullify the provisions
# in Article I sec. 8.

Not nullify, but to limit the authority such that Congress could not
disarm the militia.

# It is logical to follow that since the Framers of the Amendment used the
# words "well regulated Militia" they meant for the Congress to exercise
# control over the Militia and the organization of the Militia.  Further,
# the Congress can prescribe the regulations for the Militia and its
# operation.  Now it is logical to make the assumption that since the
# Congress can regulate the Militia, and the Second Amendment speaks
# specifically to a "well regulated Militia" (Manned by the people), Congress
# can put limits on the access to weapons under Article I sec. 8.  Since

You mean, their authority to regulate the militia gives them the 
authority to prohibit the people from owning guns.  Why then, was
the Second Amendment passed, since it specifically limits the
power of the government to prohibit gun ownership?  It was because 
of fear that people with your reasoning might prevail, that the
Second Amendment was passed.

# Article  I sec. 8 gives Congress  the power to arm the  Militia, Congress
# could then enact strict gun-control legislation and only allow weapons
# which would be used only during Militia training.
# 
# Colby Beck

That would infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear
arms.  Not constitutional.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bmiller@lunatix.uucp (Barry Miller)
Subject: Re:  Good Legal Writing 
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix. -KY- (606) 255-9121
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:56:45 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Legal writing has taken such a bashing in misc.legal lately, I
thought I'd cite an opinion I actually ENJOYED reading:
Thiebault v. Square D Company, 960 F.2d 239 (1st Cir. 1992).  The
writing judge was Selya -- no first name given; I don't know if
the judge is a man or a woman so if I lapse into calling him a
"he," but he's really a she, don't take it personally.

The judge really got my attention with this:

"Appellant's lament that summary judgment was premature because
he was not afforded sufficient time is idle.  Admittedly, lawyers
sop up time like a sponge soaks up water.  There is, however, a
difference; that is the purpose of the sponge."

Id. 242.

This is the first time I have read Judge Selya.  Is anyone out
there more familiar with this judge?  Are all of his opinions as
enjoyable to read?  Any in particular you would recommend?

And while we're on the subject, any favorite legal quotations of
your own?

--Barry
:1
From: smorrow@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Steve Morrow)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:39:02 GMT
Subject: Misdemeanor forever on record?
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)
Newsgroups: misc.legal

Does anyone know how long a misdemeanor conviction remains on ones record, if
no other crime had been committed thereafter (let's say 15 years)?  Or does
it remain forever on some databank?  This would be in California.  Thanks.
From: muzzle@cs.uq.oz.au (Murray Chapman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: WANTED: Legal mumbo-jumbo
Date: 17 Dec 92 06:06:36 GMT
Reply-To: muzzle@cs.uq.oz.au

Hi there

Does anyone out there have any legal mumbo-jumbo that they can send me?

I specifically require documents detailing terms and conditions, eg

"By opening this package, the user acknowledges the following:

[huge list]"

Well, I'm after [huge list].  The more obsfucated, the better.

Thanks,
Murray
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
  Murray Chapman                           muzzle@cs.uq.oz.au
  University of Queensland                 How many lightbulb jokes does it
  Brisbane, Australia                      take to change the subject?
From: peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Fired for bad email postings
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 10:51:28 PST
Distribution: world
Organization: Friends of Lenny Bruce

I was fired from my job earlier this year for making crass statements
on alt.tasteless and alt.flame.

Now I'm suing my ex-company for wrongful termination.

I was summoned by them to take a deposition yesterday, and I showed
up with my father (a retired attorney) at my side.  The other side's
lawyer has an absolute conniption, cancelled the deposition, and said
that he'd seek a protective order barring my father from attending.

Does anyone know how easy these protective orders are to get, and to
what extent they actually bar the party?  I mean, could my father still
wait outside in the lobby, in case I needed to talk to him about an
issue?

I'm filing my case in Pro. Per. (without a lawyer), which is why the
other side's attorney had his conniption.  It was actually quite
amusing to me, but I don't know doodly squat about the legal system,
except that using common sense will lead you into trouble.  :)

Please post replies to misc.legal, as this is an interesting case,
and I'd like to get as many opinions as I can, especially from
people familiar with Usenet and the law.

Philip Stromer (peewee@infoserv.com)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: Good Legal Writing
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:24:15 GMT
Organization: The Devil's Advocate

In <1992Dec18.212823.10185@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes:

>No, not all of Judge Selya's opinions are that interesting, but I have managed 
>to come across a few in law school.

>My favorite is the case in which a federal judge dismisses a case brought 
>against the devil.  I believe that it was U.S. ex rel. Moyer v. Satan and his 
>Helpers.  Every first-year should read this civil procedure classic.

That's U.S. ex rel. Moyer v. Satan and his Staff.  I think it was a
section 1983 suit brought by a jailhouse lawyer.

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
From: lsg001@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Graham Wilson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: How to protect women
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:14:54 GMT
Organization: Legal Department - Coventry University


The following might be of interested to the person who was concerned about
whether they should kill someone who is violent towards them or take
the matter up with the police.

Definiton : battery = intentionally to bring any material object into
contact with another's person is a sufficient application of force
to constitute battery.

However, it is no longer the case that : " if an author is to go and give a
beating to a publisher who has offended him, two or three blows with a
horse-whip ought to be quite enough to satisfy his irritated
feelings." - Fraser -V- Berkeley (1836) 7 C and P 621,626 per Lord
Abinger CB


"if you are attacked with a deadly weapon, you can defend yourself
with a deadly weapon or with any other weapon which may protect your
life. The law does not concern itself with niceties in such matters.
If you are attacked by a prize-fighter you are not bound to adhere to
the Queensbury's rules in your defence" - Turner -V- MGM Pictures
Limited (1950) 1 ALL ER 449,471 per Lord Oaksey.


"I am not bound to wait until the other has given a blow, for perhaps
it will come too late afterwards." - Chaplain of Gray's Inn's case
(1400) YB 2 Hen IV fo 8 pl.40



This is taken from English law. However, I assume that American law
makes the same assumptions.

-- 
         *********************************************************
         *      Graham Wilson      *  lsg001@cck.coventry.ac.uk  *
         *     LL.B.  Law  III     *     Coventry  University    *
         *********************************************************
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: dpifko@navier.UVic.CA (Daniel  Pifko)
Subject: Where can I get the FAQ for this group?
Followup-To: dpifko@sirius.uvic.ca
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 19:01:06 GMT

Hmm.  I wonder if that's the most FAQ?  

Some say that bandwidth is expensive, so feel free to e-mail me.

Thanks,

Daniel
dpifko@sirius.uvic.ca

-- 
Daniel Pifko
dpifko@sirius.uvic.ca
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: dpifko@navier.UVic.CA (Daniel  Pifko)
Subject: QuickLaw
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 08:39:57 GMT

Hello.

My covivant is in Law here at UVic, and has to make long distance call if
she wants to access QuickLaw (sp?) from home.  Is it accessible by 
Internet?  Other nets?  Is there a Victoria number?  She can get free access
at the school, but it's soooooo far :-).  

Thanks,

Daniel.

-- 
Daniel Pifko
dpifko@sirius.uvic.ca
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Question => Second hand software
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:10:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Dec12.011057.8362
Reply-To: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) writes:

>Some vendors allow you to donate obsolete versions to a school, which
>can then register the product in its own name.  This exception doesn't
>seem to apply to your question, however.

>The only way to be sure is to read the actual license agreement, but
>it would be rare to find a commercial product which permitted the
>owner to sell just the obsolete disks.

Borland allowed you to resell the old versions of their *compilers*. 
At least they didd a couple years ago when I checked specificly.
On the other hand, they certainly don't feel that way about Quattro 
and Paradox!

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: RJB@jhuvm.hcf.jhu.edu (Rodney Baker)
Subject: Computer Software for Lawyers
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:52:45 GMT

Hello,

I am looking for a last minute x-mas gift for my wife who is in her
1st year of law school.  Does anyone know of a store where I might
find some software for our 386 MS-DOS machine that could help her
throughout her school career?

I live in between Baltimore and Washington D.C. (Glen Burnie if that
means anything :-)  If you can actually recomend a software package,
I'd be doubly appreciative!!!

My e-mail address is rjb@jhuvm.hcf.jhu.edu.

Thanks in advance to anyone and everyone who responds to this last
minute plea for help!!!


- Rodney Baker
  The Johns Hopkins University
  E-mail: rjb@jhuvm.hcf.jhu.edu