HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: O1EVERT@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU (Tom Evert)
Subject: Drug dogs used in public schools
Organization: The University of Akron
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:37:32 GMT

My 15 year old son came home from school and said school officials had drug
sniffing dogs in during the summer looking for drugs/drug residue in lockers.
He also said the high school would be visited a few more times during the
year during Christmas break, etc.  Can anything be done about this (other
than expressing outrage to the school and board of education)?
 
This is yet another example of GUILTY until proven innocent which
unfortunatly seems to becoming more common place every day!
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Once more into the breach, dear friends (was: Re Ed babbles again
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:05:56 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep13.063733.25098@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
# How do you ground the sysop's right to boot bozo off net?  Oh, forget
# it.  Let's save the net bandwidth and an airing of more of your silly
# views.  Lesseee, the sysop has Sacred Property Rights and bozo...NOT.
# Sacred Property Rights to "her" computer (actually the property of a
# large corporation), devil a doubt where the Green Ants Dream.  Sacred
# Property Rights not mentioned in the Constitution, which 99% of the

See Amendment 5: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use without just compensation."

# world's population do not enjoy, which many Americans enjoy only on pain
# of signing a mortgage, and which are for the most part vested in legal
# fictions (aforesaid megacorps.)

Odd.  Every person I know who has a mortgage finds that much preferable
to having to save up $190,000 first.  That's why they voluntarily
enter into a contract.  Ed Nilges, and his ideological partners,
is the reason liberalism is a dirty word to most Americans.

# This is why I take a Dim View of these fearless advocates of free speech
# and why their arguments for free speech are similar to the practise of
# law in the Soviet Union pre-1992.  For it is (with apologies to Dickens'
# Sydney) a "far, far easier thing than I have ever done" to defend
# nonexistent rights than it is to defend REAL rights.

Reality getting too complicated for you, Ed?  Actually, the pre-1992
SU approach to free speech matches yours nearly perfectly -- only
some forms of free speech were allowed, and the rest were criminal
offenses.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
There can be no peace as long as AB 2601 lives.
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Censorship is never safe
Summary: The Ist Amendment protects even bilge tripe.
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:58:08 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <18j8u4INNgot@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu
(Russell Turpin) writes:

>Begin excerpt from On Our Backs, Sept/Oct 1992:

>   The magazine, which depicted penetration and bondage, was the
>   first casualty of a Canadian Supreme Court decision redefining
>   obscenity to include materials that are "degrading and
>   dehumanizing," primarily to women or children.  

That's what Andrea Dworkin wants . . .

>   Canada's largest lesbian/gay bookstore, Glad Day in Toronto,
>   has been raided and charged with selling obscene material --
>   namely, an issue of the lesbian erotic magazine Bad Attitude.

. . . and *that's* what the Canadian "Andrea Dworkins" get.

I would say, "serves 'em right -- what poetic justice!", were 
it not that even in the case of bilge tripe like this magazine,
I agree 100% with Mr. Turpin that government censorship is evil 
and dangerous.  (Why is it bilge tripe?  Because the _Gemara_
in Yebamoth 76a quotes Rav Huna where it concludes that female
homosexuality is a form of obscenity.  Also, the Rambam in his
_Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Issurai Bi'ah_, chapter 21:8, states,
"Women who practice homosexuality are committing a prohibition
which was practiced in ancient Egypt and the Torah warns us
about this: 'The practices of the land of Egypt thou shalt not 
do.' . . . A husband should make sure his wife doesn't associate 
with such people."  See today's (September 11) edition of _The 
Jewish Press_, at page 70.   But bilge tripe or not, Americans
have a Constitutional right under the Ist Amendment to read it.)

>   The decision
>   had been applauded by Canadian and American anti-porn
>   feminists: Ms.  called it "a stunning victory" in a country
>   "where the free-speech tradition is not as dominant as it is
>   in the U.S." (!!)  

Feminism is only incidentally about freedom.  Where freedom advances
the cause of gender equality, feminists are for freedom.  Where free 
people, left to themselves, would organize their private and business 
lives according to a double standard based on gender, feminists favor
coercion to force them to practice unisexism.  Censorship is only
one example of the extremes to which *some* radical feminists are
willing to go in their coercion.  If "the free-speech tradition"
protects "the graphic, sexually explicit subordination of women in
pictures and/or words . . . or women presented being penetrated by
objects . . .," these radicals will applaud "a stunning victory"
over that tradition.  "They're no good.  They're no good.  Like,
the best of them is no damn good."  (Stephen Sondheim).  

FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Die Knechtschaft dauert nur noch kurze Zeit."
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of
Date: 15 Sep 92 05:05:23 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Sep15.031609.10447@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
> In article <BuKMFI.8n8@world.std.com>
> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
> 
>> The "right" to nullify is a side effect.  Whether it is a feature or a bug
>> is uncertain.  But, the characterization of a juror as a "nullification
>> believer" is, respectfully, to gild the truth:  A juror who nullifies
>> is, by definition, a juror who breaks her oath; a liar.  One who would
>> do so knowingly ("I take this oath, but I don't mean it") has less place
>> on a jury than Mike's jurors above ("I meant that oath, but now I just
>> can't keep it").  The former (nullification believer) is a dangerously
>> arrogant phony.  The latter (true nullifier) is an honest humanist.
> 
> Exactly what oath is it that the "arrogant phonies" break?  And exactly
> how do they break it?

Good point.  As a start, can someone post the oath a federal juror takes?
                    === Al
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Hornbooks -- Tax
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:57:48 GMT

ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:

>Say, why are they called hornbooks?  Why not just textbooks?

Well, you won't believe it, but the reason is that the term once
applied to a child's early primer inscribed on a single sheet, and
protected by a transparent sheet of animal horn.  The term now
refers to legal reference texts that attempt to summarize the law of a
particular subject, like tax or property.  They aren't considered very
authoritative, but they are good handbooks, sometimes.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:31:53 GMT

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>Quite right. I've point out myself on many occasions in this newsgroup
>that the Zenger case is a particularly good example of nullification 
>in action.

I don't think I agree, Mike.  In _Zenger_, Alexander Hamilton was 
allowed to tell the jury that they had  the option to ignore the law.
That might have sold in pre-Revolutionary America, but modern courts
don't allow it, for the reasons laid out in _Duncan_; that a jury
knows implicitly that its oath, like Falstaff's honor, is mere air.
That they should retain the power to nullify, but the power must be
tempered by obliging them to take the extreme step of violating their
sworn promise.  Otherwise, every jury is a little legislature, making
up the law as they go along.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Princeton Eating Clubs
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:24:00 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations


The question came up a few weeks ago whether Sally Frank won a judgment
against the Princeton eating clubs or just settled the
suit.  The New Jersey Supreme Court decided the suit in 1990,
and the US Supreme Court denied cert in 1991.

Ted "no relation" Frank
-- 
           .........................................................
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
         here i sit looking for a warming smile in a house of cold wit
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17198 alt.politics.correct:5334 alt.censorship:7492 talk.politics.mideast:20063
From: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:58:40 GMT
Reply-To: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Sep14.111631.15318@wisipc.weizmann.ac.il> dany@kalanit.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Nabutovsky Dan) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.214246.25974@news.columbia.edu> ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
>>
>>If an article is written about "A" and refers to them as "B" it is called "C"
>>A		B			C
>>BCCI		Muslim Bankers		Financial Reporting
>>Palestinian	Arab Terrorist		Objective Journalism
>>
>>If something is written against Prophet Muhammad, it is literature;
>>against the Japanese (like Jurrasaic Park) it is fiction;
>>agsinst Blacks, it is free speech;
> ^^^^^^^
>>against Christianity, it is an opinion
>>but anything written against one Jewish person is anti-Semitism!!
>>
>
>If A writes B with C to D, everybody E at him.
>
>A		B		C		D		  E
>Imran Anwar	article		spell errors	3 inappropriate	  laugh
>						newsgroups	
>	Dan


Dan, I am impressed by your keen intellect, and ability to logically
analyse my post, and post a counter argument that impressed everyone


A
No comment, as that is my name.  Dan obviously does not have the guts
to write his last name.  Could it be Quayle :-)  [with an E at the end!]

B
I don't think a few lines of opinion are an "article"  ...unless your 
obviously limited intelligence cannot handle anything more than a few lines
without thinking (hard for you to do I am sure) it is an "article"

C
Oh, ONE spelling mistake, and even that a typo.   Boy, you sure tore
apart my observations and comments with that MAJOR observation.  How do you
do it, Dan.  [By the way, the correct word would be Spelling errors, NOT
spell errors.

D
In case you did not notice, the post was in response to an earlier one,
hence it went to all the same groups.  However, it is hard to understand
why you think the posting was in the wrong groups.

E
I am sure a lot more people are laughing AT you Dan.

Regards


Imran Anwar
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Skinhead speech protected, Supreme Court says (was: Re: Fuck You
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 05:15:21 GMT

In article <Hy6yqB3w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>> 
>
>It isn't my opinion, but an observation of a possibility, that the one
>who posted all that stuff was purposely trying to get someone's goat.

It should be unnecessary to say that this does not justify the post.

>
>Why not dedicate all this mental energy to something that deserves it?

Because even if the original poster did not have the racist views
expressed, he is representative of a large and growing segment of the
real populace, from neo Nazis in Rostock to "Ayrans" in Idaho.  Your
logic would discourage those decent Germans who marched against neo
Naziism because they are "dedicating energy to something that does not
deserve it."

>
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Original Intent
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:45:53 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep9.122054.25563@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
> In article <12155@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep3.132451.3016@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
# ## Can you provide some evidence that original intent is of much relevance?
# #
# #The alternative is the "what do we want it to mean today" approach
# #to which liberals are so prone.
# 
# I don't think this is *the* alternative at all. It is certain that the
# Framers did not anticipate Usenet, and the First Amendment mentions only
# freedom of speech and of the press, not telecommunications. We can't say
# that protection of this discussion here, Clayton, was part of the
# "original intent" of the First Amendment. But at the same time,
# interpreting the First Amendment to protect this discussion (as I do) does
# not reflect a "what do we want it to mean today" approach. It's an
# extrapolation from what we can reasonably, and with justification, say is
# the interest protected by the First Amendment: freedom of discourse.

That's the sort of transcendent value that I am talking about in the 
next paragraph.  More important, though, is that whatever 
theoretical notion of "reasonable extrapolation" you care to 
defend, that's NOT what liberal jurists do -- it's more like
"what do we want it to mean today"?

# #Either the Bill of Rights reflects
# #some transcendent values, or we might as we just scrap it, and
# #trust the majority to make the right decisions.
# 
# Can't you see that eliciting those "transcendent values" is doing
# something far more than determining "original intent"? 
# 
# Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 

It is definitely more complicated than determining original intent.
But your extrapolation of freedom of discourse from free speech
and free press is far different from turning the Constitution on
its head, as liberals are fond of doing.

I happen to think that child pornography laws are stupid (for
the same reason drug laws are stupid), and not the most effective
solution to the problem of child molestation.  But I know that they
are not what was intended to be protected by the First Amendment.
Unfortunately, liberals don't seem to understand that.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: alt.flame.spelling,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Question for Charles Perez and Ted Frank
Date: 15 Sep 92 22:24:02 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep15.211600.26724@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
>Subject: Re: Question for Charles Perez and Ted Frank
>Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:16:00 GMT

>In article <exuptr.606.716584507@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep15.153846.23943@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
>>
>>>Oh, and by the way, it would be "Goofus's."
>>
>>Sorry, leaving off the trailing "s" is permissible in contractions where
>>the preceeding letter is also an "s", in proper names.  It is not ambiguous 
>>since proper names cannot be plural.

>Strunk and White disagree, and I think their "rule" is a better one.

Certainly better for flaming ;-).  But rather tenuous to pronounce.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16967 alt.great-lakes:606 oh.general:505
From: david@roth-music.com (David A. Roth)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.great-lakes,oh.general,cle.misc
Subject: Re: Ownership Eroding Away (What are my rights?)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 21:38:29 EST
Organization: DAVID A. ROTH MUSIC
Reply-To: david@roth-music.com (David A. Roth)
Distribution: usa
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4


In article <1992Sep4.231633.16301@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> (misc.legal,alt.great-lakes,oh.general,cle.misc), eddc@opus.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave Carek) writes:
> 
> 
> I'm trying to get some information on the legal rights of land owners
> to protect their property.  The situation I'm describing applies to all
> lake-front (Lake Erie in particular) property owners in the State of
> Ohio who have existing shore protection or are considering the
> construction of shore protection.
> 

Do yourself a big favor.  Call the local Bar Assn. and ask for a referral
of an attorney that practices real estate law.  Call them on the phone,
get their rates and present your problem.  If not help then go back
to the Bar and ask for someone else.  Don't be afraid to explain to
the Bar exactly what you need help on.

I'm not an attorney...I don't even play one on the net...and neither
should anyone else! :-)

Help this helps!

David
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: The Loss of Innocence (Was RE:  FUCK YOU)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:47:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.185622.15386@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>.  I'm a white
>male, perhaps older than many posters, still (painfully) in the middle 
>class and my brushes with unemployment and family destruction have 
>taught me that Sinead is right when she sings "if they hated me they 
>will hate you to."  

How old are you, Ed?



--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Drug dogs used in public schools
Date: 12 Sep 92 16:43:48 GMT
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky

O1EVERT@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU (Tom Evert) writes:
>My 15 year old son came home from school and said school officials had drug
>sniffing dogs in during the summer looking for drugs/drug residue in lockers.
>He also said the high school would be visited a few more times during the
>year during Christmas break, etc.  Can anything be done about this (other
>than expressing outrage to the school and board of education)?

[Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I read misc.legal]

I would think that a public school qualifies as "public space".  As such,
I would say that it is not given the same legal protection as one's home.

Now, some contents of a locker are owned by the student (some of the con-
tents, such as textbooks, may be the property of the school).  I would sus-
pect that a search warrant would be necessary before actually *opening*
any lockers without the consent of the student(s).

Does the school code (if one exists) grant the right of inspection to 
the school?  If so, all of this may be moot.

>This is yet another example of GUILTY until proven innocent which
>unfortunatly seems to becoming more common place every day!

Could a parallel be drawn beteen the use of 'drug dogs' and the use of
metal detectors in the public schools?  I'm not aware of any legal chal-
lenges to the latter; why should the use of 'drug dogs' be treated dif-
ferently, *as long as* any searches are conducted in the proper manner
(warrants, etc.)?

--Wes

-- 
MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
morgan@ms.uky.edu   | Engineering  Computing |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
From: edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: legality of a name change
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 00:06:00 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Sep11.032537.5760@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>

In article <10SEP92.19084732@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes
:
>Some friends of mine, and I were wondering if it woukld be legal for someone 
>to change their first name to "Doctor", or if that constitutes some sort of 
>fraud.
>
>Anyone know?
>
>					Loren Finkelstein

Civil fraud requires an intentional misrepresentation, which defendant knows to
 
substantial certainty that reliance would result, and which plaintiff 
did rely upon so as to result in some harm to plaintiff.  There is no fraud 
if the person to whom the representation was made, directly or forseeably
indirectly, did not rely on the representation, or if no harm resulted.

So who's he trying to cheat?  Most states have laws against the unauthorized
practice of law or medicine.   That would be a criminal offence.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Once more into the breach, dear friends (was: Re Ed babbles again
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:10:11 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep13.192558.19357@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> In article <1992Sep13.133258.27007@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
> >It's not state action. The implementation of a hate-speech law in R.A.V.
> >*was* state action.
> 
> (Sigh).  The RAV law was a local community statute which EMPOWERED the
> citizens of St Paul to create a certain sort of community; I submit that

So is a sodomy law.  Does that make it OK, just because it has
majority support?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
There can be no peace as long as AB 2601 lives.
From: accom@terapin.com (Andrew Ross)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Evictions
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:33:42 PST
Organization: BBS

Hello everyone.. I need to know about the stututes of limitation for illegal
evictions.. Please mail me... L8r!
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs