HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: History of forfeiture laws
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:52:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.140604.2464@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>According to a letter I received from Terry Bruce, my U.S. Representative:
>
>"Congress and state legislatures have authorized the use of forfeiture
>as a law enforcement mechanism for almost two hundred years.
>Traditionally, the crimes that triggered forfeiture have been those
>which threatened the government's revenue interested such as smuggling
>or tax evasion or crime which has a preceived threat to the public
>health."
>
>Is this true, false, relevant to War-on-Drugs forfeitures?

I believe that forfeiture may have been used against bootleggers 
during prohibition.  However, our current government is taking
this to ridiculous extremes.  I had dinner with some friends of
mine this weekend who are contractors.  In San Rafael (like many
other towns in California) there is a section of town where
people (the vast majority of whom are illegal-aliens) stand on
street corners hoping to be hired on as day laborers.  Many local
contractors utilize these men as unskilled laborers and pay them
under-the-table.  According to these two friends of mine, the
authorities have been confiscating the trucks of contractors who 
pick these guys up.  No charges are filed against the contractors,
they simply loose their trucks.  If they wish to contest the siezure,
they must post a bond of 10% of the value of their truck, and
retain an attorney for themselves.  I assume that these cases are
dragged out in court to assure that it will cost you more in attorneys
fees than your truck is worth.  How long do you think it will be
before the authorities start to confiscate the autos of people
suspected of drunk driving ? 

As far as I can see, this isn't going to stop until we abolish the
siezure laws entirely.  IMHO, they violate the fifth amendment of the
Constitution, and result in gross abuse of power by those branches of
government which implement them.

Guido

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification -- The Power is a Right
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:09:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.191152.20560@cs.brown.edu> ted@cs.brown.edu (Tony Davis) writes:
>| >> = Mike Godwin
>| >>The jury claims a moral right to nullify? I've never known a juror to make
>| >>any such claim. It seems certain that in the great majority of instances
>| >>of nullification, the jury did not think of its "moral right" to nullify
>| >>at all. It simply acquitted someone it felt deserved acquittal, regardless
>| >>of what the facts and law seemed to dictate.
>
>| > = Al Date
>| >...deserved acquittal on what grounds if not moral grounds??
>
>|   = Mike Godwin
>| I said nothing about moral grounds.
>
>Obviously some people think you did.  Tell us what you really said so that
>we can all play the same game.

Tony, what I really said is in the passage you quote. 

>What is your distinction between 'claims a moral right to nullify' and
>'having moral grounds for nullifying'?

An easy one: not everyone who makes a moral decision thinks "I am claiming
a moral right to make this decision."

The issue is clear: not every juror who votes to acquit in a case when the
defendant seems clearly guilty under the facts and the law is a juror who
"claims a moral right to nullify." I have yet to meet a juror
who articulated his decision in terms of "claiming a moral right" to do
anything. For the most part, jurors try to do their jobs as they see
them.


--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 
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:37:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.120317.16094@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>I don't recall having appointed you my spokesman, so kindly abstain from
>making sweeping claims on behalf of "Jews".  Incidentally, should the
>charming fellows in the ex-East Germany happen to come up with an updated
>edition of "Mein Kampf", I would gladly put up another $100 towards the
>goal of conclusive and irreversible reeducation of its author.

If, as it appears, you've indicated you'd want to pay to have someone who
writes an anti-Semitic book killed, then I will have to say right now: I
unequivocally condemn such actions, and state for the record that Michael
Zeleny does not speak for me.  We have no right to kill people for publishing
books.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: This Time Around, DON'T VOTE !!
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:59:35 GMT

eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

>In <92.10.05.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, Patrick Townson sez:
>>True or false question: A jury votes for the innocence or guilt of a
>>defendant. The jury's word is the final word on the matter.  FALSE!
>>Despite the presence of a jury, the judge can rule as he pleases. The
>>jury can say the defendant is guilty and the judge will say he is
>>innocent. 

>This last statement is correct.

Almost.  Innocence is never a finding in a criminal case.  The defendant
is either found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or else a finding that
a reasonable doubt as to guilt exists is made (leading to acquittal).
Further, a judge may dismiss a case after a jury finds guilt beyond a 
reasonable doubt only if he or she is persuaded that no reasonable jury
could have convicted.

Because the standard is so high, a defendant who has been acquitted in
a criminal trial can still be sued and found liable on the same factual
allegations in a civil trial (for example, the accuser of William Kennedy
Smith can still sue Smith for assault and battery, even though he was
acquitted of a rape charged on the same facts).
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		Electronic Frontier Foundation Member 932
				Republican National Committee Member 90050367
				Amateur Radio Station WA4LDA
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Car Insurance: No Comprehensive => NO THEFT INSURANCE!!!
Date: 28 Sep 1992 10:36:44 -0500
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <63!pv=-.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes:
>
>>I thought that it was "common knowledge" that if a person did not have 
>>comprehensive coverage the person is not protected against theft.  When I was 
>>looking for car insurance two years ago, it was pointed out.
>
>>I concede, though, that my policy is broken down into liability and everything 
>>else, i.e., comprehensive.
>
>I am both embarrassed AND pleased to report that my car was not
>stolen, only misplaced (by me). The policeman who took my report
>cancelling the stolen car alert told me that theft insurance is
>available for something like $25/yr. One way or another I will have
>theft insurance reinstated by Monday night.

Comprehensive insurance covers vandalism and theft and maybe some
stuff like damage from floods, etc.  Depending on where you live
and how much theives like your car this insurance can be the cheapest
part of your insurance or the most expensive.  I've always had
comprehensive coverage because its cheap for me.

Collision coverage covers your car if the accident is your fault.
When I had a worthless car I didn't have this coverage.

If your insurance agent did not explain the type of coverage you
were getting I would seriously consider switching to a different
agent.  Glad to hear your car wasn't stolen.

>-- 
>Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
> 


-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: need advice for simple will
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:05:50 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Sep28.130940.20269@mwhhlaw.uucp>, uunet!mwhhlaw!tim sez:
>All of the forgoing seems to me to be dangerous advice in a highly technical  
>area.
>A will is either valid or nothing.
>In some very strange cases an invalid will has been used to clear-up an
>ambiguity in a valid will.  This is the rare, rare exception.

While this falls within Tim's "rare exception" category, there are
instances under New York law where an "invalid" will is indeed
something -- a valid one.  Specifically, despite the fact that a
revoked will is invalid, there is one circumstance under which a duly
revoked will is not merely clarifying but *controlling*.

The doctrine is called, obscurely enough "dependent relative
revocation" (DRR).  Quite simply, it happens when the testator (T)
revokes will #2 in the belief that doing so causes earlier will #1 to
be revived.  (It doesn't; the execution of will #2 permanently
invalidates will #1.)  Since this well-meaning goof by T was based on
a wrong assumption, revoked will #2 is valid *IF* it is generally
similar to will #1.  (Huh?)  DRR is an attempt to preserve T's intent:
if will #1 (which T meant to revive) was substantially different from
#2 (e.g., different beneficiaries), then using will #2 would NOT be
consistent with T's intent (which was to disinherit his will #2
beneficiaries), and DRR would not be applied.


In the words of Joanie Caucus's law school classmate, "GOD, I love
the law!"  :)

-- 
		The sleep of reason begets Limbaughs.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: ted@cs.brown.edu (Tony Davis)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification -- The Power is a Right
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 07:21:53 GMT


|>| >> = Mike Godwin
|>| >>The jury claims a moral right to nullify? I've never known a juror to make
|>| >>any such claim. It seems certain that in the great majority of instances
|>| >>of nullification, the jury did not think of its "moral right" to nullify
|>| >>at all. It simply acquitted someone it felt deserved acquittal, regardless
|>| >>of what the facts and law seemed to dictate.

|>| > = Al Date
|>| >...deserved acquittal on what grounds if not moral grounds??

|>|   = Mike Godwin
|>| I said nothing about moral grounds.

|>    = Tony Davis
|>Obviously some people think you did.  Tell us what you really said so that
|>we can all play the same game.

|     = Mike Godwin
|Tony, what I really said is in the passage you quote. 

No.  The words you wrote are in the passage I quote.  I asked nothing about
the words you wrote.  What you said is clearer below.

|>    = Tony Davis
|>What is your distinction between 'claims a moral right to nullify' and
|>'having moral grounds for nullifying'?

|     = Mike Godwin
|An easy one: not everyone who makes a moral decision thinks "I am claiming
|a moral right to make this decision."
|
|The issue is clear: not every juror who votes to acquit in a case when the
|defendant seems clearly guilty under the facts and the law is a juror who
|"claims a moral right to nullify." I have yet to meet a juror
|who articulated his decision in terms of "claiming a moral right" to do
|anything. For the most part, jurors try to do their jobs as they see
|them.

Given the now long past context of this discussion, I believe some people
have been and still are interpreting 'claims a moral right to nullify' as
'takes a moral right to nullify' or 'uses a moral right to nullify'.  With
such an interpretation it would be easier to misunderstand what you said.

Now I believe I understand what you really said.  Thank you.


Tony Davis
ted@cs.brown.edu

Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech according to Nilges
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:08:27 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <1992Oct1.042909.9477@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon
Fitch) writes:
|> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges):
|> | ...
|> | There is an astonishing amount of dysfunction and codependency on the
|> | net, and the average poster appears to be a male from a household with a
|> | strong female and a weak or absent father.  This is because of the
|> | prelevance of divorce in the era of many posters' childhoods (1960-1980)
|> | and the fact that even before 1960 "organization man" fathers were
|> | excluded from meaningful family participation.  Since boys, especially,
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Just to pick a few nits here.....  "Were excluded from" suggests that
men had no choice in their relationships with their family.  But who
excluded them?  The Fatherly Exclusion Police.  You get the idea.  It is
true that fathers excluded themselves, de facto, by choosing to assume
the role of breadwinner in a way which took them out of the house.  On a
large scale, this coincided with industrialization and the division of
labor, an observation which has been widely propagated by, among others,
Robert Bly.  Bly has equated the
"demise" of the male psyche to the absense of the father.  Who knows ...?

As far as "dysfunction" and "codependency".  They are the rage these
days (pun intended :).  The words have become so fashionable that they
have become meaningless.  

I would say that the net discourages "codependency" in that it subjects
posters to feedback, something usually lacking in "dysfunctional"
families.  And the feedback is widespread and varied.  Post to the
network and you just don't know what you are going to get back.  Post
something factually inaccurate and you are almost certain to be
corrected.  This is not usual 
in dysfunctional environments. 

I would agree that the average net poster comes from a relatively
homogenous subset of the population -- not too many homelesss persons
posting these days, Or women.

Paul Collacchi
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Apostilled: what it means, explained
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 15:10:56 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa
  <1992Sep26.001145.18719@athena.mit.edu>


It doesn't appear in my Sixth Edition Black's.  I think mine is unabridged
(it doesn't say abridged, and it is larger than the ones that do say
abridged).  However, it is only about the size of a casebook, so I don't
understant why it would cause a hernia.  Is there some extra-unabridged
edition, or is WDS just a wimp? :-)

--Tim Smith
From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Fighting Words
Date: 27 Sep 92 12:36:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: depsych.XiFRRB2w164w

Carl M. Kadie writes:

>The Fighting Words doctrine was created in 1942. It is the basis
>for most college speech codes and hate speech laws. However, it
>has never been used at the Supreme Court level since 1942 and with
this decision it is pretty much dead because it is always applied
>selectively.

I've been interested in the legal status of this doctrine for some
time.  I've sent for an e-mail copy of cohen-v-california.1
mentioned later in the article.

As I understand the doctrine it is a _defense_ used to mitigate
responsibility in both felony battery and tortious battery cases.
("He called me a _______!")  It doesn't technically make the
battery right but in effect it does since it protects from any
prosecution.  That makes it somewhat similar to the Mutual Combat
doctrine to which it is, I think, somewhat related.  (By calling
me a _______ you are in effect agreeing to fight me and agreeing
to the possibility of being hit.)

I've looked but haven't found a good book or even a good article
discussing this interesting doctrine.  Anybody know of one,
especially as applied in juvenile law (one kid disses another --
what are the legal rights and latitudes of the dissed kid to hit
the one uttering the "fighting words?")?

--
Richard Carlson
Internet:              rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Bangpath:              {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
CompuServe:            76605,470
Voice:                 (404) 881-6877
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: need advice for simple will
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:25:05 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Sep27.140332.18022@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu 
(William December Starr) writes:
> (3) no matter how good your penmanship is, typing the document rather
> than hand-writing it would probably be easier on a lot of people's
> nerves and eyesight, especially if it's challenged (reason: once a
> matter falls into the hands of the courts and lawyers, documents tend
> to get xeroxed and re-xeroxed a lot, with a lot of loss of print
> quality... a typed document will generally survive this process better
> than a hand-written one, thereby cutting down on one potential cause
> of delay in the final adjudication.);

But: In most (all?) jurisdictions, if it is typewritten, rather than 
handwritten, it will not qualify as a holographic will, and will need to meet 
the higher level of formalities as an attested will (minimum number of 
qualified witnesses, etc.).

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Presidential UL's
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:09:03 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Sep29.164051.16126@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> craigb@ot.austin.ibm.com writes:

>tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>...
>> > This does bring up an interesting question, though.  In case of
>> > nuclear attack or something that wipes out a large number of high
>> > officials, what is the line of succession? 

>> The order is:

>> Vice-President
>> Speaker of the House
>> President pro tempore of the Senate
>> Secretary of State
>> Secretary of the Treasury
>> Secretary of Defense
>> Attorney General
>> Secretary of the Interior
>> Secretary of Agriculture
>> Secretary of Commerce
>> Secretary of Labor
>> Secretary of Health and Human Services
>> Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
>> Secretary of Transportation
>> Secretary of Energy
>> Secretary of Education
>> Secretary of Veterans Affairs

>> Source: 3 USC 19.  (followups to misc.legal)

>Just outta curiousity, tho, is there any kind of reasoning that went
>into this ordering? I mean, why is the Secretary of Commerce ordered
>before, say, the Secretary of Transportation?

There is nothing mysterious about the order.  It is the chronological 
order of the creation of the departments, with Defense taking the place
of War when the services were merged, and a I believe some other such
adjustment when departments were divided.

The no longer existent positions of Postmaster General and Secretary
of the Navy (I know that that position exists, but it is not a cabinet
position) used to follow Attorney General in the order I have given
them.  When I learned it, it ended with Labor, and there was a 
mnemonic, St. Wapniacl, to remember it.  The changes in Defense and
the decabinitizing of the Post Office changed it to St. Daiacl.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
From: mazur@inmet.camb.inmet.com (Beth Mazur)
Subject: Re: Fat Burning Primer
Organization: Intermetrics Inc, Cambridge MA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:38:46 GMT

In <1992Sep29.155747.24138@cs.ucla.edu> page@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Thomas Page) writes:
>I'm not sure what you are talking about concerning zip codes.  During the first
>10 minutes of exercise, you burn almost exclusively glycogen. 

Please cite a reference for this.  The exercise physiology text I was
scanning last night claims that the body is up to 40% aerobic metabolism
two minutes after you begin exercise.
 
Beth Mazur                   "...life is more than a vision.  The sweetest
mazur@inmet.inmet.com         part is acting after making a decision."
...!uunet!inmet!mazur                                  -- The Indigo Girls
From: AGRGB@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
Subject: Re: Aqua Jogger (Re: Help! I fried my knee!)
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:16:39 GMT
 <1992Sep25.062802.24916@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Arizona State University

>I have seen Aqua Joggers being sold for about $50. Apparently, they
>keep you under water neck down. Besides the fact that it is low impact,
>can some one comment on its effectiveness as a training method ?
>                                ramesh
>
Hey now,

   After suffering a knee injury while training for a marathon, I used an
Aqua Belt (instead of the vest) for 1 full month in place of running. I then
ran the marathon and finished (not without suffering further knee damage).
As a result, I would have to say that the aqua training was very successful.
It is frustrating to move so slow while swimmers pass you by, but it does
seem to work.

              Rich
From: terry@jgaltstl.UUCP (terry linhardt)
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
Subject: Re: Aerobic Heart Rate Question
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:42:24 GMT
Organization: The Lafayette Group, St. Louis, MO.

In article <QelVyAa00iUzQ3Ws8b@andrew.cmu.edu>, ks57+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kimberly Sewright) writes:
+ 
+ 
+ Why is this important? If our need for oxygen to work aerobically
+ (production of ATP with oxygen) is exceeded, then we begin to work
+ anaerobically (production of ATP without oxygen). To burn fatty-acids
+ oxygen is needed. We can't measure our oxygen intake in an aerobics
+ class, but since there is a linear relationship between oxygen intake
+ and heart-rate, we can monitor our oxygen intake by taking our pulse. 
+ Through research it has been found that we begin to work anaerobically
+ at around 85% of our maximum heart-rate. 
+ 
+ 
+ You want to make sure your pulse does not exceed 85% of this number.  As
+ far as burning more fat by keeping your intensity down.  It is not at
+ all surprising that you have experienced a correlation.  When working
+ aerobically, it takes at least ten minutes before your body begins to
+ burn fatty acid instead of carbohydrates. The difference in the amount
+ of ATP produced is around 36 units for carbos and 100 units for fatty
+ acids. So the longer you can keep up your aerobic activity, the more fat
+ you burn.
+ 
+ Just remember, the most important thing is DURATION! The longer the
+ better! But if your heart-rate is at least at 55% of maximum than it
+ doesn't matter how long you do it, you aren't doing much! 
+ 

I have a question. What was stated above is pretty much of a
"classic" answer about exercise intensity, and how aerobic activity
burns fatty acids.

It is my understanding that a body at rest or doing very moderate
activity burns almost *all* fatty acids. As the intensity of
exercise increases, the body starts burning carbohydrates in
addition to fatty acids. At a high level of intensity, the body is
burning almost all carbohydrates and almost zero fatty acids. 

So, the question is: what does a person gain by exercising as part
of a weight control program? The person who is walking slowly is
already burning almost all fatty acids for energy. What is gained
by increasing the intensity up to ~75% to ~85% of maximum heart
rate, which are the 'classical' recommendations?
-- 
  Terry Linhardt                ...!wupost!jgaltstl!terry 
                                terry%jgaltstl.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu