HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Seventh Circuit Bound)
Subject: Re: What's in a big law library?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 16:08:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.081016.8271@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>Looking at the sizes of law libraries listed in "The Official Guide to
>U.S. Law Schools," it appears that if one classifies libraries by size,
>there are four categories:
>
>	small:		~200,000 volumes
>	medium:		~400,000 volumes
>	large:		~750,000 volumes
>	Harvard:	~1,500,000 volumes

Note the difference between "volumes" and "titles."  A Harvard may have
thirty or so copies of US Reporter volumes instead of ten, but then again, 
they also have three times as many students.

>Most well-known schools seem to be medium (e.g., all the University of
>California schools, Stanford, Chicago, USC, a bunch of others), with a
>few in the large category (Texas, Yale, Columbia).
>
>So, what do the large libraries and Harvard have that those of us with
>medium or small libraries lack?
>
>For example, do they have the West state digests for each state and each
>region so that one doesn't have to go to the Decennial Digest/General
>Digest when looking for cases in a particular state?  

Our medium-sized library has those.

>Do they have more
>copies of the commonly-used things?  Do they have a lot more weird material
>that no one has looked at in fifty years?  

I suspect it's both of these, but more the former than the latter.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Brouhaha at U. of Michigan Law?
Summary: "Femino-censors" and "femi-nazis"
Keywords: DELENDUS EST FEMINISMUS
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:50:38 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Nov21.172431.18447@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu 
(William December Starr) writes:

>"Everybody's raising the free-speech question now, and the analogy of
>the Nazis marching through a Jewish suburb like Skokie," said Laura
>Berger, one of the students.  . . .
. . .
>Civil libertarians say the events at the Ann Arbor campus illustrate
>the extremism of Ms. MacKinnon's views, and how easily they can be
>used to censor women's free expression.

>"It's hard to articulate how damaging the femino- censors can be, but
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>this is a perfect example of how the MacKinnon crusade hurts women,"
>said Marjorie Heins, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's
>National Arts Censorship Project.  
    [Quoted by Tamar Lewis in _The New York Times_]

There's a new word for us:  "femino-censors."  Any relation to
Rush Limbaugh's "feminazis"?

>"Censorship of sexually explicit
>material is not in women's interest.  It's also unconstitutional.

That cuts no ice with someone like Kitty MacKinnon who sees the
U. S. Constitution as nothing more than one more prop for Male
Supremacy.

>Ms. Lodin and several other students said they were so discouraged by
>the turn of events that they have begun to reexamine their attitudes
>toward feminism. ...

That's good news!  Maybe these students will realize that people will
follow the road to absolute gender equality only if that road is lined
with jack-booted soldiers urging the people on at bayonet-point.  The
*goal* of gender-equality feminism is incompatible with personal freedom.
This "Brouhaha at U. of Michigan Law" just goes to confirm what I've
been telling you all along.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.african.american
From: mmoore@staff.tc.umn.edu ("None of ya Bizness")
Subject: Re: Federal Prosecutor's plans in Rodeny King trail leaked to Defense!
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:53:28 GMT

In article <ISBELL.92Nov20085539@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
$According to the TODAY show this morning, the "gameplan" of the
$federal prosecutors assigned the Rodney King case has been leaked to
$the defense.  This, according to experts, is not cause for mistrail;
$however, it is the equivalent of a football disaster in which the
$plans and strategy of one team are given to an opposing team one week
$before a playoff game.
$ 
$Looking good, eh?

Welp, looks like my new rap rekkid, "Return to Simi Valley" will be
gettin some cirrus radio play after all.

-- 
Malcolm Diallo Moore, CIS-Univ. of Minn.                mmoore@staff.tc.umn.edu
				            	    moor0009@student.tc.umn.edu
"Aww, nigga! You know you all that and a          malcolm@mermaid.micro.umn.edu
	bowl o' grits!!"  - Ice Cube       
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
From: speterse%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty)
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:10:11 MST
Organization: The Erland Cult

In article <13186@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov14.202602.23939@gordian.com>, mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:

>>   Oh yes, keep dreaming. You, Clayton Cramer, have done more to
>> give NAMBLA a platform than anybody else I know of. I guess 
>> you should work on your self loathing.

>By saying that the homosexual community should shun NAMBLA, I
>give them a platform?  I guess Bnai Brith gives neo-Nazis a platform,
>too.

This from someone who has repeatedly claimed that the "fascist homosexual 
lobby" is to blame for the success of the OCA?


>> > Take a look at California's laws on child molestation.  It's
>> > obvious they are written the way they are to benefit homosexuals.
 
>>   !!! Are you actually suggesting that legislators purposefully wrote
>> laws which benefit homosexual molestors? You realize, that would be the

>Sure.  Willie Brown, Assemblyman from San Francisco, has been speaker
>of the Assembly for many years now.

>[specifics of the bill deleted -- it's illegal to have sex with
> a female under the age of 18, and a male under the age of 14.]

>The law is not gender specific -- but it's clear that by making
>sexual intercourse illegal for a girl under 18, but sodomy and
>oral sex legal for a boy under 18, that the Legislature sought to
>protect the interests of the homosexual community.

This doesn't follow at all.  While the law may very well have the
effect of benefitting some parts of the homosexual community, I
don't see any reason to believe that that was the intent of the law.
Why not argue that the intent of the bill was to uphold Traditional
Family Values (it is VERY VERY important that girls remain virgins,
but boys are allowed to fool around)?  Or that the intent of the bill
was to take account of the fact that heterosexual sex between a young
adolescent and an adult is not generally considered traumatic if the
adolescent is male?

--
    "From your signature it is obvious that you are a homosexual"
soren f petersen           :        i AM NOT          :    --Doc
speterse@peruvian.utah.edu :  THE university OF utah  :
"How could I dance with another/When I saw him standing there"  --Tiffany
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:54:42 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov19.161549.10095@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, gsmith@clio.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
> In article <13239@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
> writes:
> >Why do I suspect that the Supreme Court just wanted to teach this
> >guy a lesson about "wasting" their time?
> 
> Becuase you are a phony libertarian?  If that is what they thought,
> why did they accept the case in the first place?
> 
>      Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 

To make an example of what happens when you waste the time of 
the courts?

I think their decision was wrong.  What two consenting adults
do in private is none of the government's business.  Mr. Smith
apparently considers me a "phony" libertarian because I believe
consistently that private actions between consenting adults
are none of the government's business.  Mr. Smith, being a
homosexual, has powerful reasons to oppose such an idea, because
it would take away the homosexual fascist lobby's primary method
of shutting people up: antidiscrimination laws for homosexuals.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Radio station won't pay off my prize
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:14:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.170615.0312272@locus.com> markd@locus.com (Mark Dubinsky) writes:
>I won $1000 from a radio station in Los Angeles, but they're trying not
>to pay it off.  They say that I also won some amusement park tickets 19
>days earlier (which I did), and they have a rule about winning only once
>in 30 days.  When I won, they didn't say anything about this and just
>said to expect the check in 6-8 weeks.  When I didn't hear anything I
>called them and got this story.  Are they breaking any laws by not paying?
>Any relevant cases that I should know about?  There was a case of a
>California Lottery contestant who was declared a winner of some big prize,
>and then the ball bounced into a smaller prize.  He sued the Lottery
>Commission and won, I think.  Does anyone remember that case?  I think it
>may be relevant to my situation.

Yes, I remember that case.  The facts (from memory) were as follows:
Woman gets on "The Big Spin", spins wheel, ball lands in "grand prize"
slot, emmcee says "you just won 1 million dollars (or whatever it was)",
family runs onto stage jumping around hugging each other (possibly
jostling the wheel in the process), ball falls out of "grand prize" slot 
and pops into $10,000 (or some lesser ammount) slot.  Emmcee says, 
"well, you didn't really win the grand prize".  Woman sues.

The lottery tried to argue that its rules clearly stated that the
ball had to remain in the same slot for some period of time before that
was considered to be the prize won.  This was true, that was in their
rules.  However, the plaintiffs were able to show that the lottery
routinely violated this rule (by examining video-tapes of other shows)
and awarded prizes to other people before the ball had been in the slot
for the specified period of time.  The court ruled that they couldn't
selectively enforce the rules.  So, I would think that if you can find
someone else who has won multiple prizes from the radio station within
their 30-day limit, then you have got a good case.  I don't know how you 
would go about getting such information however. 

Guido
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Colorado Amend 2
Date: 24 Nov 92 00:58:30 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

Does anyone have the text of the recently passed Colorado Amendment which 
prohibits (as I understand it; I _don't_ have the text) legislation declaring 
homosexuals to be a protected class?

This is obviously a hot issue, but I have difficulty commenting on it without 
having read the text.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Date: 23 Nov 92 01:21:33 GMT
Reply-To: judson@watserv.ucr.edu

In article <1992Nov22.230615.13593@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)  
writes:
> In article <24067@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu writes:
> 
> >You obviously did not read my post clearly enough.  I said that I was in
> >agreement with the Supreme Court in the case in question because the
> >Appellee argued that homosexuality was a fundamental right which could
> >not be abridged.
> 
> Please cite your source for your claim that *anyone* in Bowers v. Hardwick
> argued that "homosexuality was a fundamental right which could not be
> abridged."

My source is taken from the opinion of the Court.  Here is how the opinion
started:

"The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a
fundamental right upon homosexuality to engage in sodomy and hence 
invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct
illegal and have done so for a very long time."

Further on, he continues:

"Respondent would have us announce a fundamental right to engage in 
homosexual sodomy."

Is that evidence enough to show that Hardwick was claiming a fundamental
right to homosexuality?  Yes, it is true that later in the opinion the
issue was brought up that Hardwick's privacy was being violated, but this
issue was merely on the grounds that if homosexuality is a fundamental
right, then the police have no right to infringe upon his privay when
engaging in homosexual acts.

--
"It takes a big man to cry.
but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
				Jack Handy


judson@watserv.ucr.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: This Whole Presidential Pardon ThingOk, I've read all the posts on this subject, and would now like to put in
From: COLBY BECK <CB27POLW@MIAMIU.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 15 Nov 1992 20:26:19 EST
Organization: Miami University - Academic Computer Service

my two-cents worth.  The President can only pardon for federal offenses, except
 for any impeachment in which case s/he is powerless.  In regards to the Bush
Weinberger fiasco, it would be completely legal for Bush to pardon all those
envolved, then resign, and then have the Quaylemeister pardon him.  That would
be a sneaky way out of the entire situation.  However, even Quayle wouldn't be
dumb enough to pardon Bush (it would end whatever political career he can
save after this election).
 As for the last time a pardon was given, well thats hard to say, cause it
happens more often then ppl think, but i know of other Presidential pardons
since Tricky Dick was sprung in '74.
 
*Just one guy's thoughts...   *
* Colby Beck (CB27POLW@MIAMIU)*
From: bryan@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Rapists should not be executed
Date: 23 Nov 92 13:55:28 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <24053@galaxy.ucr.edu>, judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson) writes:
> A rapist is usually after one thing, and that is to rape a woman
> (or man).  Then, if he gets caught, which is not very frequent since
> many women chose not to testify, he will get a few years sentence
> maximum.  However, what if he were given a much harsher sentence, such
> as life imprisonment or the death penalty?  If rapists knew that they
> may face the death penalty for such a crime, what would make them not
> want to kill the only witness?  The death penalty is only used in
> murder convictions.  Thus, if rape and murder are given the same
> sentence, why would the rapist decide to not murder the victim?  Thus,
> For the protection of rape victims, rapists should not be given overly
> harsh sentences.

Well, it's an interesting notion, but what does it lead to? Assume we
exclude the death penalty, but say that the punishment should be life
in prison without parole. Won't the rapist then kill the victim to
avoid this dire fate? 

I understand the arguement that if the penalty is the same for rape 
and murder that a rapist might as well commit murder to cover the
rape, but don't you think that assumes that the rapist is acting
rationally (i.e. in his own best interests)? And even based on that
somewhat contradictory assumption, wouldn't the rapist observe (as you
did) that many women won't testify (hence no reason to further
complicate the deed by silencing someone who will be silent anyway)?

I guess that your arguement makes me nervous in that I don't see where
you're willing to draw the line. How severely should a rapist be
punished? How severely should any criminal be punished, esp. if (as
you suggest) the more severe the punishment, the more likely the
criminal is to kill witnesses?

-Bryan
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: State automobile "Lemon Laws"- any experience?
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:06:11 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

I've asked this question in a couple other newsgroups
(misc.consumers, rec.autos), but haven't had any replies...

Does anyone have any direct experience, or know of anyone that
has had personal experience, in succesfully invoking their
state's auto lemon laws?  Such laws usually call for the
manufacturer to refund/exchange the consumer for an auto that
is unfixable.

I'm curious whether such laws really work, or if they're just
a sop to consumers that auto manufacturers can usually circumvent.

	Dave

Xref: sparky misc.legal:20364 rec.autos:27789 rec.autos.tech:15777
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.autos,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Factory Standard Radio Installation
Date: 24 Nov 92 02:57:29 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In a recent Third Circuit case where the Supreme Court denied certiorari[*],
a group of auto sound-equipment installers sued Chrysler for making 
factory-installed radios standard equipment in their cars.  I'm curious
whether it is indeed cheaper for an auto manufacturer to install radios
into every single one of their cars instead of, say, making radios optional
and installing them in 70-80% of their cars.  If anyone has any sources
for where I can find this sort of information, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Please followup to misc.legal or to me through e-mail.  If there's a great
demand for this sort of information, I'll be happy to post a summary.

[*] Town Sound v Chrysler, 959 F2d 468 (3d Cir 1992).
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky misc.legal:20368 talk.politics.misc:61480
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:33:59 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov20.212216.12852@hellgate.utah.edu>, speterse%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty) writes:
> In article <13236@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ## was to take account of the fact that heterosexual sex between a young
# ## adolescent and an adult is not generally considered traumatic if the
# ## adolescent is male?
#  
# #Not at all clear.  
# 
# What's unclear about it?
# 
# An adult male who has sex with an adolescent girl is "taking advantage"
# of her, whereas an adult female who has sex with an adolescent boy is 
# "initiating" him--at least that's how the popular stereotypes run.  I
# don't claim that the stereotypes are true, merely that they are widely
# believed, and that it is a perfectly plausible motivation for California's 
# age of consent laws.

They are widely believed?  Not by me, or the people I know.  Maybe
you need to hang around a higher caliber of people.

# soren f petersen           :        i AM NOT          :    --Doc
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: "Right to procreate" (was Supreme Court and Homosexuality)
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:39:21 GMT


In article <19394@smoke.brl.mil>, 
matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) said:

> > Can Georgia constitutionally ban heterosexual sex?  [Ted Frank]
>
> We have it from Justice William Douglas's opinion for the U. S.
> Supreme Court in _Skinner v. Oklahoma_, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), that
> legislation taking away the right to procreate affects "one of the
> basic civil rights of man," because marriage and procreation are
> fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

Of course, back in 1942 medical technology wasn't nearly as far
advanced as it is today in the fields of human procreation that do not
directly involve or require the act of heterosexual copulation...
suppose Georgia passed a set of laws which banned heterosexual sex but
also guaranteed the right of unlimited access to state-funded
artificial insemination clinics? :-)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Mail Order Problem:
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 05:22:39 GMT

rerickso@cwis.unomaha.edu (Ronald D. Erickson) writes:


>Does anyone know if I have addressed a personal mail
>order problem in the best manner.  I ordered a computer
>disk drive from an advertisement that listed an
>address in Canada (I am in the United States).  I sent
>a check for the amount for payment.  After 30 days I
>had not heard a thing through the mails so I called
>the magazine office and got the person's telephone
>number.  He was surprised I had his telephone number.
>In a couple of days he called me and told me the disk
>drive would be sent out in a day or two.  That was the
>first week in October.  I have the original check that
>was cashed and endorsed by him through my bank.  I made
>a photocopy of everything applicable to the case and 
>filled out a United States Post Office form through their
>International Office in Washington, D.C.  Should I also
>contact my State attorney general to see if she can do
>anything further?

>In the future, any such orders will be COD.  Is that a
>good idea?

I allways use a credit card. It is much easier to get your money
back. You just contest the charge. The credit card company has to
credit the amount back to you if they can't substantiate the charge.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.misc
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: A Canadian Asks a Question
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:25:20 GMT

In article <62zY02rx2bOE01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Nov14.173056.12202@panix.com>, lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) 
>writes:
>> Yes, but if the Liberal Party's electors are not the same as the
>> Democratic Party's electors, then Clinton could conceivably get the
>> plurality of votes in NY State, and not get any electoral votes if the
>> Liberal party electors get a significant portion of the Clinton votes
>> but don't get enough to win.
>
>I think that's correct.  In a follow-up email, Doug posed the specific 
>question,
>
>> Suppose the popular vote goes as follows:
>> 
>>   29% for Liberal Electors    (Candidate Clinton) 
>>   31% for Democratic Electors (Candidate Clinton) 
>>   40% for Republican Electors (Candidate Bush)
>> 
>> Which slate of electors gets to vote?
>
>I would have to assume the Republican electors get to vote: they won more 
>votes than any other slate.  I suppose this could vary from state to state 
>(the office of elector is a state, not federal, office), but I don't think it 
>would.
>...

Could we please have a clarification from a New York registered voter?  

Were there indeed multiple switches for Clinton/Gore and for Bush/Quayle?

Or, were their names only on the ballot in one place each, with multiple
parties indicated?