HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:02:45 GMT

> = (Tom Leylan) writes:
>> = (Mike Polen) writes:

>>So far, it is only Republican adminstrations that show a disdain
>>for the law and a contempt for the public.  If Clinton acts the same
>>way, I will work to get him out as soon as possible.

>Well if we're willing to close our eyes then "so far only Mike Polen has
>demonstrated a disdain for the law and a contempt for the public".

Oh, *please* educate us, Tom.

>Don't you at least recognize that you're making this "only Republican"
>stuff up ?  We all realize it... maybe you're only 12 - 16 years old
>and only remember the last few adminstrations.

Don't be a jerk.  Maybe you've forgotten our swell President Nixon.
That sweaty liar didn't tell the truth in his last two years in office,
and still...STILL can't admit to wrongdoing.  Open your eyes, please.

>Perhaps you only think disdain exists at the Presidential level.

Mike was speaking of presidential administrations.  I see it's made you
uncomfortable enough to change the subject.  

>Would you be happier if George Bush smoked crack like the last Mayor
>of D.C. ?  Oh that wasn't contempt for the law, the hooker he had in
>the motel made him do it.

George Bush did PLENTY of his own to warrant impeachment.  So did
Reagan.  And their crimes were to further their own political agendas. 

I guess you forgot his name, but Mayor Barry, whom I *don't* admire, was
guilty of "sins of the flesh".  Reagan and Bush (and Nixon) betrayed the
trust of America.  

Perhaps you have no clue as to why their underlings lied for
them, took the fall, destroyed massive quantities of evidence, etc?
Have you become so revisionist you forget just how much of a coverup
went ON during the Iran-Contra hearings, up to and including the
revelation that Bush illegally HID a personal diary concerning I-C until
DECEMBER 11TH, 1993?  If Walsh had total access to all evidence, do you
really doubt that at least one set of impeachment hearings would have
come to pass?

C'mon.

>Am I mistaken in recalling that the Kennedy administration admitted to
>planning an assassination attempt on Castro ?

You just said the key word: ADMITTED.  Nixon, Bush and Reagan couldn't
tell the truth if their lives depended on it.

>I'm not asking you to kiss Bush's feet but raise your eyes and look
>out over the horizon.

Tom, you really have not disproved Mike's contentions one iota.  It's
apparent it's YOU kissing Bush's feet; in fact, you seem a mere
knee-jerk Republican apologist, and I do admit, you have much to
apologize for.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky misc.legal:22209 talk.politics.misc:66751 alt.president.clinton:1426
From: THOMASG@staff.tc.umn.edu (Thomas D.Gasser)
Subject: Re: Movies in the public domain
Organization: Department of Neurosurgery, University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:26:59 GMT

In article <1ijpoeINN6f7@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
>Subject: Re: Movies in the public domain
>Date: 8 Jan 1993 11:49:34 GMT

>stachnik@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (George Stachnik) writes:
>>I'm interested in movies that have passed into the public
>>domain.  Does anybody have a list?  I was told recently that
>>nobody owns the copyright to "It's a Wonderful Life", which
>>I found hard to believe.  Can anyone confirm or deny?  Are

>I think one of the wire services carried this story.  They said that some
>lawyer at the studio forgot to file for the extension when the copyright
>expired.

>I bet that lawyer's boss was real annoyed...

The story I read was a little different.  When the copyright was up for 
renewal it was not considered the classic it is now.  Instead of filing for a 
renewal, the studio let it lapse.  By letting it into the public domain it 
allowed all of the TV stations play it (and play it and play it and Play it 
...) As more and more people saw it for the first time (or the first time in 
a long time) it developed its "classic" status.  

With out it going into the public domain it would never be worth as much as it 
is now.  Of coarse since it is in the public domain now it is not making the 
studio any money either.  




    *********************************************************************
    *  Thomas D. Gasser                                                 *
    *  Department of Neurosurgery                *******     ******     *
    *  University of Minnesota                    ***  *** *** ***      *
    *  (612) 624-4427                             ***   *****  ***      *
    *  E-Mail:  THOMASG@STAFF.TC.UMN.EDU         *****        *****     *
    *                                                                   *
    *********************************************************************
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Newsgroups: misc.legal

I'm interested in movies that have passed into the public
domain.  Does anybody have a list?  I was told recently that
nobody owns the copyright to "It's a Wonderful Life", which
I found hard to believe.  Can anyone confirm or deny?  Are
there any other films of note that are in the public domain?


----------
From: mark.schumann@pcohio.wariat.org (Mark Schumann) 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accep
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:34:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PC-OHIO BBS - Cleveland, OH - 216-381-3320
Reply-To: mark.schumann@pcohio.wariat.org (Mark Schumann) 


Tim Smith wrote:

TS!pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
  !>The excellent book "Healing Our World" by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart tells about
  !>the taxi situation in New York City.  It seems that in certain parts of
  !>town, it is so dangerous that no licensed taxi driver will go there.
  !>Taxi medallions are hard to come by (the city limits the number) so it
  !>prevents the people who are poor and unemployed from operating in this
  !>area legally.  These laws helped keep the lower class from ever being
  !>able to make their own way in society.

TS!If they are poor, would they be able to afford to take a taxi on a regular
  !basis?

Sure.  Compare the cost of a couple of taxi rides in a week (around $7
for a four-mile ride here) against the cost of owning a car, particularly
if you keep up the liability insurance that is required in most states.
(Ohio's enforcement is a little lax--many people drive uninsured.)

For many people I know, it makes sense to walk or ride the bus when
they can, and take a cab otherwise.  Many older people set aside
cab fare for the weekly trip to the supermarket so they don't have
to carry multiple bags on the bus.

 * SLMR 2.1a * "You summoned me, Captain?" asked T. Earl Grey, hotly.
                                          
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|       PC-OHIO PCBoard BBS - Cleveland, Ohio - 216-381-3320       |
|   Computer Shopper Best BBS in America - 35 lines USR DS 16800   |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: patstew@oz.plymouth.edu (Pat Steward)
Subject: Re: ADDRESS
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 19:26:41 GMT

In article <3038.719.uupcb@ehbbs.gwinnett.com> dan.baer@ehbbs.gwinnett.com (Dan Baer)  writes:
> Question: Does anyone know a good way to find the address of a person
>when you only have their phone number. I have tried 'PhoneFile' on
>CI$ but they do not have the phone number in their database. The
>phone number should be in Carroll County Georgia (prefix 562).

I've had good luck (unless the number is unlisted) calling directory
assistance, asking for the person's number, then staying on the line
after the recording runs.  Usually you get connected to a "live"
operator -- just ask if they're allowed to give out the person's
address as well.  In several years, I've only had one refusal.
-- 
Patricia Martin Steward                      patstew@oz.plymouth.edu
I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is;
I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express senti-
ments that differentiate me from a doormat.       Rebecca West, 1913
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:18:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.073836.6197@psg.com> michaels@psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:

>If an Impeachment can override a Pardon, could the Senate use
>impeachment proceedings to override _Weinberger's_ Pardon?

       Impeachment does not *override* a pardon.  The Executive power to 
Pardon does not extend to Impeachment at all.  Impeachment also does not 
extend any further than to remove a person from federal office.
       The two proceedings are two different things.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Copyright for games (was: patent/copyright question)
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:35:55 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1436@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, pjhst10+@pitt.edu (Peter   J Hill) 
writes:
>  I am designing a board game (imagine monopoly, but totally different),
> and am in the mist of putting together a prototype.  Does anyone know
> What I do to protect the game from being stolen.  Do I have to get
> a patent, copyright, trademark, what.  And where can I get information
> on how to do it. 

Can't help you on much patent or trademark.  

I suspect games can't be patented. Although, a novel and non-obvious 
component of a game might be patentable.  I'm thinking of the old 
"Operation!" game, where kids tried to take out bones, etc., with a tweezers 
w/o setting off the electric buzzer.  Had that been non-obvious and novel at 
the time of its introduction (though it almost certainly wasn't), it'd have 
been patentable.

Trademark is just protecting the _name_ of your game to prevent another 
person from using the same or similar name and causing confusion to the 
public as to which is which (oversimplification, but that's basicly it).

Games are copyrighted.  To obtain information on what is required for a game 
to be copyrighted, and instructions on registering it, call the Copyright 
Office's "Forms and Circulars Hotline" at 202-707-9100.  Leave a voice mail 
message with your name and address, and request Copyright Office Kit number 
108, which covers copyright for games and includes the required forms 
(probably form TX).

Another worthwhile publication to request (from the same number) is Circular 
2, "Publications on Copyright."  This is a catalog of all the circulars, 
forms, etc, offerred free of charge by the Copyright office, as well as 
related publications from other offices (e.g., the National Technical 
Information Service and the US Superindendent of Documents).

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:03:15 GMT

>Well, I have about $75 in U.S. silver certificates, which unlike the 'notes'
>(which they bear an uncanny resemblance to), say that they're redeemable for
>silver ON DEMAND. But I'll be dammed if I'm going to spend those just to
>please Federal Express.

Not anymore.  Some time ago (during the Nixon administration, I think) the 
gov't set a deadline after which silver certificates would no longer be
redeemable for metal.  There was a massive buyup by various investors at
this time based on the silver value of well circulated/worth very little
over face value as a collectible, but worth well over face in silver,
silver certificates.

The gov't did this because the redeemability was based on a specific weight
of silver per dollar.

Federal reserve notes are also redeemable for silver and gold, it's just
that the redemption is done thru private hands and the amount per dollar
of note demonitation changes daily (prices listed in the WSJ daily).

                                        rob b.
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: stat. of limit. on pe
Date: 11 Jan 93 04:41:33 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Chris Katopis, in a message to All on 01-10-93 at 9:23am, said:

CKHow long after someone trips on your sidewalk, can they bring a suit for
   personal injuries in New York State?
   

          Three years.  CPLR  214(5).


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #11645  There once was a [ ] from [ ] whose [ ] was
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: SPS
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:02:37 GMT

In article <C067C2.J8x@panix.com>, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
|> In <1992Dec31.223223.19589@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com sez:
|> >In article <1992Dec31.160750.19838@panix.com>, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> This situation is analogous to a standard 4th amendment violation, the
|> >|> use of improperly seized evidence at trial.  Convictions are on
|> >|> occasion overturned (properly, in my view) because the
|> >|> gun/knife/bloody shirt was obtained through an illegal search or
|> >|> seizure.  This legal principle offers no support for the proposition
|> >|> that the defendant in such a case is not factually guilty; it means
|> >|> only that the constitution does not permit him to be convicted through
|> >|> the use of the suppressed evidence, no matter how reliable or
|> >|> probative it may be.
|> >
|> >The analogy fails.  Physical evidence did not change when North was forced
|> >to testify to Congress.  The appeals court told the trial court that it
|> >must prove that North's testimony did not affect any of the witnesses
|> >testimony.  Since North's testimony altered the recollection (and
|> >therefore the testimony) of the witnesses the trial court dismissed the
|> >charges.
|> 
|> 
|> Eric, I am deeply impressed by your inability to think this through.
|> 
|> I'll restate the general proposition at issue here: Whether or not
|> North's testimony (and that of witnesses influenced by it) was
|> properly admissible, there is no reason for doubting its truth.
|> 
|> Even assuming that Bud McFarlane's testimony *was* altered by his
|> hearing North's immunized testimony, why does that make McFarlane's
|> testimony factually unreliable?  Answer: *It doesn't*.  Even if Bud
|> changed his testimony, he did so in reliance on North's sworn,
|> immunized testimony before the Joint Committees.
|> 
|> Unless you can offer some substantial reason for doubting the truth of
|> North's testimony, your entire argument fails.  Since there is no such
|> reason, I suggest you stop displaying your ignorance by repeating
|> these irrelevant observations about McFarlane.

Testimony changes but it is reliable.  Not very impressive Mark.

-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:46:09 GMT

In <1993Jan6.185704.7172@netcom.com> (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:
>In a previous article tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) spake...
>>linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:
>>>In a previous article tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) spake...

>>>>Taxi drivers are mugged all the time and 7-11's are notorious for being
>>>>robbed would it bother you that much if a Fed.Ex. driver or the company
>>>>that hires him would rather not be shot for some cash ?

>>>Banks get robbed. So do Brinks' Trucks; people at ATM machines, pedestrians,
>>>the paper boy, gas stations, liquor stores, supermarkets, restaurants, ...
>>>I guess, by your 'logic', that cash should be abolished all together.
>>>Hey, look at that 'carjacking' trend. It's just too risky to have people
>>>driving out there on the roads. Let's get rid of the cars too.

>>>Life's full of risks, pal. Deal with it or jump ship.

>>So, are you proposing that if I decide that I find the carjacking trend to
>>make driving too dangerous for me, I should be forced to drive, because *you*
>>don't think that the risk is that great?

>Federal Express is a business. You are in individual and have a choice. If you
>were, say, a taxi company, you MUST drive and MUST pick up everyone requesting
>a ride (including pick ups in dangerous parts of town). Otherwise you WILL
>have your taxi license revoked.

And of course, taxi licenses are one of the more useful inventions of
our time.  Other than allowing existing taxi companies to keep prices
higher, are there any rational reasons for them?

I doubt Tim could possibly be a taxi company.  He might work for one,
but he couldn't be one.  And you didn't answer his question -- you
merely changed the parameters a little.  

Are you proposing that if Pizza Hut finds the carjacking trend to make 
delivering pizzas too dangerous, they should be forced to, because *you* 
don't think the risk is all that great?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Xref: sparky misc.legal:22102 alt.censorship:9848 alt.society.civil-liberty:7297 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1393
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:33:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <1993Jan6.195506.5605@eff.org>, I wrote:

>>Judge Learned Hand had proposed
>>a test whereby only actual incitements could be punished, and any
>>speech not containing explicit incitements was protected, context be
>>damned--this test had been rejected as unenforceable, for any clever
>>speaker worth her salt could achieve the same results without reciting
>>the magic words to qualify under Hand's objective test.
>
>And yet, Ted, this is the law of the land after Brandenburg v. Ohio.
>Amazingly, society has not yet fallen, nor have solicitation prosecutions
>disappeared.

I want to add here that I often find useful the following discussion of
the distinction between mere advocacy and incitement:

  "Advocacy is the communication of ideas; it is
directed at intellect; it affords the listener an opportunity to reflect
on it. Incitement, on the other hand, ... is a spur to automatic action,
intended to bypass the rational thought processes. It is against this
oversimplified background that the classic case of shouting fire in a
crowded theater can best be understood. Shouting the word "fire" is not
the communication of an idea designed for reflective thought; it is
precisely the same as if a fire *bell* were intentionally rung. It is
intended to spur an automatic series of responses."

                Alan Dershowitz, THE BEST DEFENSE, p. 222


--Mike


-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Date: 8 Jan 1993 11:06:12 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>The excellent book "Healing Our World" by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart tells about
>the taxi situation in New York City.  It seems that in certain parts of
>town, it is so dangerous that no licensed taxi driver will go there.
>Taxi medallions are hard to come by (the city limits the number) so it
>prevents the people who are poor and unemployed from operating in this
>area legally.  These laws helped keep the lower class from ever being
>able to make their own way in society.

If they are poor, would they be able to afford to take a taxi on a regular
basis?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:36:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.222320.20055@IRO.UMontreal.CA> simon@matagami.iro.umontreal.ca (Daniel Simon) writes:

>I'm curious as to what one can possibly mean by "Holmes went wrong".
>Rampant moral perversity?  Insufficient prescience in guessing what
>the folks in black gowns would happen to be thinking this week?
>Transgression in the eyes of Heaven?  Personal disagreement with Dan
>Simon or Ted Frank?

None of these. Holmes went wrong in supposing that his formulation would
adequately protect First Amendment interests.

>If one contemplates the possibility that he may have "[gone] wrong",
>then one must consider the possibility that the current Supreme Court
>may also have "[gone] wrong", and pretty soon one is wondering why all
>these critical decisions about how a society governs itself are being
>trusted to a panel of appointed blowhards in the first place.  That
>way surely lies democracy, or some other such madness.

You seem to imply that contemplating these matters leads one to the
conclusion that some system is better than this "panel of appointed
blowhards." You also seem to ignore the possibility that one can be
devoted to democracy, critical of the Supreme Court's decisions, and
admiring of its institutional role. I'm all three, and I'm not suffering
even a smidgen of cognitive dissonance.

>"Que dites vous?  C'est inutile?  Je le sais!		Daniel R. Simon
> Mais on ne se bat pas dans l'espoir du succe`s!"	simon@iro.umontreal.ca

It seems apparent to me that the U.S. Supreme Court, even at its worst, is
far from "inutile," and that, if anything, Canada's chief tribunal is what
needs an infusion of the tres utile spirit of freedom of expression.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Xref: sparky misc.legal:22188 talk.politics.misc:66714 alt.president.clinton:1413