HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: What's in a big law library?
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:36:22 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Nov15.081016.8271@u.washington.edu>, 
tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
> Do they have a lot more weird material
> that no one has looked at in fifty years?  

Being fair, sometimes those esoteric materials are just what you're looking 
for.   I'm currently going nuts trying to find Senate report 94-473, the 
Senate's legislative history to the Copyright Act of 1976.  The House report 
is considered the dispositive one, and the Senate report was never set forth 
in the USC&CAN.  The problem is that most of the Senate bill was cut, and so 
the history is not particularly relevant to what was passed.  Unfortunately, 
it is what was cut that I'm interested in.

I do have access to a copy on microfilm, byt I am still working on getting my 
own printed copy.  A gentleman at the office of the Senate Judiciary Office 
has offered to lend someone locally in Washington a copy, but that doesn't 
help me here in California.  Now, if a kind misc.legal reader would be 
willing to traipse down to the Senate, borrow the copy, xerox and send it to 
me... :-)


Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: dag@col.hp.com (David Geiser)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: One Bedroom apt for rent
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:58:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: col.1992Nov23.195839.13922
Distribution: usa
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

The following is not related to the previous post.
It is only to point out the absurdity of CO amendment #2.

 One Bed room apt for rent 
 Walking distance to F and R train 
 Grocery store in the building.
 Parking slot in the building
 Available swim, gym, at extra cost.
 
 All these only for $775.00/month + one month deposit
 Rent includes Water and Gas. 
 LesBiGays need not apply.
-- 
* Insert Flame Bait Here *
--
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Summary: There's a fundamental "right to procreate."
Keywords: _Skinner v. Oklahoma_, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:21:46 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Nov22.223446.4225@midway.uchicago.edu> 
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>Here's a hypothetical.
>
>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.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Xref: sparky misc.legal:20371 talk.politics.misc:61481
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 17:41:52 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov21.191517.21348@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:
> >In article <1992Nov17.161012.248@hellgate.utah.edu>, speterse%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty) writes:
# ## This from someone who has repeatedly claimed that the "fascist homosexual 
# ## lobby" is to blame for the success of the OCA?
# 
# #Certainly.  Most people in America are prepared to live and let
# #live on the subject of homoseuxality -- until propagandists for
# #homosexuality start working their way through the public schools.
# 
# In which case, why did measure 9 happen in Oregon, and not California--a state
# in which "homosexual propaganda" is actually taught in the schools?
# 
#     "From your signature it is obvious that you are a homosexual"
# soren f petersen           :        i AM NOT          :    --Doc

California has 31 million people; Oregon has about 3 million.  The
cost of an initiative campaign in California makes it nearly impossible 
for any sort of grass roots organization to put an initiative on the
ballot -- it's just too expensive.  Even heavily backed groups, such
as the recent school voucher initiative, failed to get on the ballot,
because there wasn't several million dollars available to spend.

Also, California is a depraved place, filled with depraved people.
Take a look at our crime rates, for example.
-- 
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,bit.listserv.lawsch-l
From: larry@world.std.com (Larry Appleman)
Subject: How to Cite "The Bluebook"?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:08:20 GMT

This is a question about citation rules.  (Please, no snide comments from
users of "The Maroon Book.")

Using "The Bluebook"'s own rules, how exactly would you cite "The Bluebook"?
I have several problems:

(1) The author's credit on the title page is, "Compiled by the editors of
    the Columbia Law Review, the Harvard Law Review, the University of
    Pennsylvania Law Review, and The Yale Law Journal."  Treating this as
    a work with more than two authors, we get "Editors of Columbia Law
    Review et al." -- but won't that confuse everyone who knows that "The
    Bluebook" comes from Harvard Law Review?

(2) Assuming that "Editors of Columbia Law Review et al." is the correct
    way to describe the author, how should this phrase be abbreviated?  Note
    that book authors' names are to be abbreviated by rules for case names
    and geographical abbreviations, but not necessarily for periodicals --
    so it's not clear whether to use, say, "Colum. L. Rev."

(3) What is the citable title of "The Bluebook"?  Is it "The Bluebook"?
    "The Bluebook:  A Uniform System of Citation"? or "A Uniform System
    of Citation"? or something else?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Larry Appleman                            60 Otis St., Cambridge, Mass. 02140

Newsgroups: misc.legal,bit.listserv.lawsch-l
From: kpscarr@leland.Stanford.EDU (Karen Pelton Scarr)
Subject: Re: How to Cite "The Bluebook"?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 17:06:30 GMT

Columbia Law Rev. Ass'n et al., The Bluebook: A Uniform System of
Citation (15th ed. 1991).  (Author & title in large and small caps).
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Filibuster
Organization: Self-similar
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:43:36 GMT

I tried to send this once before, but our news server was dorked up ...

One question:  What are the current rules regarding filibusters in the
Senate?  The old rules (as I understand them) were that (1) to invoke
cloture required a 2/3 majority of the senate and (2) the speeches
during a filibuster were not restricted (that is, they could be about 
anything -- not just about the topic under consideration).  Are these
still current or have they been changed?

Thanks.
-- 

Will Bralick					wbralick@afit.af.mil

Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: 4 Q's: Deadly Self-Defense Against Rape
Organization: Demi-Public System (One of the Eternal Champions); Eagan, MN, 55123-2507, USA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 01:57:51 GMT

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>I have seen the claim made (and I don't know if it is true or not)
>that in New Jersey, you are required to leave your residence rather
>than use deadly force against an attacker.  Only when you have no
>possible escape can deadly force be used.  Can in anyone in Nazi
>Jersey confirm this by checking your state's criminal code?

I saw one reference to such a claim, but the extenuating circumstances
were significant: the attacker had warned the intended victim that
he intended to return and kil him.  The victim had not (if memory serves)
notified the local cop shop, but had instead armed him/herself and
basically laid wait for the attacker to return.  When the attacker
did return, the "victim" did nto avail him/herself of comparatively
easy escape routes and (from memory again) killed the attacker.

The court/jury was persuaded that the "victim" had shown malice in
not taking reasonable steps to prevent the assault, e.g., not calling
cops, not being elsewhere despite opportunity to do so, etc.  As a
result, "victim" was convicted on (I think) manslaughter.

I do not recall that the sense of the decision was that you have to 
escape if possible; there is generally no duty to retreat from one's
own dwelling.  But in this case, where the attacker had announced his
intention to return, allegation was that it amounted to a rendevous
at the OK corral.

I personally find this disturbing anyway; it gives a would-be attacker 
a fairly safe way to harrass you to the point that cops will not show
up, and still leave you exposed to prosecution if you defend yourself.
I don't like being forced to retreat from my home on someone else's
whim.

In the People's Republic of Minnesotax (TM), there is a law against
making terroristic threats that would subject the attacker to felony
prosecution.  But the burden of proof is the usual BRD, something not
easy to obtain, espceially if the threats are not repeated.

Bill
-- 
gray@hawkmoon.mn.org
This site gets a fair news feed, but e-mail is more reliable. . . :-(
"Veni, vidi, vomiti!"  -- the ghost of Tom Jefferson on reading the Brady Bill
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 06:51:42 GMT

In article <13311@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>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?
>> 
>To make an example of what happens when you waste the time of 
>the courts?

So why not deny certiorari, like the Court does for some 3000 other cases
a year?

I'm curious why you feel that this case was a waste of time for the
courts.  Certainly, Hardwick didn't ask to be prosecuted in the first
place.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky misc.legal:20211 soc.culture.african.american:11352
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Federal Prosecutor's plans in Rodeny King trail leaked to Defense!
Date: 20 Nov 92 08:55:39
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: panther.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: mfriedma@uucp's message of Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:59:50 GMT
Followp-To: soc.culture.african.american

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?
--
Peace.
"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the
 social and political equality of the white and black races--I am not,
 nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor
 of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people."
                                      -Abraham Lincoln
                                       First Lincoln-Douglas Debate
                                       August 21, 1858
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Law books in electronic form?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:17:05 GMT

bmiller@lunatix.uucp (Barry Miller) writes:

>Tell your brother to call 1-800-937-8529.  This is Westlaw's
>customer service line, but they should be able to give him the
>number for CD-ROM.

Also try 1-800-255-2549 ext. 304.  That's the number on the back of
the NY State Bar Journal; might be NY only, but at least it's the CD
people.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller J.D.
From: khui@diva.Berkeley.EDU (Kelvin Y. Hui)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: What is the law regarding scalping in California?
Date: 17 Nov 1992 19:08:57 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: diva.berkeley.edu

Is it illegal only on the day at the event?  If so isn't this
discriminatory?

kelvin Hui
Xref: sparky misc.legal:20258 bit.listserv.lawsch-l:512
From: gordonj@acpub.duke.edu (Jon Gordon)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,bit.listserv.lawsch-l
Subject: Re: How to Cite "The Bluebook"?
Summary: No muss, no fuss.
Date: 21 Nov 92 05:34:37 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Larry-

      I suggest using the form for frequently cited works (Rule 15.7(a)).
Cite it: The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, 15th ed. (1991). It's
not like anyone will have any doubt exactly what you're citing.

     -Jon Gordon
     gordonj@acpub.duke.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h)
Subject: Re: 4 Q's: Deadly Self-Defense Against Rape
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 21:45:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.194549.7488@socrates.umd.edu> ice@socrates.umd.edu (Fredrik Nyman) writes:
>The United Methodist Church, which founded the National Coalition to
>Ban Handguns (NCBH), declares that people should submit to rape and
>robbery rather than endanger the criminal's life by shooting him.  The
>Presbyterian Church, another NCBH affiliate, supports a complete ban
>on handguns because it opposes "the killing of anyone, anywhere, for
>any reason", including defense of others against a life-threatening
>attack.
>
>I don't think either church is known for having liberal views...
>Interestingly, to me it seems that the Presbyterian Church would want
>to disarm *everyone*, including the police and the military.  I'm sure
>that criminals and hostile countries wholeheartedly support that idea.

I've been a member of our local Presbyterian church for 2 years now and
I've never heard either of these positions mentioned, discussed, etc.
I'm not saying that the upper echelon leadership might not hold these
views, but I think the statements above are rather wide in scope, to
say the least.  Guess I'll have to ask my minister what he might know
about this.  The one thing I'd find very disturbing would be for the
church to hold to such an extreme position as "opposes the killing of
anyone, anywhere, for any reason, including defense of others against
life threatening attack."  

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com

Xref: sparky misc.legal:20122 soc.culture.hongkong:14561
From: wb@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (werner.baumgartner)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.hongkong
Subject: Re: Neighbor's loud stereo
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:57:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsj.1992Nov18.175732.14537
Organization: AT&T

Being faced with the same problem at this time, I can make the
following recommendations :

	1) Call the police - most towns have a statute regarding
		excessive noise, disturbing the peace, public
		nuisance, etc.
	2) Call the police - network with your "good" neighbors
		so that several complaints are filed for each event
		of loud music.
	3) Call the police - most police departments will keep
		track of citizen complaints and begin to recognize
		the property as a "problem".
	4) Attend a public Town Council meeting en mass and voice
		your complaint to your elected officials, press to
		have a summons issued based upon 1,2,3 above.

				Good luck, Go through the proper
				channels so as got to start a war.

						Werner B.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:52:17 GMT

In article <24061@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu writes:

>However, the petitioner did not ask the right question.  He
>wanted the Court to rule that homosexuality is a Constitutional right,
>and the Court could not find any basis for this and ruled against him.
>Instead, the petitioner should have asked that the legislation be stricken
>on grounds that it violated the right to privacy.  If this were the
>argument, the petitioner would have had a better chance of winning.

What makes you think that the petitioner *didn't* ask the question
you think he should have asked? What you're writing here seems to have
no connection to the petitioner's brief in Bowers v. Hardwick.


--Mike





-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I can solve this Orient Express thing without
mnemonic@eff.org| breaking a sweat. It's that simple."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Hercule Perot
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.hongkong
From: hpang@engin.umich.edu (Ho Sun Pang)
Subject: Re: Neighbor's loud stereo
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 12:53:27 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <9232315.6656@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> william@natimuk.acci.com.au (William Lo) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.151247.5324@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> abs0@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kelvin Leung) writes:
>>
>>Figure out the person's phone number, and have your modem call it every 
>>five minutes...
>>
>>OK... this is rude... don't use it too often... ;)
>	
>	I repeat, DON'T use it too often, or get ready for the phone
>bills... :-p 
>

Also, be prepared to welcome the FBI guys when you're savoring the charcoal-
burned dead turkey bodies this Thankstaking, since making calls to annoy 
people is FEDERAL CRIME.

(Hell, I should have called the FBI guys when some believers called me and
 yelled at me when I was in a hot bible discussion in this newsgroup!)


- Louis




Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:59:29 GMT

In article <By2t7H.3DF@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>>I think [the Hardwick] decision was wrong.  What two consenting adults
>>do in private is none of the government's business.

>But that has nothing to do with what the court was asked to decide.
>The question was not whether or not it is the business of the federal
>government to regulate the conduct of consenting adults.  The question
>was whether or not it is the business of the federal government to
>regulate a state's legislative power over the conduct of consenting
>adults.  Now, you may feel that prohibiting sodomy is wrong, but all
>the court decided was that such prohibition did not violate the
>Constitution.

And in past times the same Supreme Court ruled that they should not interfere
when states enact and enforce segregation laws (Plessy vs Ferguson--163 U.S. 
537 (1896).  It was not until the early 60's that the Supreme Court voted to
disallow single party politics in the South.  Now in Bauers vs Hardwick they
said that states may invade the privacy of the bedroom to enforce a sexual
mores of a community.

Charlie

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: title insurance
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: misc
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:50:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.1297.20492@execnet> "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com> writes:

>Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28, in a message to All on 11-17-92 at 4:11pm, said:

>>          the title of a drug dealer is not void ab
>>          initio, it is merely forfeitable once the government takes
>>          certain statutory actions.  It may take them only against the
>>          criminal and *his* property, not against a subsequent BFP.
>DS>|           ^^^^^^^
>   |    Shouldn't this be 'the accused' rather than 'the criminal'.
>   |_______________________________________________________________

>          No, the title of an unconvicted accused person is not for-
>          feitable.  Check your title 18, U.S.C.

There were about six cases listed in one of our local papers yesterday.  In
one case a women (whose husband had died of cancer) lost most of a 44 acre
farm that they had raised their family on.  A patch of marijuana was seen
growing on a corner of the property.  They sued the "property", acquired it
by forfeiture and then sold the property.  The money goes into a fund to
aid in the "war on drugs".

Another woman lost her half of a house (she was divorced) because her husband
had a marijuana plant in the basement.  He plead nole contendre and got five
years probation--the house went to the federal government.

They mentioned several cases where "alleged" drug dealers were arrested at
the airport and cash was conviscated (since it "might" be used in a drug
deal).  No court cases were filed--they just took the money.

In property cases they only need to sue the property--since the property is
what's illegal.
From: edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: What's in a big law library?
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 08:04:30 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <8d.S02052b1b01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>

Terry wrote:
>Oh, yeah?  Well, Santa Clara University School of Law has the B.T. Connell 
>Memorial Latrine.  To top it off, a large brass plaque above the urinal reads:
>
>  If it ain't in Gilbert's,
>  It ain't the law.
>
>     - B.T. Connell
>

Check the plaque again. I think it is B.T. Collins.

The scene from upstairs of that library facing the mission church has to be the
best in any law library regardless of size.