HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.legal.computing,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Patent System Caused L.A. Riots?
Keywords: patent riot Japan
Date: 24 Dec 92 03:45:14 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <BzqDrp.IGy@world.std.com> larry@world.std.com (Larry Appleman) writes:

|Japanese news analysts propose that last May's riots in Los Angeles
|were caused by the U.S. patent system.

|During a recent visit to Japan, a delegation from the Japan-U.S. Study
|Group of the American Intellectual Property Law Association was told
|that a Japanese television program "created the link that the U.S.
|patent system was the reason for the riots in Los Angeles," according
|to Charles Berman, head of the delegation, as quoted in the National
|Law Journal, Nov. 30, 1992, at page 3,

|The National Law Journal article reports that Charles Berman said, "We
|were told that the Japanese recently put a program on TV showing the
|flames of L.A. burning in the background, saying that was caused by
|the U.S. jury system that is 'destroying U.S. law' and is being used
|against companies in patent litigation."

Somebody at the Law Journal has a reading comprehension problem.

In this statement the Japanese gentleman is saying that both problems
have a common root, an out of control legal system.

He did not say that the patent system caused the riots.

Maybe the writer just hoped to make the Japanese look stupid.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: none
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:39:32 GMT

bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:

>busta@vicki.enet.dec.com writes:


>>  The big deal is that Reagan/Bush and company felt they could do
>> anything they damn well pleased even though Congress and most of
>> the American people said NO to giving military support to the Contras.

>Most of the American people?? Where do you get that?? 
>This was a policy dispute between a Republican president and a 
>Democratic congress. You forget that Reagan was elected by these
>same people that you assume so glibly opposed his policies, by
>a margin significantly higher than Slick Willy's "Mandate". 

And that vast Democratic majority in Congress was clearly imposed
on the American people by a vast Communist conspiracy.

:-) for the irony-impaired.

-- 
----------------------------------
Dan Breslau
dan@codex.com
"Why quote someone else?" -- Paul E. Hoffman
From: roder@cco.caltech.edu (Brenda J. Roder)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Diplomatic Immunity
Date: 22 Dec 1992 00:26:42 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

>Bring it up in misc.legal.  Many substantial topics have been discussed there 
>that owe their origin to an episode of a ficticious show.  There's no 
>discrimination based on the origin of the question, and there are some well-
>schooled people who read and respond, including at least three lawyers, and 
>four law students.

Recently, I saw one show (Law & Order, set in New York City) which had
someone with diplomatic immunity accused of murder.  They said that it 
(immunity) didn't apply for crimes of a (greivous? serious? major? darn,
I can't remember the exact word they used) nature, so they were able to 
bring him to trial.  About a week later, I saw a different show (less
serious The Commish) where they had a rapist ith diplomatic immunity.  They
had to convince the Ambassador to waive this person's immunity before they
could arrest him.  So the question is, which one was correct (more correct?)
or is rape not sufficiently grave to warrant automatic waiver of immunity.


-- 
-- Brenda (roder@cobalt.caltech.edu)
Thought before action, if there's time.
    _The Edge_  Dick Francis
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Diplomatic Immunity
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 04:46:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.124456.2304@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>In defense of "Law and Order" -- the seven or eight episodes of which
>I've seen since I started watching it were uniformly very good in
>their handling of legal issues, imho -- I'll point out that they
>probably _did_ have things correct.

I agree. This show generally gets legal issues correct. And it also has
Michael Moriarty, who has captured the spooky mentality of a certain type
of prosecutor.


--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 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 10:22:46 GMT

In article <bhayden.725784933@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:

>So - you are faced with a situation where if Ollie's rights
>had been respected, he would have been exonerated (or never
>even charged) on those crimes. Instead, he is convicted on
>unconstitutional evidence. 

Even if we accept that his compelled testimony before Congress
meant his right to a fair trial was violated, I think it is quite
a leap from this premise to your conclusion: namely, that North 
could not have been convicted if he had not been compelled to testify.
Jeffrey Toobin's OPENING ARGUMENTS documents the investigation and prosecution
of the North case; it seems plain, based on the evidence that could have been
(and was) assembled in this case independent of the Congressional
hearings, a reasonable jury could have found North guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt on the charges on which he was, in fact, convicted.

I take it you dispute Toobin's book, Bruce?

>Where is the ACLU here. They should be up in arms about this

Many civil libertarians, including me, are concerned about the problems
raised by compelling testimony before Congress. Given that Walsh could not
order Congress *not* to conduct hearings, it seems to me that North's
prosecutors did everything humanly possible to prevent compelled testimony
from affecting the case. Don't forget that they had a greater interest in
achieving this result than Brendan Sullivan did; the prosecutors wanted
any convictions to survive an appeal.


--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 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren)
Subject: Re: Property going to the state
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:09:46 GMT

bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:

>In article <1992Dec28.154557.29013@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:
>:In article <sBeFwB1w164w@cellar.org> hacksaw@cellar.org (Hacksaw) writes:
>:>My grandmother has recently taken ill and will probably spend the rest of her 
>:>life in a nursing home. Medicare is currently paying for care, but her limit 
>:>is about to run out(100 days). 
>:> 
>:>She does have a property that will be taken by the state to help pay for 
>:>expenses after the hundred days. The family does have power of attorney of 
>:>her assets. Is there a way we can sell the home just prior to it being 
>:>confiscated by the state?
>:> 
>:>We've already talked to a lawyer and getting answers from him is like pulling 
>:>teeth. He still hasn't answered the question forthright. 
>:>
>:>Any responses would be greatly appreciated.
>:
>:I'd start by getting in touch with another lawyer.  That isn't meant to

>As a taxpayer I would hope that even if they did sell the property that
>the state would then come after them.

>If she has assets why should taxpayers foot the bill for her care?
>If she did not have assets then by all means I am for supporting her
>with public funds. Part of being an open society is caring for those
>who do not have the assets to pay for their care. But if she has assets,
>then they should be used first.

>I suspect selfishness on the part of her heirs who would otherwise 
>inherit this property. Why should they be entitled to it at the expense
>of taxpayers?

I'm going to ask if, by any chance, the family is contemplating selling the
house so that maybe they can get a better price for the house than the
government, and then use that money to pay for the nursing home care?

Why DOES the family want to sell the house themselves before the government
confiscates it?

allen
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: why has statutory law been replacing common law?
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 05:42:02 GMT

tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>In addition to the U.S. Constitution, you have to look at your state
>constitution and state laws to determined what English law is applicable.

>For example, Code section 1-10 of Virginia says that "The common law of
>England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of
>Rights and Constitution of this State, shall continue in full force within
>the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General
>Assembly."

>Is there any original state that did NOT keep English common law when that
>state gained independence?

I think Louisiana - whose judicial system is supposedly based on
the Napolianic code instead.

>Where did new states get their common law from?  If there was a dispute over,
>say, negligence, in a pre-state territory, what law applied?  Most states
>became states before _Erie_, so I would guess that Federal common law developed
>and was applied in these situations, but what happened after _Erie_?  I would
>guess that _Erie_ pretty much stopped development of Federal common law in
>areas such as torts, so what happened in states formed after _Erie_?  Did
>they start out with old Federal common law, from before _Erie_, or what?

Over all, forget the federal government. The states took their common
law (for the most part) directly from England. This is because the 
original 13 states already had incorporated English common law 
(as of a certain date) in their own common law prior to the formation
of the United States. 

In Colorado, the incorporation is found in C.R.S. 2-4-211

	The common law of England so far as the same is applicable and
	if a general nature, and all acts and statutes of the British
	Parliament, made in aid of or to supply the defects of the 
	common law prior to the fourth year of James the First, 
	excepting the second section of the sixth chapter of 
	forty-third Elizabeth, the eigth chapter of thirteenth
	Elizebeth, and the ninth chapter of thirty-seventh Henry
	the Eigth, and which are of a general nature, and not
	local to that kingdom, shall be the rule of decisions
	and shall be considered as of full force until repealed
	by legislative authority.

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

Xref: sparky misc.legal:21868 talk.politics.misc:65826
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 31 Dec 92 07:42:52 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

scott@ryptyde.cts.com (Scott McClure) writes:

}patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger) writes:
}>	The "real issue" is that Special Prosecutor Lawrence E.
}>	Walsh was appointed by the RayGun Administration to find
}>	the truth and ferret out the weasels involved in 
}>	Iran/Contra-Gate! One of Walsh's initial reactions was
}>	** the fish smells from the head down **

}So?  What's the big deal about?  It's all just a big liberal-sponsored
}witch-hunt.  Why should such a powerful position be given to just one
}person?  He doesn't have to answer to *anyone*.  That's just not right,
}IMHO.

You're talking about Walsh?  What powers does he have?  Correct me if
I'm wrong, but I thought that as a prosecutor, special or not, all he
can do is bring charges.  It still requires a trial, with all the checks
and balances therein, to actually convict someone of a crime, right?
So it's not really true that Walsh doesn't have to answer to anyone; he
has to answer to the judges and juries at any trials that he gets.

--James Preston
From: jsweet@irvine.com (Jerry Sweet)
Subject: Re: Put away your Motif manual; Sun's lawyers are at the door! 
             <1h80cpINNevp@spud.Hyperion.COM> 
Organization: Irvine Compiler Corp., Irvine, California, USA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:54:13 GMT
To: koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm)

After reading the license agreement for myself, I grok that you CAN'T
develop software under Solaris 2.1 **AT ALL**.  Heh.  Methinks the
lawyers failed to run the language past any of the technical people.

To quote from the license:

> Developed Programs are to be OPEN LOOK(R) compliant and have an
> application programming interface that is the same as that of
> Software;

So your application must have an API.  And the API must be the SAME as
that of "Software" (Solaris 2.1).  This obviously means that you can
only sell software that re-implements Solaris 2.1.  Which would
probably be prosecuted by Sun as some sort of intellectual property
violation.

So...Sun shot themselves in the feet.  You CAN'T develop software for
Solaris 2.1.  At All.  Not without violating their license.

Disclaimer: this is not legal advice; just my interpretation of Sun's
Solaris 2.1 license agreement.  I predict that Sun rethinks this policy.

Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: none
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:03:40 GMT

bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:

>dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau) writes:

>>bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:

>>>busta@vicki.enet.dec.com writes:

>>>>  The big deal is that Reagan/Bush and company felt they could do
>>>> anything they damn well pleased even though Congress and most of
>>>> the American people said NO to giving military support to the Contras.

>>>Most of the American people?? Where do you get that?? 
>>>This was a policy dispute between a Republican president and a 
>>>Democratic congress. You forget that Reagan was elected by these
>>>same people that you assume so glibly opposed his policies, by
>>>a margin significantly higher than Slick Willy's "Mandate". 

>>And that vast Democratic majority in Congress was clearly imposed
>>on the American people by a vast Communist conspiracy.

It's really not nice to leave out the smiley I added -- no matter
how clear it may be to you that I was being ironic.

>Maybe - with incumbant protection that was running 98% retention
>rate in Congress. How do you compete if your oponent mails all
>of your possible constitutents 3 times a year, then gets your
>mother her medicare.

Oh, so when Democratic incumbents in Congress get re-elected due to
the privileges of incumbency, that's unfair competition; but when
Reagan, using the bully pulpit of the White House, gets re-elected by
a small majority of those who bothered to vote (*), that's a mandate.

(*) Some talk of the '84 election as a landslide, but really, it
was such only by the electoral vote, not the popular vote.  The
last *real* landslide, IMHO, was Johnson over Goldwater in '64.

>Note also that Reagan had more votes than all of the democrats
>in either one of the houses. 

Lies, damn lies, and....  This is a meaningless statistic if
ever I saw one.  To make the comparison meaningful, you'd have
to add in all the votes given to the Democrats who *lost* their
bids for Congressional seats.

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

-- 
----------------------------------
Dan Breslau
dan@codex.com
"Why quote someone else?" -- Paul E. Hoffman
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:07:50 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Dec31.002807.11313@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com sez:
>
>But there were witnesses whose recollection and testimony changed because 
>of North's forced testimony.  Specifically, McFarland's story changed after
>hearing North

So what?  McFarlane's alleged reliance on that testimony does *not*
impugn the verdict at all.

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.

Try again, O defender of felons.


-- 
They told me you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky misc.legal:21825 talk.politics.misc:65685 alt.president.clinton:1295
From: patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 30 Dec 92 15:35:01 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.bush,alt.president.clinton
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Dec30.100400.6809@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>>
>> [deleted] 
>  [       ]
>
Tom, I edited (for brevity's sake) because you're so fond of edited
postings :-)

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

And the Bush administration's attempts on Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah
Khomeini, Moammar Khaddafy - are these of no consequence?
 
>I'm not asking you to kiss Bush's feet but raise your eyes and look
>out over the horizon.

Okay, Tom, and I'm not asking you to read the reports on the wire
services, so I've edited them for you :-)
 
"I am not a crook."  -- Richard Nixon

"I've given every bit of evidence I have to these thousands of
investigators." (George Bush, NBC-TV interview, Septemer 15, 1992) 

Bush has said that he was "out of the loop" on the arms-for-hostages plan. 

The White House didn't notify Walsh until Dec. 11 that it had Bush's
typewritten notes -- which the then-vice president began dictating in
November 1986 as the Iran-Contra affair was erupting. 

"I had a different understanding of what they meant by notes," the
75-year-old Weinberger said. 

"What really disturbs me about the president's statement this week is
really not so much the pardons as his just unwillingness to acknowlege that
crimes were committed, that misdeeds and misconduct took place, that
Congress was lied to," said Hamilton, who chaired the House panel that
investigated the affair, on ABC-TV's "This Week with David Brinkley." 

"It's hard to find an adjective strong enough to characterize a president
who has such contempt for honesty," Walsh told Newsweek. 

"The pardons in themselves perfect the coverup," Walsh said. 

"Lawrence Walsh is completely out of control. He's bitter, petty and
vindictive. So now he wants to turn his own six years of incompetence into
a personal vendetta against President Bush," Dole said in a statement. 

Remember Watergate, Deep Throat, The Washington Post reporters and Nixon's list?

Walsh is close to the truth in Iran/ContraGate - it's making the
BU[ll]SH[it] administration very nervous.  Soon they'll all be
"out of the loop" and subject to subpoena without the protection of
"executive privilege."  :-)



-- 
Patricia Ann Bromberger                            patth@panix.com
P.O.Box 273 - Island Station
New York, NY 10044 USA
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: kaufman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Adverse Possession
Keywords: Sovereign
Reply-To: kaufman@CS.Stanford.EDU
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:35:07 GMT

matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

>1)  Does adverse possession run against the sovereign? 

>2)  Can one acquire an easement by prescription against the sovereign?

In California, the answer to this is no, otherwise everyone who jogged over
the town hall lawn would try for an easement.  I recall from my reading of
the statutes that state lands were exempt from easement by prescription
(though not, I suspect, from easement by necessity -- but its hard to mount
a good case against someone who can zone you out of existance.)

Because of the requirement for payment of taxes for adverse possession,
I don't see how you could even get to first base in most jurisdictions that
bill for taxes on a parcel basis.  You would first have to prove that the
county recorder's description of the property was wrong and that your tax
payments were actually credited to some other parcel or portion thereof.

>3)  In California, is a municipality considered to be "sovereign,"
>    as the State is?

In some ways, at least.  You can't just sue a municipality without first
asking for redress from the city council (at least in matters of planning
and zoning).  In my years as a planning commissioner, I saw lots of threats
of suits, but no suits.

-- 
Marc Kaufman (kaufman@CS.Stanford.EDU)

Newsgroups: misc.legal