HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,co.general,denver.general,talk.politics.misc,du.general
Subject: Re: Former CEO of Silverado Indicted on Bank Fraud Charges
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:58:46 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver

How did Neil Bush fit into the scheme?

Eric
______________________________________________________________________________
|__Eric LeSatz_________________[]{}  I've got seven in the clip and one      |
|__elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu___[]{}  in the chamber. Will that be enough??   |
==============================================================================
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: alt.flame.spelling,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Question for Charles Perez and Ted Frank
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:15:07 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep15.153846.23943@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
>>Note the abusive Parent in Goofus' posting here, as well as the

>Oh, and by the way, it would be "Goofus's."

Sorry, leaving off the trailing "s" is permissible in contractions where
the preceeding letter is also an "s", in proper names.  It is not ambiguous 
since proper names cannot be plural.

Picky point, though.  Your other corrections were right on.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: (312)-E-B-O-N-Y--M-T
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:24:00 GMT

In article <19154@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <11924@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug27.033615.5283@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) 
>>writes:
>
>>> In article <11919@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) 
>>> writes:

>All of this may be true, but if Mr. Nilges or anyone else is *really*
>interested in fighting Racism, he will support the drive to honor 
>the men who have fought so valiantly against Racism:
>
>                             "EBONY MOUNTAIN
>
>    "A drive is underway to honor Black heroes by creating an
>     Ebony Mountain.  The mountain will represent a global tribute
>     to five distinctive great Black men:  Dr. Martin Luther King
>     Jr., Macolm X, Minister Louis Farrakhan, Marcus Garvey and
>     Nelson Mandela.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. fought against racism.  Malcolm X was both
racist and anti-racist; it isn't clear what the net effect of his
actions is.  Louis Farrakhan is a bigot, and sufficient reason to
oppose this project.

>What about that, readers?  Have you called (312)-E-B-O-N-Y--M-T 
>and pledged your generous contribution yet?  Or is all this talk
>about opposing Racism just that -- talk?

And just what will carving up a mountain do to oppose racism?  Being
non-racist opposes racism; fighting against bigots opposes racism.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Entrapment (was: illegal dredging)
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Distribution: misc
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 14:18:51 GMT


In article <19141@smoke.brl.mil>, 
matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) said:

> When Donco obtained these contracts, what did Donco tell the Navy
> Contracting Officer supervising the contract about how and where
> Donco was planning to repair and overhaul the vessels, and about how
> Donco planned to get the vessels to wherever they were going to be
> repaired and overhauled?  Didn't Donco have to certify that it was
> able to perform the contracted-for tasks?  Did the Navy C.O. *know*
> that the channel leading into Donco's 3.6-acre site at India Basin
> would have to be dredged before the contract could be performed?
> (In other words, did the Navy "set up" Donco?)

...and:

> Phew!  This whole case stinks to high heaven.  Either the Navy knew
> what it was doing all the time and the whole thing was a set-up,

...from which I read the strong implication that Matthew thinks that
having the government "set up" people or corporations is a bad thing.
Okay.  But back in article <19125@smoke.brl.mil>, when the subject was
suspected drug sellers and couriers, Matthew said:

> Stopping and searching people who *might* be drug dealers or
> couriers has no place in a free society.  Rather, the police ought
> *first* to offer to buy drugs from a suspected dealer, or to ship
> drugs with a suspected courier, and then if he takes them up on the
> deal, that gives rise to a "reasonable and articulable suspicion"
> that he is a lawbreaker, and then they can search him and seize his
> drugs and weapons.

I sense a slight inconsistency here... why is it all right for the
state to run entrapment operations against people they think might
have a tendency to break one set of laws, but bad for the state to do
roughly the same thing to people who the state thinks might be willing
to break a different set of laws?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: smfoster@well.sf.ca.us (Sharon M. Foster)
Subject: 1L-Week One
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:46:23 GMT


The deafening silence you hear on the network is the sound of hundreds

of law students beginning or returning to class this week...



Last night at my first Contracts class and my first law school class

I learned that..



        ..Hartford is not such a bad drive from Danbury--not

        nice, but not intolerable;



        ..seventy-six people in a class is almost too many--more

        than I'm used to, at least;



        ..at least one law professor is kinder and gentler than those

        folks Scott Turow ran into at Harvard 20 years ago;



        ..my three casebooks (Contracts, Torts, and Civil Procedure)

        have a surprising amount of explanatory text, with questions

        and problems to ponder...I was so looking forward to reading

        the law "the old-fashioned way" (as only John Houseman could

        say it)...I guess I saw too many movies and tv shows in my

        youth...oh, well, maybe it gets worse--I mean better--later.



        ..I'm so very, very, very, very, very glad I spent last

        year at Mattatuck Community College.  I wasn't asking

        questions like "Where would I find these legal terms defined?"

        and "Was this case tried three times?"  (actual questions--

        I am not making this up);



        ..the term for the measure of damages in a breach of contract

        case is called the "expectation measure";



        ..WHY the measure of damages in a breach of contract IS

        the expectation measure;



        ..a state of being is "pareto optimal" if you cannot move

        from it to another state without profiting at someone

        else's expense (in this case, the non-breaching party);



Still not too clear on what a "promise" is, though...funny, last week

I thought I knew that...

Sharon "Still-Smiling 1L" Foster, reporting from Lawyer's Boot Camp
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.sex.bondage
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: The Loss of Innocence 
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:45:21 GMT

[Let's get rid of the "FUCK YOU" that was in the original thread
title]

>In article <191d0lINNojc@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> taa2@po.CWRU.Edu (Tamara A. Adrine-Davis) writes:
>
>In a previous article, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) says:
>
>>Tamara, thanks, and please be advised that you probably will be flamed,
>>this being boysnet.  Please do not let this get you down.
>
>*Grin* I did, but ya know, I really don't mind.  Among the letters that
>I received in response to the post were some pretty wonderful words of
>encouragement and understanding.  The flames don't bother me because they
>too are expressing beliefs.

Your tolerance is to be applauded.  The only thing I'd say here is that
this SEEMS to imply what to me is the common American notion that all
beliefs, no matter how vile, are equivalent, a notion that is used to
systematically disempower.  You might want to take a look at Cornel
West's and bell hooks' work in this connection; in particular, in The
American Evasion of Philosophy, West makes an explicit connection between
philosophy (which cannot, it would seem, make a false equivalence
between beliefs) and what bell hooks refers to as an "epidemic" of low
self-esteem among contemporary Americans.  Part of this low self-esteem
is (to me) the belief that "opinions are like assholes, everyone's got
one" which is intimately connected with usenet flaming, lack of dialog 
and low voter turnout, among countless other ills.

  >There was one that I'll just paraphrase that
>mentions that Usenet is a forum for free speech 

Is it?  Or is it a powerful computer network in which it is easiest for
administrators to allow what appears to be the "right" of free speech in
order to enable the important technical traffic to flow unimpeded?  It
would be a lot more expensive to hire moderators, so the existing chaos
is ECONOMICALLY the best solution for the large companies and government
organizations and universities that are behind usenet.  This is
"virtual" free speech, but instead of being a right, it is a privilege
revocable without recourse and without appeal.  You cannot even get from
system admins a clear account of whether property rights trump free
speech on Usenet; for the same reason written constitutions are
unpopular to some elites, a clear account would empower users, and this
is not a desired outcome.

>
>Thank you for your words of encouragement.  I will continue to post.

Excellent.  See you around.



Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.great-lakes,oh.general,cle.misc
From: jwagner@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Judith O Wagner)
Subject: Re: Ownership Eroding Away (What are my rights?)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 11:59:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.231633.16301@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> eddc@opus.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave Carek) writes:
>
>I'm trying to get some information on the legal rights of land owners
>to protect their property.  The situation I'm describing applies to all
>lake-front (Lake Erie in particular) property owners in the State of
>Ohio who have existing shore protection or are considering the
>construction of shore protection.
>
Obviously you need a lawyer who is familiar with your problem/situation.
Getting "what happened to me when I tried to do it" stories won't
do you a bit of good!  As one who frequently goes to Lake Erie--
although we don't own property there--I wish you luck!



Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Organization: SPS
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:50:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.213334.24454@cs.brown.edu>, ted@cs.brown.edu (Tony Davis) writes:
|> 
|> As I remember it, "a system of laws, not of men" was support for a
|> written constitution not for juries in particular.  Juries were
|> deemed necessary as another balance between the people and the state.
|> As such they can serve both purposes above.  My suggestion is that
|> the founders consciously intended both purposes.  If that is the case
|> then the option to nullify would be deemed a right.  I was hoping that
|> someone could cite the particular Federalist paper or other document
|> where the issue of nullification was explicitly discussed.

Colonial juries did practice jury nullification,  a fact well know by the
writers and adopters of the U.S. Constitution.

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

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: help! judge scared of
Date: 6 Sep 92 09:36:41 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Michael Holloway, in a message to All on 09-05-92 at 12:08am, said:

MH>|Does anyone know if something called a Bill of Particulars can be used 
   |small claims court?  Can a motion be filed in small claims court?  Does
   |anyone know how it works in New York State.  My information is that the
   |areno bills of particulars or motions to be made in small claims.
   |_______________________________________________________________________

          New York has several different types of small claims --
          depending on whether the action is commenced in New York City
          Civil Court, a justice court or a city court, etc.  Each
          court act prescribes different rules.  Generally, the purpose
          of small claims is to do "substantial justice" without the
          formal trappings of litigation, such as discovery and motion
          practice.  However, if you have been directed by a judge to
          respond to a bill of particulars, as a practical matter you
          need to comply with at least so much thereof as is relevant
          and not burdensome, while objecting to the rest.  Sometimes
          justice-court judges forget in what capacity they are hearing
          a case and assume that they can apply methods from the Civil
          Practice Law and Rules to a small claim.  I don't really see
          how it would be productive to fight it.

          Standard Disclaimer: The above information is not to be
          construed as legal advice. Legal advice may not be given on
          a BBS, especially one which crosses state and national boun-
          daries, because the law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdic-
          tion and because of concerns about unauthorized practice of
          law (a criminal violation) in those jurisdictions in which
          the author is not licensed.  Proper legal advice can only be
          obtained from an attorney licensed to practice in your juris-
          diction who is competent in the specialized area of the law,
          whom you consult and hire, and who then assumes the obli-
          gation to protect your rights and explain your responsibili-
          ties.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  As easy as 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:20:45 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <Bun2H6.KDJ@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:

>I don't think I agree, Mike.  In _Zenger_, Alexander Hamilton was 
>allowed to tell the jury that they had  the option to ignore the law.

Alexander Hamilton was a bit young to have been counsel for the defense in
Zenger. Andrew Hamilton was a little old, but still in fine form for the
Zenger trial.

The records of Zenger suggest that Hamilton's appeal to the jury on this
issue was met with threats of contempt from the court, and that he was
forced, as modern lawyers are often forced, to raise the issue indirectly
subsequent to warnings from the court.

In any case, Zenger is commonly taken by freedom-of-speech historians to
be an example of jury nullification, and Prof. Michael Tigar's
dramatization of the case (a play performed at an ABA convention a few
years back) treats it as such.




--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Date: 13 Sep 92 05:49:28 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Sep12.160500.20039@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
> In article <19156@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
> 
>>If there really is a law against sending encrypted messages out of the 
>>country, it shouldn't be surprising that the NSA would be the ones to
>>enforce that law.
> 
> It would "surprise" the hell out of me, Matthew; the NSA is not a
> law-enforcement agency any more than, say, the Census Bureau is.
> 
> 
> 
> --Mike

Actually from what I've read, it's against the law to send encryption
software or algorithms outside the country without some sort of
permission.  You can send all the garbage messages you want outside
the country, as long as you don't send the means to read those
messages outside also.  === Al
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Former CEO of Silverado Indicted on Bank Fraud Charges
Organization: Echo Beach
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:08:31 GMT

Here is a press release from the U.S. Department of Justice.
 Former CEO of Silverado Indicted on Bank Fraud Charges
 To: National and Business Desks
 Contact: Kristen Gear of the U.S. Department of Justice,
          202-514-2007

   DENVER, Sept. 10 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Marvin Collins, special
attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, and Joseph D. Martinolich Jr.,
special agent in charge of the Denver FBI, announced in Denver today
the return of a three-count bank fraud indictment against Michael
R. Wise, former chief executive officer and chairman of the
board of Silverado Banking Savings and Loan, and former president
of Silverado Financial Corp.
   The indictment alleges that the defendant obtained a $1,450,000
loan from Silverado Financial Corp., the parent company of Silverado
Banking Savings and Loan; and that he then misapplied at least
$458,000 of the loan proceeds to his own personal use and benefit
(Count I).  The indictment further alleges that the defendent
caused false entries to be made in reports and statements of
Silverado Banking Savings and Loan concerning the intended activities
of Silverado Financial Corp., namely, that its activities would
be limited to "the acquistion of regulatory capital for its wholly
owned savings institution (Silverado Banking Savings and Loan)"
(Count II).  Finally, the indictment alleges that the defendent
caused a false entry in a promissory note to be made to Silverado
Financial Corp. to the effect that the proceeds of the
$1,450,000 loan would not be used for personal, family, or household
purposes (Count III).
   Upon conviction on all counts the maximum possible punishment
would be 15 years confinement and a fine up to $750,000.
   "Our federally insured savings and loans deserve vigorous
protection from those who would personally profit from criminal
wrongdoing," added Collins.  "Today's indictment affords us the
opportunity to ensure that protection in a court of law."
   Martinolich stated "This indictment demonstrates once again that
the FBI remains relentless in its pursuit of criminal charges against
those responsible for financial institution fraud within our country,
no matter how complex the illegal activity or how sophisticated our
investigations must become."
   This indictment results from an ongoing investigation into the
failure of Silverado Banking Savings and Loan by the Denver
field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United
States Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado, and the
United States Attorney's Office for the northern District of
Texas.  The investigation is continuing.
 -30-

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:30:05 GMT

titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:

>Mike: 
>  jury nullification: jury acquits even though the law and the evidence should lead to convivtion.
>Eric:
>  jury nullification:  the juror judges the law and whether it's proper to apply the law in _EVERY_
>      instance he is asked.

Eric, without wanting to start a fight about definitions, you may want to 
cobble up some new term for your usage of "nullification."  The one you
assign to Mike is the common form, and it contains a crucial distinction
from yours:  Acquittal is irreverisible.  A jury that "nullified" by your
definition could as well convict, but the conviction is subject to review
and possible reversal.  The significance of nullification is that it gives
the jury the very last word.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.environment,ma.general
From: dc@ais.org (David Daniels)
Subject: Advice on minor drug related case needed.
Organization: UMCC
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 07:33:50 GMT


I have a couple questions that I would really appreciate views and answers
to.

I am a minor (15) and was just cought with about two - three eights (of an
oz) of marijuana on me.  I was written a ticket for possesion of marijuana
only.  (state of michigan) 
  I'd like to know what kind of judgement to expect, and what the min/max
is?  (If you can only answer one of those three it will still be helpful.) 
  Also, should I get a good lawyer or stick with the court appointed
attorney?  What should I expect both ways?  And how much should I expect to
pay? 
  Also, I've been told since the office who wrote up my tickets and cought
me threatened to hit me if I did not give him the bag, I can get the charges
against me dropped... (for assult)  Is this true, and what are my chances of
actully getting the charges dropped? 

Thanks in advance for any information.... dc@ais.org

-- 
________________________________________________________________________
\ E-Mail: dc@ais.org        /\ Comin' from the unpolitically correct    \
 \__________________________\/\ half of this world refered to as       //
                             \_\ The ProjectZ!________________________//