HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: csmith@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:47:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.193543.25647@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>csmith@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>>Nixon resigned in disgrace because he made tape recordings of himself
>>>committing felonies.
>>
>>OH! NOW I understand! His problem was getting CAUGHT! I see NOW!
>
>The point (which you don't see) is that Nixon did not face impeachment
>or resign because he or others "bugged" the DNC headquarters, but because
>he committed OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE after the fact. The "smoking gun"
>tape provided a prima facie case for this crime. Nixon thus exited,
>stage right.

>I'm reminded when a few years ago when it came out that FDR secretly
>recorded people at the White House. Nixon apologists exclaimed, "SEE,
>even FDR did it!!!" Oy vay! The problem isn't tape recordings, it's
>tape recordings of the President committing felonies!

And unauthorized survailence is not a felony? News to me.

And what was so feloneous about the "Iran-Contra" affair (as if one
hand some direct connection with the other. NOT).

--

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                (This sig intentionally left blank)                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Post-acquittal partying (was Crown Heights Jury)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:53:19 GMT

In article <1ilkmhINN8j7@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>I was imagining either a world where a lot of people give parties for the
>jury, or one defendant who gets tried a lot.  For instance, suppose that
>after each acquital, John Gotti threw a big party, and (heck, let's make
>it interesting) gave everyone who attended a few thousand dollars.
>
>Could future juries then anticipate that an acquital would lead to a party
>for them, and perhaps be influenced?

My experience is that solving real-world problems is hard enough without
adding to the burden by coping with problems we don't yet have.

I haven't seen a shred of evidence that juries give any thought to
post-verdict parties. I do think it's useful for jurors to be able to talk
to the advocates on both sides after the verdict, and I'd hate to see
this kind of them "chilled" in absence of evidence of unethical
conduct.



--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: res@colnet.cmhnet.org (Rob Stampfli)
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Organization: Little to None
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:47:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.021024.19741@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>  The gas station I usually trade at has a policy of not accepting
>large bills (fifties or hundreds) and has a sign up saying that.
>So they accept only some kinds of cash!

I don't think there is any law requiring them to make change for large bills,
but if you drove in and pumped $100 worth of gas, I would suspect that, if you
pressed the issue, you'd find that they would have to accept a $100 bill as
payment.
-- 
Rob Stampfli  rob@colnet.cmhnet.org      The neat thing about standards:
614-864-9377  HAM RADIO: kd8wk@n8jyv.oh  There are so many to choose from.
From: csmith@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:35:09 GMT

In article <4HJ3wB2w165w@comtch.spk.wa.us> mstaben@comtch.spk.wa.us (Matthew Staben) writes:

>Its fools such as yourself who ~allow~ this behind-the-scenes bullshit to 
>occur - after all - if a 18-wheeler is bearing down on you - better get 
>the hell out of the way!  Naturally, the public inertia is required to 
>counter the behemoth which we call our government.  
> 
>To put it into perspective; Reagan was a Hollywood Jerk, who got to play 
>the biggest role of all time - and by god - he didn't let the opportunity 
>to pass him by.  Who else in this world obtains as much power as the 
>President; an office which commands respect derived from the 
>"red-button-access."  Reagan - with all this new-found power, used it to 
>conduct illegal, covert operations, spending ~my~ money to finance death 
>squads killing hundreds of "communist civilians."  ** And you support it! 
>It really isn't all that bad! **  
> 
>Witch hunters such as yourself (along with Nixon, Reagan) should be 
>placed in a holding-cell with your hero, Leonid Brehznev.
> 
>
>mstaben@comtch.spk.wa.us
> 
>[Made in America]

And here, class, we see the "pot calling the kettle black" syndrome. Note the
characteristic name-calling--"fool", "Hollywood Jerk", "Witch hunters" (I'm
not sure what "witch" he was refering to, however). The typical diatrible and
final lumping of the previous writer with two presidents and a Soviet 
Premier whom he calls the previous writer's "hero" without reason or support.
A classic example.
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                (This sig intentionally left blank)                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: First Amendment Stuff
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:41:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.210148.14203@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>The traditional example given by Chafee is Marc Anthony's funeral
>oration.  I should be more precise: "indirect", rather than "non-explicit."

I doubt a modern counterpart to Antony's (Anthony's?) would be classified
as "incitement" in the Brandenburg sense--the hearers may have been
motivated to commit crimes, but they had a chance to reflect before they
did so.

The same would be true for the defendants in Schenk, by the way, as you
have already noted--if a Schenk-like case were to come up today, then even if
hearers resisted the draft, or whatever, the speaker would probably not be
liable. See U.S. v. Spock, 416 F.2d 165 (1st Cir. 1969).

>Fair enough.  My point was that Hand's views do not correspond with
>current doctrine, as you suggested they did -- Hand's test would not
>have protected the speech in Watts, nor (probably) in Hess v Indiana.  

I may have been taking "actual incitement" in a more Brandenburgian sense
than either Hand or you meant it. Hand's balancing test, by the way, which
appears in THE BILL OF RIGHTS (1962), is strongly criticized by Melville
Nimmer in NIMMER ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH.


--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: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: President pardons himself
Organization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:26:02 GMT

judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson) writes:
>Can the President of the United States pardon himself?

If he vomits on your lap, he'd better...

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 12:05:50 GMT

linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:
>In a previous article tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) spake...
>>we place you in a Fed.Ex. truck and let you collect cash on deliveries
>>through oh... South Central L.A. 
>
>Gee, I guess having all those credit card numbers (from plastic payments)
>poses no risk whatsoever? The drivers could keep a small amount of change.
>Cab drivers come to mind here ("Driver carries less than $5.00 change.")
>Or at the very least, they could require exact change for cash payments.
>Excess cash on hand could be put into a secure drop box inside the truck
>to handle the theft problem. This is what they do at 7-11's everywhere.
>UPS takes cash. So does Airborne and DHL. Why not Fed Express?

Are you proposing that Fed.Ex. be forced to accept cash ?  Start your
own damn delivery service and demonstrate how stupid they are.

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 ?

Listen, if you think you have a legal case take them to court I'm about
as fed up with stupid dopes as I can be on this net.

They don't want to handle cash okay ?

Don't you have anything better to do than dream up crap like this ?

tom

Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Constitutional crisis?  (was Weinberger's Pardon)
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:11:35 GMT


In article <randall.726350918@seashore>, 
randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) said:

> The Constitution does not say that someone must be convicted before
> getting a pardon.  The first time a pardon was used before a
> conviction was Ford's pardoning of Nixon, and it was not challenged
> in the courts.

[ * * * ]

> A pardon could be held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
> Ford's pardon could have been challenged in court, but it wasn't.
> If the court declared a pardon unconstitutional, it would cause a
> serious Constitutional crisis.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "Constitutional crisis," let alone a
serious one.  As far as I know, it's been a _long_ time since either
the Executive or Legislative branch of the federal government has
openly defied, ignored or refused to enforce a holding of the Supreme
Court (I'm thinking about President Andrew Jackson's infamous and
possibly apocryphal statement that "Mr. Justice Marshall has made his
decision, now let us see him enforce it" regarding, I think, federal
actions against various Native Americans in the Florida area).

If a Supreme Court held that a "pre-emptive" pardon like the one that
Ford issued Nixon was unconstitutional and therefore null and void, I
think you'd get a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing, from the
parties whose ox was gored by it, but no crisis.

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

Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley)
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, UCLA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:13:38 GMT

In a previous article niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) spake...
>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?

We are drifting a mite from the original topic. If PH doesn't want to deliver
pizzas fine. That is their choice, but if they do, they must accept cash.
Similarly, Fed Must accept cash for CODs regardless of risk. If they don't 
like cash then they should deliver PREPAID packages only and forget CODs
all together. But they cannot do CODs and take checks/money orders/CCs only.
I suppose Pizza Hut can do this too (the prepaid order thing).
-- 
Bruce James Robert Linley | "Well, I tried shoving a weiner in the warp drive,
Comp Sci & Engr, UCLA     |  but it didn't do a bit o' good."
<linley@netcom.com>       | - Star Dreck, c/o Dr. Demento
<linley@seas.ucla.edu>    |
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: Obsessive ex-spouses..can the madness be stopped?
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:47:29 GMT

>>end.  He just fights to get revenge on me for leaving him four years 
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This may be reaching, but is this a case where you left him then arranged
for the courts to allocate a substantial portion of his income to support
you and the child?  

>>life as much as possible?  I need legal avenues or advise from those who 
>>have experienced or are experiencing a similiar problem and have found 
>>ways to eliviate the problem.   [Emphasis added.]
>

You can probably get a restraining order to prevent him from making
contact with you outside the legal system (aside from the contacts needed
in exercise of visitation rights), but it is reaching to try to prevent
him from bringing legal actions (after all, the merit of the action is
decided on by a judge, not the defendant's assertion that it is groundless).

>Unfortunately, none of these are likely to be permanent solutions.  A more
>useful approach may be to determine whether your state has a stalking statute,
>and then threaten to have him prosecuted.

If violence is threatened, you may wish to contact AWARE at 508 443-5404
for counseling about defense strategies.  There seems to be an epedemic
of ex-husbands/lovers killing former spouses/mates.  (I never have figured
out the logic behind this way o fthinking, but there does seem to be a
pattern).


                                        rob b.
From: jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: ADDRESS
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:47:36 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

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.

Call them up and ask!     :-)

Seriously, though, phone companies have phone books sorted by phone number,
and sometimes are deposited at local libraries; check there.

-- 
 ________________________________________________________________________
|   John      jfw@neuro.duke.edu          Duke University Medical Center |
| Whitehead   jfw@well.sf.ca.us           Department of Neurobiology     |
|________________________________________ Durham, North Carolina ________|
Xref: sparky misc.legal:22061 talk.politics.misc:66285 alt.president.clinton:1340
From: khearn@pyrps5.eng.pyramid.com (Keith Hearn)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:12:27 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation, Mountain View

In article <TT.93Jan5163855@marius.jyu.fi> tt@marius.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
>In article <1ia0grINNfdt@agate.berkeley.edu> wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:
>
>>I think the pardon is an important part of our system of law that should
>>not be taken away.  Presidents to take a risk publicly by pardoning
>>someone.  The poll I saw showed strong disapproval for the pardoning
>>of Weinburger.  Ford was certainly not made popular by pardoning
>>Nixon.
>
>I agree, but I think pardon should be possible only _after_ conviction
>and sentencing.  

Hmmm, I see your reasoning, and I kinda agree with it, but look at it
this way: If someone is going to be pardoned anyway, should we waste
the vast amounts of money that a major court case like this would cost
us taxpayers? 

Now in Weinberger's case, it's likely that the trial would last until 
Clinton (or maybe Clinton's successor, considering the glacial speeds
at which our justice system moves) was in office, in which case Bush 
wouldn't have been able to pardon him. But then, Weinberger could 
always plead guilty really quickly, thus getting the whole mess over 
with before Clinton took over and Bush would still get to pardon him. 

So if you have to wait for a verdict, you'd either have expensive,
pointless trials where the outcome would make no difference, since the
pres. was going to pardon the defendant anyway, or else, near the end
of a lame duck term, you'd have guilty pleas followed immediately by a
pardon. Most of the time there'd just be a huge waste of money (court
cases are *expensive*), and occaisionally there'd be a guilty plea,
followed by a pardon.

 Keith


-- 
Keith Hearn                   \    If a million dollars is a stack of 
khearn@pyramid.com             \   $1000 bills 4" tall, the national debt 
Pyramid Technology Corporation  \  would be a stack over 63 miles tall.
(408) 428-7304 or (510) 263-2701 \  And it's getting taller, FAST!
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: legal advise on a rel
Date: 9 Jan 93 04:49:15 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


William Daul, in a message to All on 01-06-93 at 10:24pm, said:

WD>|What I need is a description of what a release form
   |would include to free me to publish materials from other people.
   |________________________________________________________________

          "Bill, you may reprint my [ ] in your [ ] gratis."


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #11645  Honk if your horn is broken.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:35:43 GMT

csmith@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>Nixon resigned in disgrace because he made tape recordings of himself
>>committing felonies.
>
>OH! NOW I understand! His problem was getting CAUGHT! I see NOW!

The point (which you don't see) is that Nixon did not face impeachment
or resign because he or others "bugged" the DNC headquarters, but because
he committed OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE after the fact. The "smoking gun"
tape provided a prima facie case for this crime. Nixon thus exited,
stage right.

I'm reminded when a few years ago when it came out that FDR secretly
recorded people at the White House. Nixon apologists exclaimed, "SEE,
even FDR did it!!!" Oy vay! The problem isn't tape recordings, it's
tape recordings of the President committing felonies!

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Summary: ENVY and RESENTMENT belong on history's junk heap.
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:12:05 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1993Jan9.142340.1076@cis.ohio-state.edu> 
csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:

>My feeling is that the world SHOULD faint in shock at the word "Communist"
>since it is an ideology born of resentment and has violence as it's
>means of spreading. Thank God it's dying of its own contraditions!
>[Craig Edward Smith]

Bravo!  And that goes for all the other ENVY-and-RESENTMENT-based
ideologies now plaguing the world, including Racism, Anti-Semitism,
Anti-Americanism, and Feminism.  They all belong on the junk heap 
of history.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Post-acquittal partying (was Crown Heights Jury)
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:49:13 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>A minority viewpoint, perhaps, but I don't see what's wrong, ethically
>speaking, with either (1) a defense attorney holding a party for the
>acquitted defendant to celebrate the victory or (2) with some of the
>jurors attending.  (I can see zillions of things wrong with the idea

What if the possibility of a party influences the jurors?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:22:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.201327.20317@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>>>mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (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.
>
>>>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.
>
>>>Am I mistaken in recalling that the Kennedy administration admitted to
>>>planning an assassination attempt on Castro ?

Kennedy, the CIA and some South Vietnam generals SUCCEEDED in
assassinating Ngo Diem, the leader of South Vietnam.
He was killed just 3 weeks prior to Kennedy's own death. 
Wasn't this illegal?

>>Huh?  Relevance?  Congress hadn't forbidden this, unlike, say, sending
>>money to the contras or arms to Iran.
>
>David: You can argue with the specific examples that I offer all you
>want but that isn't the topic of discussion.  Mike Polen wrote "so far
>only Republican administrations show a disdain".  I disagree and so far
>we don't know what your position is except that you're attempting to
>define "disdain for the law and contempt for the public" as only doing
>things that Congress forbids.
>
>So... is it true that "only Republican administrations show disdain for
>the law" ?

Of course not, but it is true that ....

"So far, only Democratic congresses show disdain for the law:
	- their unconstitutional attempt to add "new"
members of Congress.
	- their abuse of the house bank and post office.
	- their act of exempting themselves from so many laws they force
on the rest of America."

I hope Polen and Nieporent will have the honesty to oppose
such travesties by the "Democratic" Congress.

Pat
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:02:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.142340.1076@cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:

>My feeling is that the world SHOULD faint in shock at the word "Communist"
>since it is an ideology born of resentment and has violence as it's
>means of spreading. Thank God it's dying of its own contraditions!

Seems to me that we'd have to worry about last-ditch war effort by
Communist forces. As our soldiers took the field against them, the
Commies could shout the word "Communist" through bullhorns, and our forces
would faint dead away.


--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,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution