HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: olga@csiatl.Gwinnett.COM (olga from the volga)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Drug dogs used in public schools
Date: 13 Sep 92 14:37:56 GMT

bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:

> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
> 
> > Does the school code (if one exists) grant the right of inspection to 
> > the school?  If so, all of this may be moot.
> > 
> > >This is yet another example of GUILTY until proven innocent which
> > >unfortunatly seems to becoming more common place every day!
> > 
> > Could a parallel be drawn beteen the use of 'drug dogs' and the use of
> > metal detectors in the public schools?  I'm not aware of any legal chal-
> > lenges to the latter; why should the use of 'drug dogs' be treated dif-
> > ferently, *as long as* any searches are conducted in the proper manner
> > (warrants, etc.)?
> > 
> 
> There is also the possible issue regarding the locker being 'borrowed'
> space from the school. Once the summer comes, and the student vacates
> the locker, then the school, as 'landlord' could access the lockers and
> not need a warrant. They'd be inspecting their own property, and could
> ask the police to search --or agree to a police-requested search.

I don't get this one.  My landlord is not allowed just to walk in my 
apartment and rummage through my personal belongings and search everything 
I own.  This was established by the Supreme Court. 




olga@csiatl.gwinnett
YOW!
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Once more into the breach, dear friends (was: Re Ed babbles again
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:19:56 GMT


I will now give my impression of talking to a brick wall:

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>Robert A. Viktora had the right, according to the sitting Supreme Bozos,
>to perpetuate a tort....
...
>Hate speech laws don't ban private remarks, they at most
>enhance the penalties for torts and crimes in which hate speech occurs.

Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.
Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.
Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.
Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.
Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.
Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.

I have told you this before.  RAV was NOT charged with the penalty-enhancing
codes of the hate speech law; he was charged ONLY with hate speech.
RAV was not charged WITH ANY OTHER CRIME; not trespassing, arson, making
threats, or anything else.  Only with promulgating "hate speech".

This is what was declared unconstitutional in RAV vs. St. Paul

Glad you've finally come around to (at least) rejecting pure "hate speech"
laws, even if you didn't know what the hell you were doing at the time.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
From: larry@world.std.com (Larry Appleman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Wanted: Pennsylvania's Definition of "City of the First Class"
Summary: Only Philadelphia
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:25:12 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <12207@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>I have a fairly urgent need to find out what section of Pennsylvania
>law defines "city of the first class." . . .

Philadelphia is the ONLY "city of the first class" in Pennsylvania.  Here's
why:
 
First class cities are defined in Pennsylvania Statutes, Title 53, Part I,
Chapter I, which says, "...the cities now in existence and those hereafter
created in this Commonwealth shall be divided into four classes:  Those
containing a population of one million or over shall constitute the first
class. . . ."
 
According to the 1990 census, Philadelphia's population is 1,585,577.
The next-largest city in Pennsylvania is Pittsburgh, where the population
is 369,879 -- not even close to qualifying as a "city of the first class."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Larry Appleman                         P.O. Box 214, Cambridge B, Mass. 02140
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Once more into the breach, dear friends (was: Re: Ted babbles again
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:49:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.150639.15135@digibd.com> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>>Bullshit, fella.  The law enhanced the penalties for pre-existing acts
>>that were already illegal.
>
>Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.
>Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.
>Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.
>Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.
>Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.
>Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.  Wrong, Ed.
>
What's this?  What I tell you 36 times is true?  How nice that you have
a powerful system and you can tell me 36 times I'm wrong.  Bad logic,
but hey, logic's not your forte, is it (see below.)

>RAV was NOT charged WITH ANY OTHER CRIME!  Not ARSON, not TRESPASSING,
>not THREATENING, not ANYTHING.

(Sigh).  It's part of the anti-hate-speech-law case that RAV's acts were
(in the absence of hate speech law) already crimes involving assault and
battery.  Whether or not RAV was charged, he committed acts that could
have been charged, and this is not only admitted by the
anti-hate-speech-law types, it forms part of their case concerning the
"redundancy" of the hate speech law.  

The acts were already illegal.  They were brought before the SC as
violations of the hate speech law, which (whether or not pre-existing,
non-hate-speech laws were in actually USED) in effect merely enhances
the penalties for RAV's behavior.

Now I have tried to use simple words, but if you still don't understand
this, please READ it 36 times, or have your Mom read it to you 36 times.
You seem to enjoy childish repetition.  Best of luck.
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Drug dogs used in public schools
Date: 12 Sep 92 19:04:55 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:

> Does the school code (if one exists) grant the right of inspection to 
> the school?  If so, all of this may be moot.
> 
> >This is yet another example of GUILTY until proven innocent which
> >unfortunatly seems to becoming more common place every day!
> 
> Could a parallel be drawn beteen the use of 'drug dogs' and the use of
> metal detectors in the public schools?  I'm not aware of any legal chal-
> lenges to the latter; why should the use of 'drug dogs' be treated dif-
> ferently, *as long as* any searches are conducted in the proper manner
> (warrants, etc.)?
> 

There is also the possible issue regarding the locker being 'borrowed'
space from the school. Once the summer comes, and the student vacates
the locker, then the school, as 'landlord' could access the lockers and
not need a warrant. They'd be inspecting their own property, and could
ask the police to search --or agree to a police-requested search.

If anything was found, it's also possible that the residues/whatever
could be used as probable cause to get a warrant for the student's home,
or even for searches during the school year at the school.


--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
From: v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Avatar)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: DWI procedure & 5th Amendment (?)
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:14:00 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	Doesn't DWI procedure in New York State jeopardize your 5th Amendment
right to refuse self-incrimination?

	In NYS DWI procedure, you are asked to take a series of alcohol tests.
If you refuse, penalties are automatically suffered, and the fact that you
refused can be used against you in a court of law.

	What do you think?

                                       .
                                     .'|`.                                      
___________________________________.'-{*}-`.____________________________________
Zerxes M. Bhagalia                '----|----` INT: v064lnev@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
State University of New York   .---------------.    bhaga-z@acsu.buffalo.edu
  at Buffalo                 .'                 `.  News Director, WFFT 104.9 FM
Political Science          .'                     `. Justice, SA Judiciary (SWJ)
Computer Science         .'________MDCCLXXVI________`. Computer Consultant (UCS)
---------------------N O V U S   O R D O   S E C L O R U M----------------------
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:55:55 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Sep15.153014.18137@linus.mitre.org>, bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
> Aren't oaths that are made under duress not legally binding?
> 

Not if it's administered by the government.  It may be immoral, but
it's certainly not illegal.  Another example of an oath administered
under duress would be a draftee sworn into the U.S. Army.  If you're
saying that the government sets different standards for itself than it
does for its citizens, then you're right.  What else is new?
                    === Al Sparks
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: SS# not(?) used at ETSU
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 12:28:29 GMT

I was talking to a faculty member at East Tennessee State University and
he mentioned that they used SS# for ID.  He complained and was told that
they don't use SS# for ID since they append the letter 'S' in front of
the number, therefore it was no longer the SS#.  Has there been any
cases about this?

-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:30:32 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

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

>In article <1992Sep14.210523.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>:Good point.  As a start, can someone post the oath a federal juror takes?

This was a good question, and so I spent about an hour in the law library
today (instead of eating lunch) looking for the answer.  It turns out
that no particular oath is required.  47 Am.Jur.2d 341 recommends something
like:

	Do you, and each of you, swear or affirm that you
	will well and truly try the issues joined in this
	case, and render a true verdict according to the
	law and the evidence?

Now, to be clear, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure *do* require
an oath; they just don't specify it's contents.  This, apparently, has
been left to local districts to define.  Probably, an oath must at
least satisfy the Sixth Amendment "impartial jury" requirement.  All
oaths I found (I saw several state oaths) required a commitment to 
truth.  So I argue that if, as all judges do, a juror is asked if she can 
follow the law as the judge gives it to her, answers "yes," and then who
nullifies, then that juror has violated her oath.

>Of course one could agree to decide on facts alone, but if one were
>to simply vote to acquit without giving a reason, [i.e. without admitting
>that you are exercizing your right to nullify] what can the prosecution do?

Bingo, Bob!  The prosecution can do *nothing*.  That is why the legal
community speaks of the "authority" to nullify, rather than the "right" 
to do so.  Perhaps there is nothing more authoritarian than using power
to ignore the law.  However, as others have pointed out, that power has
sometimes been used justly, and we'd be the worse if juries didn't have
it.  But, to confer it openly and encourage its frequent application would
make the law an advisory reference only.  Indeed, if juries had the legal
right to decide the law, then the process of appeals would be largely
rendered irrelevant.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hornbooks -- Tax
From: jcgabbard@miavx2.ham.muohio.edu
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:19:41 EDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Miami University, Hamilton campus

I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT SOME KIND OF ADULT MAGAZINES
HORNBOOKS!


In article <1992Sep4.115931.22955@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> Anybody have any recommendations for hornbooks for taxation of
> individual income?
> -- 
>            .........................................................
>           ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
>          the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
>          here i sit looking for a warming smile in a house of cold wit
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net (was: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:02:28 GMT

In article <GPRIORES.92Sep13230919@fish.oracle.com> gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi) writes:
>record show that, according to Sheheryar Hasnain and Ed Nilges, I am
>ethnophobic, stupid, racist, sexist, pretentious, insecure, and an

You said it, not me. 

>inept architect of analogy. I can think of no more emphatic a
>vindication of my intellectual credentials.

Fairly circular logic, here.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: NBTA address
From: gregb@netlink.cts.com (Greg Beron)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 15:35:57 PDT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

If there are any other actual lawyers who follow this forum, could
someone please post the address of the National Board of Trial
Advocates?  I need to get info. on their certification program.
Thanks.
-GregB


--                    
INTERNET:  gregb@netlink.cts.com (Greg Beron)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!gregb
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.consumer
From: mikelle@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Eddie Mikell)
Subject: Savings & Loan scandal - who do you contact?
Keywords: s&l scandel
Organization: Darden Center, University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:37:35 GMT

Greetings:

I'm not sure if this is the right news group for this question, so please 
feel free to point me to the right group!

Since the S&L investigations are still going on, I was wondering who a 
person would contact in case he/she had some possible information.

For example, suppose I know one of the local branch vp/loan supervisors.  
This particular supervisor, before they started work at the S&L was living 
in a $60,000 home, drives a small economy car, etc...  After changing jobs (
a supposedly lateral move) to an S&L, this person, after working about 2 
months, buys a $350,000 home, trades to a new Lincoln towncar, is now a 
throwing lavish parties, etc. - - -

I know the example is vague, but with information I know about the loan 
processing, approvals, etc., the above all starts to stink.

The S&L has since gone bust, and this particular employee is still living 
very well, and still does not have a job....


Any suggestions, or am I just envious?????

Thanks,

Eddie Mikell
mikelle@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Once more into the breach, dear friends (was: Re Ed babbles again
Keywords: Life, liberty, property
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:40:21 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Sep13.063733.25098@Princeton.EDU> 
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>. . . Lesseee, the sysop has Sacred Property Rights and bozo...NOT.
>Sacred Property Rights to "her" computer (actually the property of a
>large corporation), devil a doubt where the Green Ants Dream.  Sacred
>Property Rights not mentioned in the Constitution, . . . [Ed Nilges]

     ". . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, 
      liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
                   -- U. S. Const., Amendment XIV, Section 1.


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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Keywords: Ash nazg Cthulhu w'gahnagl fh'tagn burzum-ishi krimpatul.
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:18:34 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <BuCMqu.Aur@lerami.lerctr.org> merlin@lerami.lerctr.org 
(David Hayes) writes:

>My friend came up with the obvious cure. They began encrypting their 
>overseas links, using DES double-block encryption. (Encrypt the message,
>then encrypt the encrypted message, using two different keys. Makes total
>garbage.)   [David Hayes]

I thought it was against the law to send encrypted messages out of the 
country.  Do any of the lawyers here know whether that's true?  If it
is true, how do the banks get away with their encrypted international
electronic fund transfers?

>He got a very unpleasant visit from NSA a few days later.  [David Hayes]

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.  Maybe they thought this guy was some sort of spy
trying to transmit American defense secrets to his spymaster behind 
the Iron Curtain in Moscow or Peiping.  If they don't check him out,
they're not doing their job.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17214 alt.politics.correct:5344
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Keywords: Ash nazg Cthulhu w'gahnagl fh'tagn burzum-ishi krimpatul.
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:05:00 GMT

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



-- 
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
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Skinhead speech protected, Supreme Court says (was: Re: Fuck You
Date: 12 Sep 92 06:16:40 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

> Note: turns out that Jeff Spangenberg's account was compromised by some
> skinhead.  I am concerned with the views of the anonymous poster
> (although I do not know the anonymous poster to be a skinhead in a
> fashion sense, of course, his language is characteristic of the 
> movement and as such I feel no compunction in referring to him in this
> way.)  I shall, in this post, refer to him as Adolf.
> 

It isn't my opinion, but an observation of a possibility, that the one
who posted all that stuff was purposely trying to get someone's goat.
From the volume of materials dedicated to it, I have to assume who ever
it was succeeded --if that was indeed the case.

But you (and others) have glorified the opinings of this person by your
dedication of so much thought and positioning. When I saw the post, I
hit 'n' --a thing that I gather others did. I say that because a few 
have posted such.

Why not dedicate all this mental energy to something that deserves it?

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
From: larry@world.std.com (Larry Appleman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: legality of a name change
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:40:33 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <65691@cup.portal.com> edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok) writes:
> Cindy Smith came to you 6 months ago [wanting] to have her name legally
> changed to "Doctor" Smith. . . . [Y]ou filed the court papers and
> represented her before a judge, who granted her her name changed. . . .
> In a fee dispute . . . . Doctor Smith told you that there was no way in hell
> or anywhere that you would do any of her legal work in the future. . . .
> John came to you [complaining about] Doctor's representation that she
> was a medical doctor. . . . [P]ursuant to the requirements of Columbia's
> Professional Code of Ethics, which mirrors the ABA Model Rules, you entered
> into a contingent fee agreement for legal services with John. . . .
> What advice, if any, can you give John?
 
My advice would be to find another lawyer, since I would be disqualified from
representing John by the Columbia Professional Code of Ethics, Rule 1.9(a)
(based on the ABA Model Rules, Rule 1.9(a)):  "A lawyer who has formerly
represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person
in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests
are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former
client consents after consultation."  (Unless you think Doctor Smith would
give me permission to represent John in his lawsuit against her?)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Larry Appleman                         P.O. Box 214, Cambridge B, Mass. 02140
From: WALID@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Walid Majid)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: rental car insurance
Date: 16 Sep 92 02:17:27 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Hello,

I have a question ragarding rental car insurance policies.  Here is my
situation.  I recently rented a car and paid about $9/day for insurance.
While driving on a gravel road, a small stone hit the headlamp and
broke the case.  At first I didn't even notice it.  When I returned the
car they said I ought to pay for the full damage.  They are saying that
had I reported it to tho police, then I would only have to pay the
deductible part.  To me it sounds silly to call the cops to let them
record that a small stone hit my rentals headlamps.  Any advice would
be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.
Walid
Newsgroups: misc.legal