HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: billy@anasaz (Bill Moore)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:07:33 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <26543@hydra.Helsinki.FI> jokiniem@cs.Helsinki.FI (Jari Jokiniemi) writes:
->In article <18481@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
->>			Why shouldn't the "long arm" of U. S. law 
->>reach out to bring him to justice?
->
->Oh well, if it is ok for the "long arm" of U.S. to go to another
->country and enforce U.S. laws there, then it should be ok for the
->"long arm" of any other counry to go to the U.S. and enforce the laws of
->that country on the U.S. soil. There is absolutely no morale in this.
->U.S. can enforce its laws on many other countries only because U.S. is
->so strong. Not because of any other reason. Other countries cannot
->enforce their laws on U.S. soil for exactly the same reason. 
->
Yup, that's the way it works.  Has it ever been any different in all of 
human history?  And aren't you glad the good guys won the cold war?

>-- 
>Jari Jokiniemi /            / Technical Research Centre of Finland:
>              /  OH2MPO    /    jjo@tik.vtt.fi                 +358 0 456 6009
>DO IT NOW!   /  OH3BU     /   University of Helsinki: 
>            /  HSC 1182  /      jokiniem@cs.Helsinki.FI jokiniemi@finuha.BITNET


-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Bill Moore     billy%anasaz.UUCP@asuvax.eas.asu.edu    (602) 395-1732
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: venu@cirrus.com (Venu Nayar)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Email Privacy?
Keywords: email, posting on the net, copy-right
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:09:42 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.

I have been recently seeing a lot of private email being reproduced on the
net verbatim. While this may or may not be ethically correct, it gives rise
to the following questions.

	Is there any legality against doing this?  

	Is there any legal enforcement against public disclosure of postal
	mail which could also be applicable to email?  

	Is the copyright law applicable here?

Please follow-up to the net or email to me. I'll post a summary if there is
enough response.

-- 
Venu Nayar			|		Internet: venu@cirrus.com
Cirrus Logic Inc.		|		(415)-226-2100 X3737
I don't have to take this abuse from you -- I've got hundreds of
people waiting to abuse me.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan A Woodman)
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Organization: The Ohio State University College of Law
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:02:51 GMT

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

>If Manuel Noriega had been a law-abiding fine fellow instead of a 
>protector of cocaine smugglers, then capturing him and bringing him 
>to trial in North America would indeed have been "kidnapping," and 
>President Bush should indeed have been criminally liable in Panama 
>for ordering the kidnapping of an innocent citizen.  But those are 
>not the facts of this case.  Mr. Noriega's arrest was no more a 
>"kidnapping" than John Gotti's was.  

I disagree. Mr. Gotti broke US and NY law while in the United States, and
is a citizen of the US, and thus subject to US law.  Mr. Noriega, on the
other hand, is a Panamanian citizen who was accused of breaking US law while 
in a foreign country. What basis for jurisdiction can the US possibly have?
Are you then saying that the US should go and arrest foreign nationals who
engage in polygamy, for instance? It's a crime here. What basis does the
United States have for "arresting" foreign nationals who break our laws in
other countries? I cannot see how you have answered this question of
jurisdiction.

-- 
Jonathan Woodman                   \ "I mean, sex is one thing, but reading
jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu /  to someone is *really* intimate." C. Duda
The Ohio State University          \ "Oh, you can slice that salami of 
   College of Law                  /  copyright any number of ways." S. Halpern
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: alt.sexsexs.cyberpunk,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Intent (was Re: Photo of minor, etc./Virtual Ethics)
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:37:39 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

>wooledge@ces.cwru.edu (Gregory Wooledge) writes:
>
>> minotaur@labyrnth.via.mind.org (The MThe MTtaur) we
>mu 
>> >Remember, most
>> >courts require that there be *intent* to commit an act in order for ifor ifto be illegal.
>> 
>> >The bruiser:  Is intent alone enough to convict?
>> 
>> Certainly.  "Attempted murder", for example, is a crime.  Someone s <Xnot
>> be let go just because (s)he failed in an attempt to performperformpime.  (SSSe
>> will probably try again.

Hang on ... "attempt" != "intent", does it?

If I intend to murder someone at some time in my life, but I never
do anything at all about it, and later on forget about the whole
idea entirely, I have not committed a crime have I?

Paul

(Any resemblence to real places, persons, or events is entirely coincidental)
From: jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan A Woodman)
Subject: Re: Justices
Organization: The Ohio State University College of Law
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:59:16 GMT

In article  eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

>With all respect, Jon, you're begging the question.  I think a
>reasonable application of the Mendenhall/Royer test suggests that
>Bostic's "consent" was in fact the product of coercive circumstances. 

I agree with you. It is the Court that is begging the question. Personally,
I have trouble believing that Terry Bostick told the cops they had his
permission to search his backpack filled with coke. But hey, the Court
bought it, so who cares what really happened. But, yes, I agree that the
circumstances certainly seemed coercive, and unlike O'Connor, I *don't*
think that the average person would have felt they had the right to just
walk away.

>>Remember: never consent to any search. Ever. [Me]

>Well, not never.  If the cop is holding a gun to your head, I suggest
>you "consent". 

Again, I agree with you Mark. But if they use anything less than force,
politely refuse to be searched.

-- 
Jonathan Woodman                   \ "I mean, sex is one thing, but reading
jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu /  to someone is *really* intimate." C. Duda
The Ohio State University          \ "Oh, you can slice that salami of 
   College of Law                  /  copyright any number of ways." S. Halpern
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sss@netcom.com (Small Systems Solutions)
Subject: Re: Email Privacy?
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 20:40:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Keywords: email, posting on the net, copy-right

In article <1992Apr10.160942.11041@cirrus.com> 
	venu@cirrus.com (Venu Nayar) writes:

>	Is there any legal enforcement against public disclosure of postal
>	mail which could also be applicable to email?  

Yes. See below.
 
>	Is the copyright law applicable here?	

Yes.  The originator is the copyright holder of any correspondence, and
has rights over distribution.  Quotation may or may not be considered
"fair use" depending on usage and intent.

-- 
Small Systems Solutions                   1563 Solano Avenue, Suite 123
sss@netcom.com                                  Berkeley, CA 94707-2116

The above-expressed opinions aren't necessarily
From: jokiniem@cs.Helsinki.FI (Jari Jokiniemi)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 13 Apr 92 04:28:40 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki, Department of Computer Science

In article <18455@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>			If Noriega was, as the jury found, engaged in
>poisoning American kids with drugs, the fact that he was a head of state
>ought not to have protected him from being brought to Justice.

Then it should be quite OK for any fundamentalist muslim country to
kidnap any american in the territory of the USA and bring him to that
muslim state to be convicted by the islamic law.

-- 
Jari Jokiniemi /            / Technical Research Centre of Finland:
              /  OH2MPO    /    jjo@tik.vtt.fi                 +358 0 456 6009
DO IT NOW!   /  OH3BU     /   University of Helsinki: 
            /  HSC 1182  /      jokiniem@cs.Helsinki.FI jokiniemi@finuha.BITNET
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Justices
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:56:40 GMT
Organization: The Witherspoon Excludables

In <bdD802aR0f.c01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com stated:
>
>Well, Rehnquist is just dumb.  Scalia, I'd like to point out, is, if I
>recall correctly, the justice who wrote an impassioned dissent saying
>that the Treasury Department's mandatory urine-testing of certain of
>its Customs employees was an infringement of their Fourth Amendment
>rights.  The case was soemthing like U.S. Treasury Employees v. Von
>Raab.  I can't remember the cite (I can't remember most cites!), but it
>was decided 3/21/89.
>
>Anyway, he ain't all bad.  And the good news is that he's so abrasive
>that he prevents the court from jelling into a solid conservative front.

There's little doubt that Scalia is the most intellectually perceptive
of the Justices.  White, Blackmun, and O'Connor are smart enough, but
aren't exactly leaders on the Court; Kennedy is a Rehnquist clone;
Souter doesn't have a voice to find; Stevens is always on the fringe
with some bizarre legal argument that only he could make; and the
Chief Justice and Clarence are indeed just plain dumb.

The problem with Scalia is that he's like that little girl in the
ditty: when he's good, he's very good; when he's bad, he's horrid.
Thus, you have Scalia giving with one hand (Texas v. Johnson, von
Raab) and taking with the other (Bostick, Payne v. Tenn., Smith v.
Oregon).

As for Scalia's abrasiveness: whether he is or isn't, one would be
hard pressed to argue that the Court hasn't already jelled into a
solid "conservative" bloc.  Sure, there will be the odd case where the
cops act SO badly that even some of the Justices won't be able to
stomach it.  (I've been following the Jacobson (mail order porn sting)
case since the 8th Cir. en banc decision, and can only express
amazement that an _Osborne_-capable Court still has the sense to
address a child pornography case on the merits.)  In general, though,
I'd be willing to bet that of Rehnquist, Scalia, O'Connor, Souter,
Thomas, Kennedy, and usually White, the right wing view will with
regularity command at least six votes.

It is a scary time for civil liberties when Byron White is the
conscience of the Court's liberal minority.  (Sorry, Whizzer.)

-- 
			Sold by weight, not by volume.
  Some settling of contents may have occurred during shipment and handling.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Fully Informed Jury Association (Pamphlet)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 14:49:58 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <21190@hacgate.UUCP> tucker@shiva.hac.com (George Tucker) writes:
>
>Seriously though, you may be right.  The best use of a computer is not
>to judge the facts, but to throw out the moronic laws.

How does a computer know which laws are moronic?


-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fully Informed Jury Association (Pamphlet)
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:15:06 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Apr08.211826.20789@crash.cts.com> danr@pro-franklin.cts.com (Daniel Roberts) writes:
>Tim,
>
>You make a key point in the Jury nullification discussion. RE: acquiting
>the guilty person because the jury does not like the victim.
>

Wrong.

What you are describing is a biassed jury which is not even considering
the law.  If this occurs, then the judge and the prosecutor have messed
up big time in seating such a jury in the first place.  

But this can, and does happen even WITHOUT fully informed juries, in fact,
it could be argued that informing the jury of their serious responsibilities
and the possible consequences with respect to judging the law 
might help prevent the situation.


>While the state is the accussor many people seem to forget the impact on
>the victim.
>

Where there really IS a victim, juries usually convict the perpetrator,
if the case is strong enough.  That is as it should be.

But what we now see is that the govt is filling the prisons with people who
have committed victimless crimes, and so murderers and rapists have to
be let out to make room.  


--Al Date
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: 6sigma2@polari.com
Subject: Suggestions needed on fighting a speeding ticket
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix (206) 328-4944
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 04:54:36 GMT

A friend of mine just got a speeding ticket and is looking for some
ways to fight it.  I suggested she either pay the whole thing or
admit she's guilty but try to get it reduced, but she insists on
trying to fight it.

Some possibly salient points:

  - It's in Washington state, King county.
  - It was for 40 in a 25 zone.  Although there doesn't seem to be
    any particular reason for the area to be 25, there are a couple
    of clearly visible signs.
  - The officer copied her name incorrectly onto the ticket (leaving
    out a letter in her last name).
  - The officer wrote the location on the date line, then crossed it out
    and wrote in the date.
  - The officer's name and number are so poorly written that it will
    probably be impossible to determine who wrote it from just the
    ticket.  Presumably they're logged somehow, so it will be possible
    to find the officer that way.
  - The speed was determined by radar.

Thanks for any advice you can provide.
-- 
Brian L. Matthews	blm@6sceng.UUCP
From: danr@pro-franklin.cts.com (Daniel Roberts)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: jury nullification
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:16:56 GMT
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA


In <LeV1iB1w164w@gorilla.nbn.com>
deej@gorilla.nbn.com (Donna Corner Holmes) writes:
>These were entire bodies of people (the views of the entire north) that were

I think this is inaccurate. The divisions in te north were much more complex.

>No, I'm not. There was a civil war over that issue in which two halves of
>the country had different views on a morality issue. That's not the same

Again, I think the issues were more complex. The turning of the war to a focus
on slavery was an incredible tactical move. I am not suggeting that you are
doing so but I think we err when we give too much credit to the north for
moral stands in a way that clouds the reality of racisim in the north.

Dan
---------
danr@pro-franklin.cts.com
Sysop of pro-franklin 614-462-7458 at up to 2400 BPS.
Home of pro.apo pro.scout and 2nd home of pro.law and pro.security.
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: British Bill: of Rights? of Goods?
Summary: John Dewey's miseducation produces a brainwashed nation.
Keywords: virtues
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:35:07 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <1992Apr13.225615.23253@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI 
(Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>But do the citizens really agree?  And why do they agree that the Bill
>of Rights can be thrown in the trash?  ie. What went wrong, is it that
>everybody has been brainwashed by too much television and too little
>information, too little education?  [Jyrki Kuoppala]

Not too little education; too *much* "education."  The old-time idea
of education, going 'way back to Aristotle, was to teach the young
how to distinguish between the good and the bad, and that they ought
to choose the good.  Since the days of the American philosopher of
education John Dewey, the idea of "education" is to teach the young
how to co-operate with their rulers in order to bring about "Order
and Progress."

In this secular humanist system, the highest goods are comfort and
pleasure.  Each citizen thinks that as long as the police are not
breaking down *his* door, but rather protecting him from the
envious, disorderly rabble who want to take away what he has,
he can live comfortably in an orderly society.

Aren't "Order and Progress" important enough to be emblazoned
on the flag of the United States?  True, that's the flag of the
United States of Brazil, but haven't the Deweyites brought
the United States of America perilously close to idolizing
Order and Progress?

I say, down with Deweyite "education for socialism."  Let's go
back to the tried and true system of education as the honing
of the virtues.   It is that system which produced such great
Presidents as Eliot, Lowell and Conant -- not to mention Dunster.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.drugs
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Government Chief Instigator of Gun Violence
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 05:42:42 GMT

In article <jkwj=b#.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>The government's WoD and its economic violence against the American poor is 
>the major cause of crime and violence in this country.  Legalizing drugs and 
>free national health care will do more to eliminate criminal violence than 
>anything else short of summary execution of first-time criminal offenders.

So why don't we go for the very *best* solution, which you yourself have 
identified above.  This is the U.S.A., after all, land of the free and home
of the brave.  The first and last word in freedom and liberty.  We deserve
only the best.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of people would like this solution, and
certainly a good deal of Bush and company would LOVE it.

After all, how many times have we heard that ALL 40 million users of some
recreational drug other than deadly alcohol and nicotine should be
shot/jailed/tortured/enslaved/etc.. And the people eat it up.  The warriors
come right out and say "these people are not addicts, they're your
neighbors.  They're peaceful, occasional users and you would never know it,
even if you lived next door to them.  We have to find them and put them away
where they can't do *anymore* harm."  And the people LOVE it.

Sorry, maybe I'm feeling a bit hopeless these days, but I wouldn't phrase
your argument in that way.  If it comes down to a choice between legalizing
drugs and killing all criminals after the first offense, I think the latter
option will get you elected.  This is another Nazi Germany waiting for the
"right leader" to come along and make it happen.

  Thanks awfully,
            Patrick
From: ARL00SJB@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: needed on fighting a speeding ticket
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:12:21 GMT
Organization: UNC Charlotte

If your friend has never had a ticket before, a possible course of action
is to make what is known (here, anyway) as a plea for judgement.  This is
only supposed to be good for a first offender (although someone I know says
a friend of hers made a plea for judgement and it was *not* the first
ticket, but she got it, anyway).  At any rate, the plea for judgement, if
granted, means that the ticket is treated as if it never existed.  Hence,
no insurance points or points against the driver's license.  I, myself,
got a ticket and the D.A. reduced the speed I was charged with, and my
insurance did not go up.  I don't know if I'll have to take the written
test when I get my license renewed, though (in North Carolina, if you have
no points, you just take the eye exam and they renew your license.  Other-
wise, you must take the written test.  Too many tickets, and you must take
the *road* test, as well.).
 
- Jean
From: edp@MATH.zko.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Do you understand?
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:29:38 GMT
Reply-To: edp@MATH.zko.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1992Apr14.011841.7129@crash.cts.com>,
danr@pro-franklin.cts.com (Daniel Roberts) writes:

>John Smith is a mentally retarded man with a drug problem. He is determined
>to be competant to assist in his own defense at trial but not competant to
>enter an knowing and voluntary plea of guilty to a lesser offense. 

I've wondered why they require a person to testify to their guilt when
accepting a plea bargain, and to testify they are doing it of their own
free will and solely because it's true.  It's a lie in every case; they
are ALSO testifying to their guilt because not doing so could get them a
more severe sentence.  I think someday an innocent person will claim
they have a right to at least as lenient a sentence as a guilty person
and therefore should be permitted to accept a plea bargain without
pleading guilty.


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@alien.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: alt.sex,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
From: alex@bilver.uucp (Alex Matulich)
Subject: Re: Censoship of nudity (was Re: Photo of minor: is it illegal to possess?
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:59:07 GMT

hrothgar@athena.mit.edu (Katie Hamill) writes:
>>Not true. There are plenty of films showing genitalia that get only an "R"
>>rating.
 
>For example??  The only non-X-or-NC-17 film that shows a genital is
>"Superman," where they show Clark Kent (I forget his Kryptonian
>name... What was it again?  Kal-El?) naked at about age 3 and it
>wasn't in any sort of kiddie porn context.

"Life of Brian" showed a full-frontal nude shot of Brian at one point.
The scene where he gets out of bed and walks out the door to face a
cheering crowd.

It was NOT rated X nor NC-17.

-- 
 _ |__  Alex Matulich
 /(+__>  Unicorn Research Corp, 4621 N Landmark Dr, Orlando, FL 32817
//| \     UUCP:  alex@bilver.uucp   {peora|ge-dab|uunet!tous}!bilver!alex
///__)     Internet:  alex%bilver@peora.sdc.ccur.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal