HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: 4 Q's: Deadly Self-Defense Against Rape
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:39:43 GMT

Four questions which arose in a more-or-less unrelated topic elsewhere
on the Net:

	1) Is it generally true that deadly self-defense is allowable
	   against rape, even if the (rape) victim's life doesn't appear to be 
	   in any immediate danger? I've seen some extracts from the Model 
	   Penal Code (see Section 2.04. Use of Force in Self-Protection. (2) 
	   (b)) that seems to suggest that it _is_ generally allowable, but 
	   the Black's definition of "self-defense" ("..., but it is never 
	   reasonable to use deadly force against his nondeadly attack"), 
	   along with some other sources, seems to suggest the opposite.

	2) If not _generally_ true, in what states is it allowable?

	3) If allowable in one or more states, how recently were these 
	   exceptions made?

	4) If allowable in one or more states, is it known how much 
	   _deterrence_ of rape played a part in the respective legislative 
	   intents and/or the establishing precedents?

Any and all answers to any and all questions (even if only partial answers)
would be greatly appreciated.

							Thank you,

							 - Kevin
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.misc
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: A Canadian Asks a Question
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:26:37 GMT

In article <92313.2211062893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> 2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (andy) writes:
>In article <92308.134608SIMCOEE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, <SIMCOEE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
>says:
>>
>>I have two questions about today's US election.
>>
>>(1)  I saw a sample ballot printed in a New York newspaper.  It listed
>>George Bush as representing the Republican, Conservative and Right to Life
>>Parties.  Similarly Bill Clinton was listed under Democrat and Liberal.
>>If you voted for Clinton as a Liberal, would it count as a Democrat?
>>(similarly for George Bush).  Secondly, why this distinction anyway?
>>
>>(2)  Would anybody in the USA mind if we invited Ross Perot to run
>>for Prime Minister if he loses today?  You don't have to be born in
>>Canada to be Prime Minister.  And, hey, we have a deficit too, you know.
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Elliott Simcoe
>In addition to the Democrats and Republicans, NYState has a number of other
>parties most of which, parties like the Liberals, Conservative and Right to lif
>e are actually party groups. They endorse various candidates by nominating them
>as their party candidates, usually they nominate Democrats or Republicans
>(their is no restriction to the number of parties you can run for
>simultaneously). Occasionaly, usually on thecongressional or state level, if
>none of the candidates satisfy them, they run their own candidate.
>
>Essentially though, these "parties" are special interests groups endorsing
>candidates.

Well, since Billl Clinton was both the Democrat and the Liberal party candidate,
to which party do his electors belong?

Has the Liberal Party simply chosen to accept the Democratic electors?  It seems
some sort of hierarchy must exist.

Xref: sparky misc.legal:19750 alt.conspiracy:12099
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: USA President's power to pardon
Date: 10 Nov 1992 12:28 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Nov10.084813.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes...
>In article <BxHnnt.7CD@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu>, akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
>>          Governors have the same power over criminal prosecutions in
>> their respective States.  
> 
>Not every state constitution gives the Governor the power to pardon.
>I remember in Utah, during the hoopla about Gary Gilmore, it was some
>pardon board that decided not to commute his death sentence, not the
>Governor.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the Board was created by the 
Governor to make recommendations to him.  This is a common ploy, like 
a parole Board, to keep the political heat off the chief executive for
difficult decisions about life and death for criminals, which are guaranteed
to upset a group of people no matter what decision is made.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Chief Judge of NY Court of Appeals Arrested
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 14:58:49 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

I heard on the radio this morning that Sol Wachtler, Chief Judge of
the New York Court of Appeals (NY's highest Court), was arrested by
FBI agents yesterday after trying to extort money from a former
mistress.

Boy, you never know....



-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner

Xref: sparky misc.legal:19810 alt.conspiracy:12129
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: USA President's power to pardon
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:49:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Nov11.124942.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <10NOV199212281168@csa1.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> 
> I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the Board was created by the 
> Governor to make recommendations to him.  This is a common ploy, like 
> a parole Board, to keep the political heat off the chief executive for
> difficult decisions about life and death for criminals, which are guaranteed
> to upset a group of people no matter what decision is made.

Perhaps.  But if that board has the final say, then the governor's
power to pardon is very indirect (assuming he appoints the board).  It
also indicates that the governor didn't create it by any executive
order, but probably by amendment to the state Constitution. At the
very least, it was done by simple legislation (I doubt it, most state
pardon authority is defined by the state constitution).  The governor
just can't give away his powers when he feels like it.  If the board
is advisory, then he hasn't redirected any political heat at all.

=== Al Sparks
Xref: sparky misc.legal:19798 alt.activism:18615
From: ndallen@r-node.gts.org (Nigel Allen)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.activism
Subject: APHA Denounces High Court's Refusal to Review Health Insurance Denial Case
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:02:55 GMT
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto

Here is a press release from the American Public Health Association.

 APHA Denounces High Court's Refusal to Review Health Insurance
Denial Case
 To: National Desk, Health Care Writer
 Contact: American Public Health Association 120th Annual Meeting
          Press Office, Omni Shoreham Hotel, Washington, 202-387-3401

   WASHINGTON, Nov. 10   -- The American Public Health Association 
(APHA) today denounced the Supreme Court's refusal to review a 
lower court allowing H & H Music to cut off health insurance
benefits to an employee with AIDS.
   Calling the lower court ruling blatant discrimination against one
kind of disease, APHA urged the court to hear another case and
reverse these benefit denial decisions.
   "The court's decision demonstrates the failure of the private
insurance system," said APHA President Joyce Lashof, addressing a
Capitol Hill rally.  "In light of these benefit denial decisions, no
American can feel secure that private insurance will be there to
protect against a catastrophic illness.  This decision shows why we
need a comprehensive national health system."
   Pointing out that H & H Music decision is based on a particular
type of disability, the association urged that the issue be
reexamined in light of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
 -30-
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: why so much to imprison someone?
Keywords: XIIIth Amendment
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:26:40 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Nov5.231542.15549@pica.army.mil> drears@pica.army.mil 
(Dennis G Rears <drears>) writes:

>  It could be a good idea.  How would you deal with the following
>implimentation procedures in these enlightened times:

>  1)  Without the threat of physical force or deprivation of food/water
>  how can one coerce one to do work?   [Dennis G Rears]

The rule on the *outside*, for *free* people, used to be, "He who does
not work, does not eat."  That goes back all the way to John Smith
in early Virginia.  If I decide not to work, no one will pay me, 
and then how can I buy food?  That's the main reason I come to work
every day, even if I don't feel like it.  That's fair enough for 
us on the outside, who haven't committed any crimes, so it's
surely fair enough for convicts.

>  2)  What about escape?  World opinion for the most part is against slavery.
>  If a slave escapes to another country, most likely he would not be
>  returned to the U.S.   [Dennis G Rears]

Great!  My purpose is not so much to punish criminals as to remove
them from our society so they can't hurt any more innocent citizens.
If some other country is reckless enough to want American criminals
running around free there, it's no skin off my nose because my
purpose is still accomplished.

>  3)  International sanctions.  We complain against chinese inmates
>  producing products for export.  Is it allowed?   [Dennis G Rears]

The column that I cited from the _Washington Afro-American_ made no
mention of the Federal prison-products corporation selling for export.
Indeed, its main gripe was that American business using free labor
regards prison labor as unfair competition.  My answer to that is
that the competition is unfair because private companies who cannot
use convict slave labor have to compete with a government corporation
that can use it.  If private businesses could buy their own convicts,
the unfair competition would disappear.

>  Aren't the violent criminals less educated and less trained to do
>productive work?   [Dennis G Rears]

I'm not talking about work that requires education and training.
I'm talking about picking onions in South Texas in 100-degree heat,
or mining copper in Arizona.  Let them take out their violent
impulses with a pickaxe on ore-bearing ground, rather than with 
a gun on innocent citizens.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: The Socratic Method
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:38:37 GMT

dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes:

>I present the following story of humor:

>A student in torts neglects to read one of the cases during his first year, and
>is called on by the professor to discuss the case.  The student, pretending 
>that he is intimately familiar, stands ready to dissert.

>The professor tells the student to argue the plaintiff's side.  The student, 
>for over ten minutes, presents the facts and view of the court, and why the 
>court was right.  Chatter and whispers overflow the classroom, but the student 
>continues.  Students seem confused, but, of course, no one dares interupt.

>When the student is "finished," the professor gives a little talk on how during
>the professor's first year he did not read the case, and pretended that he did.
> Moreover, the professor indicated that his professor made him look like the 
>fool he was.

>Thereafter, the professor looks at the student and say, "now that you have 
>argued for the defendant, your opponent, try representing your client, you 
>know, the person paying you the big bucks to know how to read."

>The class died.  And the student found his calling elsewhere.

This is contrary to my experiences in law school. We all fake it, especially
by your third year. The difference is that during your first year you get
caught (and do it less often).

I would argue that the person who can somewhat elequently argue without
any facts or law is better suited for the practice of law than that person
who has to be totally prepared before he can stand up. In my experience,
I find two types of litigators, those that are totally prepared, and those
that fly by the seat of their pants. The totally prepared atty will usually
win against the other in a lower court trial. However, the second type is
very effective in situations where adequate preparation is not possible, 
such as a prosecutor or PD. I have also seen the totally prepared person
get totally blown away in an appeals court where the judges are asking
somewhat random questions. They are pursuing their own lines of interest,
not your carefully rehearsed speach.

I am still not convinced though that the best way to teach law is what
one of my professors in law school called "hide the ball". Often you
spend most of your time wading through trivia before finding the nugget
of important principle. Admittedly, some of this is necessary. But I 
believe that it is overdone, with many of the profs using the socratic
method to inflate their own egos by destroying those of the students.
 
Bruce E. Hayden
Attorney at Law
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard)
Subject: Re: The Socratic Method
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:01:31 GMT

I present the following story of humor:

A student in torts neglects to read one of the cases during his first year, and
is called on by the professor to discuss the case.  The student, pretending 
that he is intimately familiar, stands ready to dissert.

The professor tells the student to argue the plaintiff's side.  The student, 
for over ten minutes, presents the facts and view of the court, and why the 
court was right.  Chatter and whispers overflow the classroom, but the student 
continues.  Students seem confused, but, of course, no one dares interupt.

When the student is "finished," the professor gives a little talk on how during
the professor's first year he did not read the case, and pretended that he did.
 Moreover, the professor indicated that his professor made him look like the 
fool he was.

Thereafter, the professor looks at the student and say, "now that you have 
argued for the defendant, your opponent, try representing your client, you 
know, the person paying you the big bucks to know how to read."

The class died.  And the student found his calling elsewhere.
From: bryan@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: minnesota cross burni
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:14:37 CST
Distribution: misc
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Nov5.4141.27038@dosgate>, "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com> writes:
> Here is a press release from the U.S. Department of Justice.
> 
>  Man Pleads Guilty in Minnesota Cross Burning Case
>  To: National Desk
>  Contact: Amy Casner of the U.S. Department of Justice,
>           202-514-2007
> 
>    WASHINGTON, Nov. 4  -- The U.S. Department of Justice
> announced today that Arthur Morris Miller III pleaded guilty to
> conspiring to intimidate and threaten a St. Paul African-American
> family by burning a cross on their lawn.

How is this related to R.A.V. vs. St. Paul? Is it the same case, a
related case or is it completely different?

-Bryan
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Incorporation of the bill of rights
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:21:11 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <23757@galaxy.ucr.edu>, judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:
> I would like to know if anyone has any comments regarding the incorporation
> of the bill of rights to the states.
> Who thinks that the justices who incorporated certain rights in the bill
> of rights did so based on personal opinion rather than constitutionally?
> Or, who thinks that the first incorporation case (Slaughter house case)
> was not decided properly by the justices, in regards to incorporation?
> 
> judson@watserv.ucr.edu

I think personal opinion was just about the whole reason.  Legislative
intent is clear, with both opponents and proponents of the 14th
Amendment in agreement that it would incorporate the ENTIRE Bill of
Rights (Am. 1-8) to limit the states.

Read U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) for a really splendid
example of original intent being twisted and turned on its ear,
just so the justices could free some Klansmen.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Racism is "class struggle" applied to ethnicity.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:19665 alt.drugs:18009 talk.politics.drugs:7377
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: jurisdiction argument
Date: 7 Nov 92 16:16:37 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Nov5.200343.11102@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson) writes:

>I'm unsure if this has been discussed on the net before (if it is, and anyone
>saved the threads, _PPPLEASE__ mail them to me), but my roommate has been
>talking to me about an interesting defense in criminal (and civil?) lawsuits.

>Essentially, what it boils down to, is that for most Americans, it cannot
>be proved that the Constitution has jurisdiction over them.  One can, thus,
>challenge the judge/prosecutor to produce evidence to produce evidence that
>the Constitution has jurisdiction over him, and -- supposedly, EVERY TIME
>this defense has been applied, the court backed down and dropped all charges.

>This is from my very limited understanding of the whole thing, but my
>roommate his literally stacks of documentation to support it.  (Some of which
>I will post, if people see a demand for it.)


Tell your roommate to give it up, and get a real job....  Maybe with
the Perot campaign.... :)


Criminal prosecutions don't require that the "Constitution has
jurisdiction over" the defendant.  They only require that the Court
has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.  And to get that, all
you need is to have the defendant in the custody of the government.

This doctrine was recently taken to an extreme is the now-celebrated
case of the Mexican doctor who was kidnapped in Mexico by DEA agents
and brought to the U.S. for trial for having committed a crime IN
MEXICO.  He challenged his conviction on the ground that he was
brought to the U.S. unlawfully for trial.  And he lost.


-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: daub@hsi.com (Marshall Daub)
Subject: OWNERSHIP/TRADEMARKING OF PRODUCT/SERVICE NAMES
Followup-To: poster
Summary: How does this work?
Organization: 3M Health Information Systems, Wallingford CT
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:58:39 GMT

   I have general questions concerning ownership and trademarking of names.
I mean names in the sense of products and services bought and sold on the
consumer market.

- Can anyone "own" a name? If yes, how? 

- Is trademarking a name the same as owning it? 

- Do you have to be in the same business as the name you want to own or 
  trademark?

- Can you sell a name that you own or trademark? How?

- What other issues exist around owning or trademarking names?

  Please reply via email. Thanks in advance.
-- 
**************************************************************************
Marshall Daub				  daub@hsi.com   203-949-0303
3M Health Information Systems 		Wallingford, Connecticut, U.S.A.
**************************************************************************
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The *real* face of Jury Nullification
Date: 14 Nov 92 02:10:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Nov1.061044.27615@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>>Muzzling defense attorneys sounds like something I would expect to find
>>in Iran or in some Kafka-esque kangaroo court legal system, NOT in 
>>a legal system which tries to uphold the truth and protect the
>>innocent.  
>>
>>And what "damage" is done when a jury refuses to convict someone who is guilty
>>of violating a morally untenable law?   In many historical cases,
>>this has led to bad laws being amended or repealed.  Is it "damaging"
>>to society to try to monitor and perfect the law?
>
>Explain how in your vision of Justice, where juries know they can
>ignore the law, and defense attorneys can say anything, you avoid
>the following:
>
>	Court: And now the defense will present its final arguments
>	to the jury.
>
>	Defense: Thank you.  Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury.  Sure,
>	my client killed that nigger, and the law says that you
>	must return a verdict of guilty.  However, nothing happens
>	to you if you don't, and it sure would be a shame to wreck
>	the life of a nice White Christian who did us all a favor
>	and got rid of a nigger who shouldn't have been on the White
>	side of town anyway.  Thank you.

This wouldnt be a problem if the jury were picked from the community
at large.  It is only a problem when the jury is stacked.  The stacking
of juries can only be done with the cooperation of the judge.  
But even under the current system, where defense attorneys are muzzled,
guilty people still go free.  That is the price of defending the
rights of the innocent.

And, I would remind you that there were numerous cases of juries 
refusing to convict
under the Fugitive Slave Laws, which shows that it can go either way.


>If the law is truly morally untenable, the jury will nullify *without*
>being told that they can.  

Not necessarily.  Some juries are more intimidated than others.

>Under your scheme, what is the point of
>even having law?  Why not just tell the jury the facts, and let them
>decide if anyone should be punished?

I am not arguing in favor of zero statutes.  I just think that the
jury box is designed to be a place where the enforcement of statutes 
is periodically reviewed by a panel of citizens.

--Al Date
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: minnesota cross burni
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Distribution: misc
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 13:19:01 GMT


In article <1992Nov6.131437.44469@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, 
bryan@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu said:

> >    WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 -- The U.S. Department of Justice announced
> > today that Arthur Morris Miller III pleaded guilty to conspiring
> > to intimidate and threaten a St. Paul African-American family by
> > burning a cross on their lawn.
>
> How is this related to R.A.V. vs. St. Paul? Is it the same case, a
> related case or is it completely different?

Same cross-burning incident, I believe... Miller and Viktora
("R.A.V.") were part of the same group, though I don't know whether
Miller actually physically participated in the cross-burning.

By the way, on a semi-related topic... Am I alone in thinking that we
need a Constitutional Amendment that reads "Under no circumstances
shall the criminal penalty for conspiracy to commit a crime exceed the
maximum potential penalty for the crime itself."?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc