HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: fornication
Date: 21 Jan 93 06:41:31 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, California

In article <4579@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
   In article <19573@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
   >1)  Does this decision make fornication a Constitutional right?

	   It already is, Matt.  "Pursuit of happiness" and all that,
   y'know.

Bzzt.  Thanks for playing!

"Pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, 1776,
and has no force of law.  Next came the Articles of Confederation,
1778, which also has no force of law and doesn't mention life,
liberty, *or* happiness.  The U. S. Constitution, 1787, has force of
law and only mentions life, liberty, and *property*.  This is probably
why the California Supreme Court says that the State has the right to
harass it's citizens as long as the harassment isn't (warning: weasel
words ahead) "an undue burden".

--
Ronald Cole           +----------------------+  internet: rjc@unify.com
Software Engineer II  |    Lord/Genis '96    |  uucp:     uunet!unify!rjc
Unify Corporation     +----------------------+  voice:    +1 916 928 6238
          "THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Judicial Power = "Create" Law? Founders Said Yes.
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:51:40 GMT

In article <1jna9jINNdn4@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> spencer@cats.ucsc.edu (Michael Spencer) writes:
>
>Ted Frank makes the best case against "original intent" jurisprudence
>that I have seen in a long time. But he doesn't really come to grips
>with the problem that the alternative is that the Constitution
>depends on the result of the last election.
>
>Wnat to give it a try, Ted?

I disagree that the only alternative to original intent is a Constitution
that depends on the result of the last election.

1) Stare decisis.  See, for example, Planned Parenthood v Casey.  A
   blatant attempt to stack the Court to reach a particular result failed,
   with Reagan/Bush not even winning a majority of their own appointees.  

2) Judges aren't elected.  They're appointed for life.  

3) Even in terms of "activism," there *are* standards of judicial
   interpretation -- no one would argue, for example, that the 
   Constitutional provision that the president must be 35 years of
   age should be interpreted as "the President must be mature" or
   "the President must be 2/3 as old as the average life expectancy
   of the country" (even though both of those, BTW, are plausible
   interpretations under 'original intent').

4) If the Senate ever took its Constitutional role in the appointments
   process seriously, there'd be less of a problem in general.  Nominees
   would be consensus choices.

5) Constitutional doctrines survive because they work, regardless of
   ideology.  Instances where Supreme Court justices agree far outnumber
   those where they don't.  We only see the tip of the iceberg where
   they don't agree, because cases in which there's lack of controversy 
   don't get to the Supreme Court in the first place.  Even in an
   original intent Court, you'd see the same type of fractious disagreements.
   If litigation in front of the Court were predictable, all parties concerned
   would save their money before going before the Court to get a certain
   result.

6) There's no evidence that original intent doctrine would produce
   the desired certainty of results.  A quick check of Scalia's opinions
   demonstrates that a majority of his statutory interpretations get
   overruled by Congress -- hardly the sign of an effective doctrine
   at construing intent.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: fornication
Keywords: Sin taxes
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:54:10 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <5HoPXB1w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>> 	All right, then, how about "freedom of religion" ?  I mean,
>I'm not sure I understand your meaning in this context. I was simply

	The fact that that pursuit of happiness stuff isn't legal is
moot, since if my religion requires fornication (love that word) as
part of its devotional practices I should be able to practice those
devotions freely.  It's not like I'm consuming dangerous drugs like
that guy in Oregon, or killing chickens, like those people in Hialeah.
I'm just screwing around...

								W.rat

Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Clinton's given name
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:05:52 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <15630.2b60d8ad@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> In article <1993Jan23.000300.3953@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, rcsaito@cs.washington.edu (Richard Saito) writes:
>> Can somebody tell me what Bill Clinton's given name is?
> 
> William Jefferson Blythe [IV].
> 
> BTW, it is not uncommon for people to have their names changed, particularly
> when it happens before they are of legal age due to divorce and remarriage.
> It almost happened to me when I was in my teens, but I chose not to go along
> with it. It did happen to my sister-in-law. Once the name is changed it
> is legal and binding (BC's mother remarried a man whose last name was Clinton,
> and for whatever reason his name was changed). Alot of Rush supporters and
> Rush himself try to make it seem like it was some sort of streamlined
> public relations scheme to make his name more recognizable or something. These
> people are truly insane...

     It's interesting that both Bill and Hillary have modified either
their signature or public name *since the inauguration*.  Bill has changed
his signature from "Bill Clinton" (pre-inauguration) to "William J. Clinton"
(post-inauguration).  This may be one reason why he was so deliberate in
signing his first executive orders -- he didn't want to mess up.  As many
of you are aware, the woman introduced to us as "Hillary Clinton" during
the campaign, whose legal name is "Hillary Rodham" (based on her
tax filings), is now using the "Hillary Rodham Clinton" monicker.
A prediction -- she will go back to "Hillary Rodham" within the next
four years.

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Somethings Just Worry me....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:46:15 GMT

k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
] >> 
] >> OK, I'll bite.  Me and drieux both want you to explain this, now.
] > 
] >hum.... worries me when anyone from anyplace
] >listed as a 'zoo' supports me...
] 
] Oh, drieux, do do that voodoo that you do for us 'zoo dudes...
 
I thought there was a sign that said 
"Don't feed the Animals."

] >cf. Asimov's discussion about 'proof and beauty'...
] 
] I must have missed that one.

<<A valid proof may not be pretty,
but a false one is Ugly.>>

or something on that order...

] >> Complete consistency is _easy_.  
]
] >Haven't read any Godel, eh?
] 
] I didn't say I could _prove_ it was easy.

Hold it, is that, "I can't prove closure and completeness easily."
Or that you can't easily prove that Completeness and closure is
a synonym for CheapSleezyHussy.

] No, you must have misunderstood.  When they say, "government should stay
] out of the personal lives of men," they really mean _men_.  

Jamie,

In the future when You Mean to say NonFePerKin,
Please say what you mean!!!!

Good Grief the 10th Edition has been out for some time now.


ciao
drieux

"rm 101, phone call for rm 101"


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: rynea@dwerger.nshore.org
Subject: Bill pending before MI legislature
Organization: Custom Tailored Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:27:46 GMT
Summary: What is the Bill number ?

      I understand that there is a bill pending before the 
Michigan legislature regaurding third party custody suits.
Does anyone have the details of this bill and/or the bill number?

Please Email as I am not sure if this machine gets this news group.

I will post a summary if anyone shows interst.
From: tzs@hardy.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: will drawing minus attorney
Date: 28 Jan 1993 04:51:51 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu

It is probably possible, but be careful.  Do *NOT* muck with any will produced
by a program or a kit.  The famous trap the will-kit user falls into is to
make a will with a kit or program, and then decide that he or she wants
something to be a little different, in a way that the kit or program does
not support.  They change the will themselves, and screw up.

Result: when they daie, one or more laywers get a a lot of money to straighten
things out.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From:  (DARCI L. JOHNSON)
Subject: Re: Clinton's given name
Followup-To: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Organization: BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:27:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.000300.3953@beaver.cs.washington.edu>,
rcsaito@cs.washington.edu (Richard Saito) wrote:
> 
> Can somebody tell me what Bill Clinton's given name is?  I saw it on 
> Final Jeopardy a few weeks ago, but I forgot it.
> 
> -Richard
> 
> P.S. nobody got the question right
> 
> 
> -- 
> -Richard
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.autos.driving
From: whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h)
Subject: Re: Must states accept other states drivers licenses
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 13:44:37 GMT

In article <77232@apple.apple.COM> may@Apple.COM (Patrick May) writes:
>
>     Must the state of California accept as valid a driver's license from
>the state of Maine?
>
>     I was pulled over for running a red light (it was actually yellow,
>but thats another battle) in CA and handed the officer my Maine license.
>He inquired how long I had been in the state and I replied "Not long."
>He pressed for more information and I informed him that I had been in CA
>for a few weeks.  He then wrote me up for not having a license.  Evidently
>CA expects you to get a CA license within 10 days after entering the state.

You certainly had a license, so I really don't think the charge of
driving without a license is valid.  Theres likely another aspect
of the CA motor vehicle laws which you have technically violated 
because you have been there more than 10 days after entering the state.
One thing that should refute this is why you are in the state.  Are
you temporarily there (eg. attending school, temporary job, etc)
It shouldn't be to hard to convince a judge you haven't moved there 
permanently.  

>     I have the following questions:
>
>          - Must states accept as valid other states' licenses?

As far as I known, all states recognize licenses from all other states
as well as Canadian (and probably Mexican) drivers licenses.  Most states
do have some type of maximum time you before you MUST get a license
from the state you now live in, but I've rarely heard of those laws beinng
enforced to the degree that you have been charged with.

>          - Did the officer act inappropriately by pressing me for
>            information without informing me of my right against
>            self-incrimination?  Being pulled over is inherently
>            intimidating, I felt coerced to be as forthcoming as I
>            was by the nature of the power relationship.

Good question, any budding 5th amendment activists out there who can
answer this.  

>          - Is the ticket invalid because I did, in fact, have a
>            license, albeit an out-of-state one?

As above, I don't think a charge of driving without a license would
be something they can stick you for, the actual charge may be more
along the lines of failure to get a CA license within 10 days of
permanently moving to the state.  
>
>     And just out of curiosity:
>          - What are the odds of getting out of the running a red
>            light ticket when it's just my word against the cop?

Not very good.

>          - If I do get out of that ticket, does it invalidate the
>            other charge since he pulled me over inappropriately?

Not likely.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!cc!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@cc.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Must states accept other states drivers licenses
From: David B. Horvath, CDP <MBADBH@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:09:00 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hidden - I don't speak for them...
X-Stuff:      <This should be witty, but I'm too tired right now.>

How long were you in the State of California?  Were you living there
permantly or semi-permantly or just visiting?  Where are you registered
to vote?

I think there may be an issue of residency - were you legally a resident
of MA and just visiting CA or did you move to CA?  I think it might be
fuzzy if you temporarily moved to CA for school but return to MA & pay
your taxes there.

**NOT legal advice**

   - David
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bawags@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (Her Heinous)
Subject: Are DMO dentists accountable for screw-ups?
Organization: Arbitrary Telephony & Termination
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:11:56 GMT
Keywords: dentist, DMO, legal

Hello everyone in helpful Netland, I need some advice...

How does a person go about filing a claim against a doctor/dentist
that has disfigured  AND left them with a problem that requires
oral surgery.  My sister was going to have some teeth extracted by
her DMO dentist and he subsequently removed a large portion of her
jaw (OOPS!) which left a gaping whole in her mouth that has not healed
properly and bleeds to this day.  After bailing out of the DMO, a
visit to an oral surgeon shocked her with a $5,000.00 - $7,000.00
estimate to put her mouth back in working order.  Will she have
to  pay this bill or is the dentist that did this to her liable
in any way?
I've heard a teaching school might help her in a lawsuit, but
wondered if she should bother. Does anyone have any ideas or
suggestion on this? Any info or guidance would be greatly 
appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Bernal
-- 
(bawags@cbnewsm.att.com) |       Life is a fatal sexually 
 AT&T Bell Laboratories  |       transmitted disease.     SCHWING!
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Some people are so full of it ... they grow mushrooms   - John Long
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: rcsaito@cs.washington.edu (Richard Saito)
Subject: Clinton's given name
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 00:03:00 GMT

Can somebody tell me what Bill Clinton's given name is?  I saw it on 
Final Jeopardy a few weeks ago, but I forgot it.

-Richard

P.S. nobody got the question right


-- 
-Richard
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bobg@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Glickstein)
Subject: Need help with lease litigation
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:36:34 GMT

Last May, I entered into a lease for an apartment in Novato, California,
with a property manager acting as an agent for the unit's owner, who
lives in Virginia.  The agent first offered me a month-to-month lease,
but when I told him I preferred a one-year lease he said OK.

In September, I had reason to want to leave the Novato unit.  I sought
the approval of the agent, who after a purported consultation with the
owner gave verbal permission to terminate the lease pending a written
thirty-day notice from me, which I promptly supplied.  I paid rent
through mid-October and considered my obligation fulfilled.

Shortly thereafter, I was contacted by the owner who told me that his
agent had unintentionally misrepresented his wishes.  The owner had no
intention of releasing me from the lease.  By this time it was too late
for me to respect his wishes, however, as I was committed to my new lease.

A couple of months passed in which several letters were exchanged but
the owner's position remained unchanged.  He retained my security
deposit against the rent payments that he believed he was due.

He is now threatening legal action if I do not pay the missing rent,
plus fees for his lawyer, his rental agent, and advertising for the
apartment.  I would like to threaten legal action of my own to get my
security deposit back, but I do not know how strong my position is.

Can anyone offer an opinion?  Thanks a million in advance.

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: douglas@rush.emc.trw.com (Douglas McHugh)
Subject: Protect an Idea
Organization: TRW Space & Electronics Group, Redondo Beach, CA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:37:25 GMT

A friend of mind is looking for some answers to the following question:

If I found a use for a product that is different than it is presently
being sold for, how can I make money off of my idea and be legal?
	
		1) How do I contact the company and inform them of this new
		   packaging concept/product usage and protect my idea?

		2) Can I repackage the item and sell it?

		3) Can I get a copyright/paten based on a new use for an
		   already existing item?   

Due to the nature of the idea, my friend wishes not to go into details of his
idea.  Heck, I'm not even sure what it is.

I will forward (via sneaker net) all responses to my buddy.  If anyone knows
of a better board to post these questions please let me know. 


thanks

-- 
Douglas McHugh   
douglas@tesla.emc.trw.com
TRW Inc. S-2470                (213) 812-4679
One Space Park, S-2470, Redondo Beach, California 90278   USA
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Supreme Court do rule on zero tolerence and civil forfeiture
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:15:15 GMT

According to a UPI article from last week:

	"WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Supreme Court Friday agreed to decide if the
8th Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and
excessive fines can apply to the government in civil forfeiture cases.
	The court agreed to decide if the government's seizure of a South
Dakota convict's mobile home and business -- because they were used to
facilitate illegal drug activity -- can be challenged. ..."

The defendent pled guilty to selling two grams of cocaine, so the
issue is proportionality.

The case is 92-6073, _Richard Lyle Austin vs. United States_

- Carl




-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From: katop@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Chris Katopis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Gov't Interception of the Mails & pen regis
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:35:27 GMT
Organization: Temple University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]


I was reading _Smith v Md_ and was considering the notion	
that info that is turned over voluntarily to third parties
can not be "intercepted" w/n Title III.  

Does this mean that the gov't can read the outside the envelopes
of postal mail and record the return and forward addresses of
postal mail?  isn't this analogous to the information recorded by a 
pen register.

is there a case that analyzes this?
-chris
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: The Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: AIDS Coalition To Unleash Power
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:20:22 GMT

In article <13944@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan15.184050.21761@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, lrabe@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lee A Rabe) writes:

>> Yes.  You are so right. This is *horrible*.  The Catholic Mass is a sacred,
>> holy time.  The Catholics are worshipping their OneTrueGod, and their choice
>> of religious beliefs should be respected.

>> But, if this holds true, it HAS TO HOLD TRUE FOR *EVERYONE*.

>> So, the next time wiccans are practicing *their* faith, worshipping their
>> God/desses (who, btw, they believe in just as much as Catholics believe in
>> their OneTrueGod...), please don't interrupt their services.  Don't take away
>> and profane their holy items.  Don't assume that just because their faith is
>> different from yours, that it is wrong.

>If they did so, they would be subject to arrest.  At least in California,
>the laws against disrupting religious services apply to ALL religions.
>Does anyone know of any examples otherwise?

Do the laws allow police to interfere with peyote use?

>> My biggest gripe with *SOME* Christians is that they want religious freedom
>> to preach their faith --- and then want that same freedom to be denied to 
>> other faiths.  How hypocritical.

>Can you give some examples?  I've never seen any in my lifetime.  I've 
>seen examples of how the liberal enthusiasm for the War on Drugs has 
>been used against peyote users.  Christians weren't the reason for that.

>I've seen examples of how liberals have used their power to suppress
>Christianity (Soviet Union, most of its satellites, prohibitions on
>voluntary prayer in public schools).

First of all, this is just your silliness of calling everyone you think
is bad liberal.  Hitler was a liberal, the Soviet Union is liberal, etc.
Yeah, right.  That has no relation to the meaning of the word at all.

Of course, you don't mind lying about homosexuality and child molestation, 
so I don't know why you'd mind making up meanings of words.

Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, George Bush, Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson,
Spiro Agnew, and Dan Quayle are not liberals.  And they've been awfully 
big proponents of the WOD.  "Law-and-order" was not a liberal invention.

And there is no prohibition on voluntary prayer in schools.  You've
bought the Falwell lie.  People can pray if they want.  What's
prohibited is school-sponsored prayers.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: privacy question
Date: 21 Jan 1993 07:56:38 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>I have no idea, but: I just make up a number.

How do you make up a number?  It had better not be *my* number unless you want
to practice filing answers to complaints... :-)

--Tim Smith