HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robin@ntmtv.UUCP (Robin Coutellier)
Subject: Where to Report Credit Card Scam?
Originator: robin@volans
Reply-To: robin@ntmtv.UUCP (Robin Coutellier)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 09:05:21 GMT

On July 30, I received a piece of mail trying to masquerade as a telegram.
It was postmarked from Dallas, TX, from a place called Credit Approval
Dept.  It congratulated me for being pre-approved for a "gold card" with
a 10K line of credit.  It then said:

	Mail your $29.95 annual fee by check or money order along with
	this telegram to activate your credit immediately.

	Failure to do so will result inour reevaluation of your
	elegibility.

	Please return this telegram with payment by August 17, 1992.

	Make check or money order payable to Credicorp Gold Card.

	sincerely, blah blah blah. 

That's it, no terms, nothing to sign, zip.  This was unsolicited mail.

This has all the earmarks of a scam to me.  I was pondering how and
where to report this, since I think more gullible people would respond to
it.  Before I did anything, however, I received another piece of mail from
them printed on cheap computer paper (holes still in it).  It was
postmarked from Washington, DC on August 4, with no return address on the
envelope.  It gave slightly more info and again demanded payment of $29.95, 
this time asking for it to be sent to a P.O. Box in New York City.

The 2nd letter also had what they called "card disclosure for your
files".  It specified such specific terms as "we reserve the right to
increase your charge limit automatically and progressively based on your
payment performance, our finances etc.".  Gee, "etc" is a little VAGUE
for a contract, don't you think?  Also, they refer to their annual fee 
as $39.95.

In both cases, the demand for $29.95 appeared to be a bill, not an
application.  The "telegram" says the $29.95 is an annual fee.  The
"terms" say the $29.95 is an application fee.  The fine print says that
it's your responsibility to solve any disputed, undelivered or
unfulfilled goods or services from any merchants.  All transactions
between you and merchants are entirely your responsibility.
 
The "telegram" says there is an interest rate of 12% annually.  The
"terms" say the interest is 0%.

The "terms" refer to the card as a "Global GOLDX" card.

Who do I report this to?  I'm guessing the Post Office, but I don't know
the procedure, and I didn't see it while skimming the faq post.  

I've never see such a ridiculously phony attempt to con money out of people, 
and I get a LOT of junk mail.  Has anyone else out there received the same
come-on?

Robin Coutellier                   
Northern Telecom, Mountain View, CA
ames!ntmtv!robin   	          
ntmtv!robin@ames.arc.nasa.gov    
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Advice for first year law student?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 14:02:38 GMT

In article <64416@cup.portal.com> edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok) writes:

>And I may presumptuously add that law school is no more than a rite of
>passage, just like the bar exam.  It is related to the practice of law only 
>in a metaphysical sense.

I disagree with Edward here. I find that what I learned in law school is 
useful to my work almost every day.

>I don't
>think I will run into a paying client in the next 10 years who will
>let me argue a constitutional question for the hell of it.

Fortunately for me, I get to deal with Constitutional issues fairly
regularly. And criminal-law practice is heavily Constitutionalized.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First
mnemonic@eff.org| Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit 
(617) 864-0665  | the expression of an idea simply because society finds 
EFF, Cambridge  | the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." --W. Brennan
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Abstract discussion of "civil rights" and "property rights"
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:55:04 GMT

In article <lairdb.714166328@crash> lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P.
Broadfield) writes: 
#My own position, which
#I think is closer to Clayton's than Greg's, is that an _owner_, whether
#it's Joe, of Joe's FlopHouse, or HiltonCorp should be able to do whatever
#he wants with his property, whether it's refuse to do business with 
#homosexuals, or refuse to business with readheads.

My basic philosophy is that people have the rights to choose who they
do business with, corporations don't. Forming a corporation gets some
benifits, and incurs some loss of freedom. I consider the right to
discriminate a freedom lost by corporations. If you don't want to lose
that right, don't incorporate.

Thus Clayton could hang a "no blacks" on his door, but the Hilton
could not. 


--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 03:45:37 GMT

In article <11801@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#This from a man who can't seem to understand that children aren't
#appropriate sexual partners for adults.

I can understand that quite well. You seem to think that if I point
out that you are misquoting Hitler, that means I support Hitler. 

#Homosexuals aren't trying to get civil rights laws passed. There
#are attempts being made, supported by many homosexual activists,
#(and not supported by some other homosexuals,) to get laws passed
#that would prohibit an employer or landlord from expressing his
#disapproval of homosexuality by refusing to do business with a 
#homosexual.

Hmm, being able to eat, or rent a place to sleep are *NOT* civil
rights? Interesting definition of civil rights you have. I obviously
don't share your definition.

#Isn't it odd that the liberal definition of free expression includes 
#nude dancing, flag-burning, child pornography, and neo-Nazis marching 
#through Skokie, but doesn't include, "I don't approve of homosexuality.
#Look elsewhere for a consenting adult to engage in private actions."

Well, you have three of four right. We may not like nude dancing, flag
burning, or marching nazi's but we acknowledge their right to do so.
Doesn't stop me from booing them.

The problem is if business transactions are private or not. The
situation between a person renting out a room is different from that
of a Hilton Hotel renting out a room.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: How To Really Annoy People
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 02:20:43 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <64160@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:

>She thinks that the courts have not treated her fairly, and got pissed
>off at them.  She went and got forms for filing a lien and put liens on
>the houses of the Judges that have dealt with her, the lawyers, and the
>sheriff who threw her out.  It only costs $7 to put a lien on someone,
>and requires no proof that there is a good reason for said lien!

Yes, but if it turns out she had not good faith basis for liening the
property in questions, she will probably be liable to these judges for
"Abuse of Process" a tort in most states.

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

Xref: sparky misc.legal:16107 talk.politics.misc:40342
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
Date: 18 Aug 92 06:55:03 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.


	Double jeopardy is being tried in the same court for the same crime
(with the same evidence) twice.

	Federal courts and state courts are not the same court system.  A
suspect can be tried in both courts for the same act (e.g. bank robbery) and it
doesn't violate the double jeopardy standard.

	Anyone not understanding that should do a little reading before
proceeding further.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Equal Rights Amendment
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:17:25 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:

[...]
>It is no longer legal for insurance comanies to charge
>differential rates based on sex. Boys don't have to pay
>any more for car insurance than girls do. Too bad this
>didn't come until after I moved away from home.
>
>I believe someone sued (successfully, I think) a dry
>cleaner because the cleaner charged more to launder
>women's blouses than to clean men's shirts. It always
>*has* seemed strange to me that women's dry cleaning
>bills are bigger than men's are.
[...]

These results are more likely the result of antidiscrimination laws
than the state ERA (which probably only applies to the state, not to
businesses).

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Date: 23 Aug 92 14:37:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: m.1992Aug23.143712.11072
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:

[...]
>Think about it.  Under the "community standards" doctrine, the act of
>mailing pornography to Cincinatti is a crime if the good citizens of
>that city think it is "without serious artistic value, etc. ... and
><offensive>", and have passed a law banning such material.
[...]

Aside: Community standards is part of the patently offensive
test, not part of the serious value test.

=========== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/miller ==============
The Supreme Court's definition of obscenity (the so-called _Miller_
test) is:

1) must appeal to the prurient interest of the average person

2) must describe sexual conduct in a way that is "patently offensive"
to community standards

and

3) when taken as a whole, it "must lack serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value"

Note that only "patently offensiveness" is decided by community
standards.

greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield) adds:

[...]
It should also be noted that local community's do NOT have total control
over the definition of "patently offensive."

In the 1974 case of Jenkins v. Georgia the SC unanimously overturned an
Albany, Georgia's court decision that "Carnal Knowledge" (the highly-
acclaimed Jack Nicholson film from 1971) was obscene, in a decision that
"clarified" (modified) the 1973 decisions of Miller v. California and
Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton.

In the court's opinion, Justice Rehnquist wrote, "it would be a serious
misunderstanding of Miller to conclude that juries have unbridled discretion
in determining what is 'patently offensive.'"

The opinion further stated the court's expectation that appelate courts,
would necessarily be needed to protect non-obscene material from local
communities attempting to ban it as obscene.

In a concurring decision, Brennan, Marshall, and Douglas (all of whom
dissented in the Miller case), renewed their argument that the standard
created by Miller ultimately left only the SC to make determinations of
what was obscene, and as such was completely impractical.

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:18:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.140520.26651@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.225520.1477@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug20.184336.12971@Princeton.EDU>
>>
>>You are welcome to FORM a community with any rules you like.  You may
>>not DEFINE your community to include me, unless I agree.  Likewise, if
>>someone else has formed such a community, you may join it (with the
>>agreement of the community).
>
>The community of St Paul MN was not imposed by fiat on its citizens, and
>it is just laziness to say, when a reasonably democratic community
>passes a law that you do not like, that your apathy and refusal to
>participate in the political process constituted disagreement (it could
>have well constituted assent.)  

The community of the United States of America was not imposed by fiat
on its citizens.  The rules of that community include the First
Amendment to the Constitution.  Why do you feel that it should be
allowable to violate that rule?

Anyway, I realized that we both misinterpreted the original events you
wrote about.  There was bad speech (people saying racist things).
Other people argued with them (good speech), and convinced them
(voluntarily) to stop saying bad things.  This is an example that the
correct response to bad speech is good speech, and the good speech
will win out.

>>For instance, you may form a housing coop with rules against hate
>>speech.  You may require all potential residents to agree to those
>>rules.  You cannot impose such rules on all people who live in some
>>area, even if a majority of the people in that area want the rules.
>
>Unfortunately, the identical arguments the Supreme Court used against
>the St Paul law could have been applied to nongovernmental organizations
>receiving Federal funds...including housing coops.

I live in a coop; in New York City, they're more common than
condominiums.  My coop does not receive Federal funds.

>  The Supreme Court
>decision has ALREADY damaged the independence of public universities and
>their ability to promulgate hate speech codes, for it has been
>interpreted as making hate speech codes in public universities
>unconstitutional.

Public universities are paid for by the government.

>  So there is no facile distinction between private and
>public, and the Supreme Court has ridden roughshod over what used to be
>the conservative's favorite icon: that of local organization and local
>government.

You haven't said anything about private institutions.

Do you really believe in local organizations and local government that
strongly?  Often, they will oppose Federal rules of the type you like.
How would you feel about a state legalizing slavery?  (If a community
can violate the first amendment, why can't one violate the
fourteenth?)

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: jmaddox@dbaix.oc.com (John Maddox)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Do I have a case?
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:38:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: OpenConnect Systems, Dallas, TX


	I have two questions to pose to the net.armchair.lawyers out there..
(or, 'real' lawyers, if you happen to be reading this...)

Problem #1

	I recently worked for a Fortune 500 company... I decided to resign,
and did so... I then learned that a voluntary retirement program might
have been in effect at the time, but that the local management had
not made this fact public.  If I had been able to participate, I should
have rec'd somewhere around $10K.

	I have sent two letters (one certified) to the personnel dept.
at headquarters requesting information on this program.  They have
refused to respond to me.

	Should I obtain representation? Or, is it even worth it?


Problem #2

	When purchasing my home, the real estate agent produced a computer
printout with various information about the home... on this printout the
"year built" was indicated as 1984.  We made our offer based on that age.

We've now learned (3 yrs later) that the house was actually built in 1981.
We may need repairs that could have been covered by the HOW warranty
had it not expired 9/91.

	Once again ... does this case merit going forward with?

	Please email, as I rarely get time to read the group...

Thanks in advance for any responses....

JM
-- 
================================================================================
John Maddox (jmaddox@dbaix.oc.com)  * OpenConnect Systems * Tel: 214-490-4090
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16241 rec.travel:12165 soc.culture.usa:6769 soc.culture.canada:6005 soc.culture.british:11767
From: oran@bally.com (Oran Carmona)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.travel,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: US dual citizenship info -- updated version available via FTP
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:17:51 GMT
Organization: Bally Universal Gaming Systems  Reno, NV

>With the United States being a notable exception.  They tax U.S.
>citizens irregardless of where they reside, unless maybe it's Puerto
>Rico, and I don't know how that works, exactly.  === Al Sparks

Well yes and no really. While you do have to file a 1040 while living
abroad, the 1st $70,000 you earn is exempt from US taxes. There are
also a few other benefits that one can derive from moving abroad, like
having 4 years instead of 2 to reinvest the profit from the sale of a
primary residence (in the US of course) without exposing yourself to
capital gains tax. Of course you still have to pay local taxes which
will probably be higher. 
The IRS insists that you pay them a visit if you are planning to exit
for prolonged periods of time, in order for you to "settle your
account" with them. "My ... isn't that special 8-( "

O<

-- 
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/  Oran Carmona      Internet: oran@turnip.bally.com                    / 
/  Bally Systems          CI$: 76306,33                                 / 
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From: pstatcw@prism.gatech.EDU (Christopher J. Whaley)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Computers for Law (Was Re: Advice for first year law student?)
Date: 22 Aug 92 00:41:43 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

>   It is true that modern Macs can read & write DOS disks, and can
>even emulate PC functionality.  But conversion is not the same as true
>compatibility; I've spent more hours than I care to think about trying
>to convert documents from one format to another, and it's always a
>bloody pain, and you always lose something in translation.  (Or gain
>something, as the case may be.)
>
>   This problem is compounded by the fact that the industry standard
>DOS word processor is WordPerfect, which, apparently, nobody uses on
>the Mac.  So you're not only translating between platforms, but
>between file formats.
>
I have been a heavy DOS user for the last few years.  Especially the
ever-popular WordPerfect 5.1 (DOS).  I am also able to use Microsoft
Word for the MAC.  With the correct filters (included with Word 5.0 
MAC) you can seemlessly translate text files with all of the 
attributes (italics, font type, underline, tabs, etc).  

If I were to buy a machine tomorrow for word processing, it would 
definitely be a MAC.  The SuperDrive on a MAC can read MS-DOS disks
easily and Apple File Exchanger translates the files.      

Sorry if this thread has gone a little too far on the computer end
of this question, but I had to put in my $.02.


-- 
Christopher J. Whaley                       ******** Ph.D. or Bust ********
School of Psychology  -- Georgia Tech   
Internet: gt3006a@prism.gatech.edu           "Psychology at Georgia Tech?" 
Bitnet:   pstatcw@gitvm1                 "Yes, we do have a graduate program!"
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.taxes
From: lizzit@silver.lcs.mit.edu (Lizzette Xixxo)
Subject: Re: Is filing an income tax return voluntary?
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:40:30 GMT

me:
>>u'r better off filing and claiming lots of deductions, exemptions, credits,
>>and special tax rates than asserting your rights to not comply and getting
>>whacked with the IRS's assessment based on your W2s and 1099s.
you:
>Well this is all good and fine but we still done know what "income" is (from
>the IRS definitions). We do know that the Supreme Court has ruled that "income"
>is a gain or profit, I recall from one case "if there is no gain, there is no
>inc
ome". Personally I work for salary, I do not make a gain or a profit
>since I am exchanging labor for FRN's. I have no "income" according to 
>the Supreme Court therefore my assessment for income should be 0. I would
>not owe any tax on income I did not make. So the above statement is true but
>how many people do you know that make enough "income" to owe taxes.

your logic is false.  it is not "so the above statement is true", but ASSUMING
the above statement is true.  your logic falls apart due to your definition
of income.

by using the normal definition of "income", something coming in to
you (in this case cash), you are correct that there is an implicit concept
 of outgo as well.  however, these terms deal only with financial (not labor) 
transactions.

you sure the hell DO have an income from your salery, otherwise there would
be no incentive for you to work for your company.  

do i know people who make MORE money than their work should actually
pay them, which is what your last question seems to really be asking:  about
1-5% of my clients seem to be overpaid, whereas about 15% seem to be underpaid.
i may do a survey of my clients next yr to find out the answer to that 
question.  a whopping 80% seem to be incapable of managing their income right
accross the board (all income levels).  but then, that's probably why they
hire a tax consultant.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:15950 rec.travel:11602 soc.culture.usa:6506 soc.culture.canada:5639 soc.culture.british:11442
From: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.travel,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: US dual citizenship info -- updated version available via FTP
Date: 12 Aug 92 12:21:13 GMT
	<1992Aug10.104127.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.
In-reply-to: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu's message of 10 Aug 92 18:41:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.104127.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:

   Isn't there a law on the books that you can't give up your citizenship
   for the purpose of tax evasion?

It wouldn't be needed. Most governments use a residency qualification
as the basis for income taxes, irrespective of someone's citizenship
or nationality.

		Jim