HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cvadrgez@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Renegade Police and illegal tickets...
Date: 22 Jan 93 09:03:52 GMT
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Nntp-Posting-User: cvadrgez

In article <1993Jan21.003556.18517@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes:
> I am truly amazed at what our Boys in blue have been doing lately.  I am 
> shocked that the Police, the harbingers of law and order, would issue a ticket,
> without warning or explanation, to a middle-class white man in this 
> circumstance.  Here is an individual from a good home, both parents are of the 
> professional class; who attends an institution of higher education; and who is 
> connected within the social order.
> 
> Now let's take that Negr*, I mean black man, who was shooting at a passing car.
>  Now, where whas the police then?  Obviously, this BLACK man was a drug dealer,
> for why else would he be shooting a loaded weapon upon the public ways.  The 
> police, so I believe, and IMHO, should have arrested every black man until they
> caught this menance, not harrass a middle class white man who could not 
> possible have done ANY wrong.  Law and order was misplaced here.
> 
> Like the original author, I would like to know what courses of action are open.
>  Perhaps if I protest to the police they will recognize their ways.  Perhaps, a
> phone call to the local Klan chapter in the community, is that 1-800-THE-KLAN, 
> will teach that black drug dealer to shot a gun in such a situation, and remind
> the officer to do what he should have been doing ab initio, i.e., protecting 
> our people.  After all, a grave injustice was committed.
> 
>                                   :)

I believe that you somehow missed the spirit of my post.  I do not care why the
black man was firing at the Ford Escort.  My problem with this Policeman is
that he issued me a citation for DOING WHAT HE TOLD ME TO DO!  Please do not
make me out to be a racist, I am NOT a racist.  I Do have African, Asian,
Hispanic, and Mexian friends.  Thank you Mr. Pollard for your observations...

:)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mariou@astro.astro.ufl.edu (Mariou Gottesman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: will drawing minus attorney
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:53:59 GMT
Distribution: usa


Can anyone tell me if it is possible for me to make a will
from some kind of a kit??  I cannot afford the 350 dollars
fees for attorneys.

Thanks a lot

M. Gottesman

Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Judicial Power = "Create" Law?  Founders Said Yes.
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:08:22 GMT

I'm taking this out of alt.censorship.
In article <1993Jan21.040853.28616@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>The English Court of Equity and the federal courts under Article III
>both have jurisdiction over (i.e. the power to hear and rule on) such 
>cases. But jurisdiction doesn't say anything about how such cases are
>to be determined, simply that the court may, in some way, rule
>on them. In the case of the Court of Equity, this included making
>Common Law. Since the Constitution specifically gives the federal
>courts "judicial" power but _no_ "legislative" power, I conclude
>that the federal courts may not create law (a legislative power)
>in order to settle cases.

This is the exact same position I took until I started reading
what 18th century Anglo-American theorists actually thought "judicial
power" meant.  It included the concept of what you call "creating" 
law.  It's an inevitable part of interpreting law.  The Founders 
thought that judges could create law, subject to legislative 
override (within the bounds of the Constitution). 

To quote Eskridge: "Educated lawyers in 1789 would have considered
statutory texts binding on courts, but would not have dogmatically
argued that statutory interpretation involves nothing more than 
divining the intent of the legislature."  135 U Pa L Rev 1479, 1502-03.

Blackstone's commentaries, at Vol. 1, page 91, says that courts
should "expound the statute by equity" to reject unreasonable
consequences "where some collateral matter arises out of the general
words."  (See also College of Physician's Case, 123 Eng Rep 928 (C.P. 1609)).

See Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #78, calling for courts to have
the power to control "unjust and partial laws" by "mitigating the
severity and confining the operation of such laws."  

See Blatt's study of the history of statutory interpretation in 6 Cardozo 
L Rev 799 (1985).

The whole notion of original intent falls when judged by its own merits:
original intent is a 19th century conceit, *not* the original intent
of the Founders.  How can one argue for the use of the original intent
of the Founders when the original intent of the Founders did not include
the use of the original intent of the Founders?
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: phd1667@ultb.isc.rit.edu (P.H. Dixon)
Subject: Name Changes
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:19:24 GMT

Hello,

I'm curious if anyone could tell me the procedure to have a name
changed? I'm interested in adding another "first name," and wonder if
it's possible to do it without involving a lawyer... The lawyer I spoke
to, told me that it would be approx. $500.. in New York State.

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Philip
(email replies would be appreciated)

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: executive orders
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:58:16 GMT

In <1993Jan24.132802.25874@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu sez:
>
>In article <1993Jan24.060929.11298@athena.mit.edu>, 
>jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) said:
>
>> 2. reversal of ban on abortion counseling at federally funded clinics
>> 
>> I thought this was a law, not a regulation?  Or is there a law that
>> authorizes but does not require such restrictions?  I know Congress
>> tried to reverse the ban but failed.
>
>I dunno.

Ted Frank has already given the correct answer.  To summarize, the
statute empowers HHS to promulgate regulations to carry out the spirit
of the Act.  What the Supreme Court did in Rust v. Sullivan was
declare that a) the "gag rule" regs were not violative of Congessional
intent and b) that the regs did not infringe the First Amendment.
Conclusion (a) is merely permissive, however: it doesn't mean that the
gag rule is compulsory, but rather only that it's a legitimate
exercise of the authority delegated.  Thus, the HHS Sec'y (or his/her
boss) is free to rescind such regs at will.

Note that there would be a complication if Clinton/HHS wanted to
replace the regs with new ones.  Under the APA (Administrative
Procedures Act), a period for public comment must precede any
rulemaking.  The reason that the gag rule regs were never fully
enforced, even after _Rust_, is that HHS conveniently neglected to
abide by this APA provision.


-- 
			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
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Now We'll Never Know Who Would've Played Mark Eckenwiler
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:37:31 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

misc.legal's chance for glory has been shattered, as HBO announced
today that they would not develop a movie based on the last John
Gotti trial.  Apparentally "there wasn't enough sex" in the story.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky misc.legal:23322 alt.censorship:10110 alt.society.civil-liberty:7524 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1571
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: More of the House Bank "scandal"  (was Pardon stuff...)
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<1jic1jINN7uk@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu>
	<1993Jan21.000113.3405@Princeton.EDU>
	<1jmi2sINNk68@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu> <1993Jan25.165158@IASTATE.EDU>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:36:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.165158@IASTATE.EDU> dickw@IASTATE.EDU (Richard Wallingford) writes:

   wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

   >Craig, can you cite one posting by David Marc Nieporent in which he
   >_denied_ that the congress spends irresponsibly?  If not, you're looking

[etc]

   Ok, I knew he said it somewhere, so I decided to look it up.

   In article <1993Jan16.053243.29097@Princeton.EDU>,
   niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
   ...
   >>They [congress] managed money fine.
   ...

   I immediately recognized your newbee law-student tactics of bluffing
   in order to win by default on an unaccepted challenge.

Oh, as opposed to your yanking one sentence out of context?

[other stuff deleted]
--


Matt Landrum, CAD Engineer      | e-mail: mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "You can get what you want if you
Starkville, MS  39759           | know how to find it." -- Tower of Power


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: The Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Keywords: AIDS Coalition To Unleash Power
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:49:28 GMT

In <14052@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM sez:
># 
># Do the laws allow police to interfere with peyote use?
>
>Not if it is being used in conjunction with the rites of the Native
>American Church.  The recent bad Supreme Court decision was whether
>an employer (in this case, a governmental agency) could fire someone
>for peyote use as part of the NAC.

That was _Smith I_, Clayton, sort of. (The Court actually held that
the fired employees couldn't collect unemployment benefits, but never
mind.)  You evidently missed _Smith II_, in which the Court held that
Oregon's criminal prohibition against peyote use passes constitutional
muster, the free exercise clause notwithstanding.

I direct your attention to 110 S. Ct. 1595.


-- 
	     "Man's Best Friend tastes suprisingly like chicken."
                                                 - NEXP

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:32:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.045605.16881@IRO.UMontreal.CA> simon@saguenay.iro.umontreal.ca (Daniel Simon) writes:
>
>>>One would have hoped that these same judges and legal scholars, after
>>>devoting such care and attention to the task of mapping out the
>>>complex subdivisions of the free speech/restricted speech spectrum,
>>>might also have made at least a token effort to draw a rough line
>>>between judicial interpretation and judicial legislation.

I wrote:

>>Why not give us your best shot? I'm all ears.

To which he replied:

>I could do so, if I wished, and no doubt Mr. Godwin would immediately
>heap scorn on the results.  But then exactly the same thing would
>happen if he asked me instead to define the distinction between
>acceptable legislation and unacceptable restrictions on freedom of
>expression.  How is Mr. Godwin's predictable distaste for my opinions
>supposed to help explain the courts' suspiciously different treatment
>of the restriction-of-speech and judicial-legislation continua?

I didn't think you were writing here just for me, Daniel. If it is your
position that it's easy to draw this "rough line," why not make a "token
effort" of your own?

Even if the prospect that I might "heap scorn" on your conclusions
intimidates you, surely your confidence in your own position will give you
sufficient strength. And the obvious merit of your clear distinction will
win reams of support here on Usenet.


--Mike



>
>"Que dites vous?  C'est inutile?  Je le sais!		Daniel R. Simon
> Mais on ne se bat pas dans l'espoir du succe`s!"	simon@iro.umontreal.ca
>					-Rostand


-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:27:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.015306.18170@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>That really just hides the question: If you insist on refering
>to everything from defining minor terms and specifying slightly vague
>phrases to completely repealing statutes as "making law", then 
>you are simply side-stepping the issue.

Whether a term is "minor" or not itself reflects a subjective judgment.

>To what extent can 
>judges "make law" (to use your hopelessly unclear terminology)?
>I hope you will agree that a judge can not simply invent, out
>of nothing, a law to fit the circumstances.

Did you not know that virtually all of the law of torts and contracts
was invented by judges?

>I'm afraid I'm not familiar with English law. I'm quite sure _some_
>of the framers wanted to give the federal courts less power than
>the English courts (since several of the framers didn't want a
>federal court system at all.)

It's true that the federal courts were (and are) intended to be courts of
limited jurisdiction. But included in that limited jurisdiction is the
power to make law.

>Since my conclusion was based on the text of the Constitution, and
>the definition of "legislative power", and not any result, I don't
>see why you say this.

It is disingenuous for you to claim you are not after a particular result
in your interpretation. The result you are after is an interpretation of
the Constitution that allows you to condemn judges.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost
From: mark.schumann@pcohio.com (Mark Schumann) 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Addendum to Renegade Poli
Date: 24 Jan 93 21:22:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PC-OHIO BBS - Cleveland, OH - 216-381-3320
Reply-To: mark.schumann@pcohio.com (Mark Schumann) 


cfadrgez@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu wrote:

!This is an addendum to my previous post.

!     I feel I need these things for a sucessful defense/law-suit:

[some stuff deleted]

The word is "subpoena."  Go to the Clerk of Courts office in the
town where the event occurred, tell the people at the desk that
you are not a lawyer, and ask how to file one.

 * SLMR 2.1a * "I think not," said Descartes, and promptly disappeared.
                                                                                          
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|       PC-OHIO PCBoard BBS - Cleveland, Ohio - 216-381-3320       |
|   Computer Shopper Best BBS in America - 35 lines USR DS 16800   |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: choy@dvinci.USask.Ca (Henry Choy)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Legal Discussion
Date: 26 Jan 1993 01:32:10 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
NNTP-Posting-Host: dvinci.usask.ca
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

TAN YEW KEONG (law40003@nusunix1.nus.sg) wrote:
: 
: 
: Please ignore ALL my previous postings on the subject.
: 
: I am a final year law student planning to specialise in law regarding
: all aspects of computing. I am computer literate and will be able to
: understand most computer jargon except highly technical subjects like
: Huffman coding etc.
: 
: It would be interesting for me to get to know real world legal problems 
: regarding computers. If you have any legal problems or experiences,
: post to me, and I will be glad to discuss them with you. The experience will
: prove invaluable to me.

If you are a final year law student, then there are no problems
relating law and computers. The companies are suing each others' asses
off. Go forth, get a case, and pay your bills.

--

Henry Choy
choy@cs.usask.ca

What rolls down stairs alone or in pairs            This has been brought to 
Rolls over your neighbor's dog?                     you by the numbers 4
What's great for a snack and fits on your back?     and 9 and the letter P.
It's Log, Log, Log!  -- "The Log Song", from            -- Big Bird
                         Ren & Stimpy

Math is tough!       -- Barbie
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: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Still Light On History????
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:56:05 GMT

bodoh@cae.wisc.edu (Daniel Bohoh) writes:
>k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>>bodoh@cae.wisc.edu (Daniel Bohoh) writes:
>>>
>>>Well, I've thought
>>>about the consistency of the pro-choice side.
>>
>>OK, I'll bite.  Me and drieux both want you to explain this, now.
>
>Extracted from an editorial I wrote for UW-Madison's _Badger_Herald_,
>July 3, 1991:
>
>Many arguments made for pro-choice are utilitarian arguments.

(shrug)  And many aren't.

I don't see how the following excerpt has anything to do with the
pro-choice position being inconsistent.  Unless your point is the
tautology that, given all arguments for free abortion, some will
be wrong.

>One of
>the most emotiional is the picture of a woman being mutilated by a doctor
>performing an illegal abortion.  Abortion should remain legal so it remains
>safe for all women, say the pro-choice advocates.  However, utilitarian 
>arguments fail when considering such fundamental rights as the right to
>life and the right to personal liberty.  Turning this argument around,
>let's assume that abortion is a fundamental right.  Should the right
>to choose abortion be usurped if many pro-life activists are injured
>while chained to abortion doors?

Utilitarian arguments weigh pros and cons.  If x suffering is caused by
illegal abortions when it's outlawed, and y suffering is caused by
chained-to-doors injuries when it's not, the utilitarian position is
that you go with the least suffering.

Were I looking at this from a utilitarian point of view, I'd compare
statistics on pro-life martyrs vs. victims of back-alley abortions,
weigh them all out in my head somehow, and come to a conclusion.  If
my conclusion is that abortion should be legal, where am I being
inconsistent?

>The problem with utilitiarian arguments is that a fundamental right
>(be it choice or life) can never be usurped simply to benefit
>a large section of society.

Wellll...says you.  Seatbelt laws.

>That concept is at the crux of our
>Constitution.

Please cite me an article and section on this.  (I've always wondered
where the crux was...)

>Any time an utilitarian argument is used to take
>a right from one group and give it to another, a similar argument can
>be found to do the reverse.

What!?  Hogwash.

>The Supreme Court must ask, "If we base our
>decision on utility, should any fundamental right be taken away for
>utilitarian reasons?"

And I would expect that it would answer, "well, yeah--some rights get
lost in the shuffle."  Ethical extremism like yours doesn't go over too
well in the real world.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "Estimated number of DOS viruses in existence today:  1,500
  Number of Macintosh-based viruses:  Less than 40
  New DOS viruses discovered in summer '92:  More than 100"   - ComputerWorld
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: how independent are the federal circuits?
Organization: The Devil's Advocate
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:52:26 GMT

In <1993Jan25.181008.22679@gtx.uucp> al@gtx.com (Alan Filipski) writes:


>what is the effect of a circuit court of appeals decision on similar
>cases that subsequently come to federal district courts outside of that
>circuit?  is the appellate court ruling usable as precedent in the same
>way that a decision from inside the circuit would be, or is it somehow
>less binding?


Lawyers are certainly free to refer a district court judge to
out-of-circuit cases (including those of other district courts) as
pursuasive support for a legal position which is not clearly
contradicted by in-circuit precedents.  However the district court has
no obligation to follow these out-of-circuit cases.

As a practical matter, the main constraint on a district court judge's
discretion is his prediction of how his own circuit court will rule on
the issue he is deciding.  Obviously if the circuit court has already
issued a clear rule on a particular issue, the district court judge
must follow the rule or get reversed.  In the absence of an in-circuit
precedent, however, out-of-circuit cases may (through the reasoning
expressed in their opinions) provide the district court judge with a
good sense of how his own circuit is likely to come out on the issue
(or alternatively, may just convince him its the right thing to do).
-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner

Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.int-property
From: dfishman@teal.csn.org (Dan Fishman)
Subject: Re: Patent Application Seminar Materials
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:03:01 GMT

SIMCOEE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA () writes:
: I have volunteered to present a one hour seminar on the patent application
: process to my patent law class.  To balance the "legal" rhetoric we receive
: 2 hours per week, I wish to present the "practicalities" of the patent
: application process - specifically claims drafting and disclosure require-
: ments.
: I have a copy of John Landis' book on claims drafting and a canadian
: book entitled "How to Patent Your Own Invention In Canada".  Last summer
: I help draft a patent - so I have some experience.
: My law school's library's holdings are hopelessly out of date on the subject.
: I would like to know what sorts of materials are "out there" either in
: other patent law classes or in legal practice.  How do your professors
: teach the "nuts and bolts" of the patent prosecution process?
: 
: Thanks!
: 
: Elliott Simcoe
: Law '94
: Queen's University

Professors DON'T teach the nuts and bolts of the patent prosecution process!  At
least at my law school (University of Denver '90) they look down (at least many
profs) at the "practical" side of the practice of law... "that's what clerkships
are for" seems to be the prevelant attitude.

So some practical references:

"Patent Applications Handbook" by: Stephen A. Becker, Clark Boardman Callaghan
(publishers)... a good $20.00 book they sell for $100+ (not uncommon for
legal pubs).  A nuts and bolts guide.

"Manual of Patent Examining Procedures", USPTO, a 4 inch thick typical gov't
publication.  It's a digest of the rules and regs followed by the PTO.  All
the info is there, just hard to find.

...

(Bruce, if your out there, add to the list for other nuts and bolts guides).

Dan Fishman (dfishman@csn.org) (W) (303) 469-6469 (Fax) (303) 465-4396


Xref: sparky misc.legal:23061 talk.politics.misc:69077