HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Just a Question
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:04:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan4.202620.3110@merlin.dev.cdx.mot.com>, haluk@merlin.dev.cdx.mot.com (Haluk Gumrukcu) writes:
> 
> How fair/legal for non-smokers (along with smokers) to decide on cigarette
> prices?
> 
> Just out of curiosity.

I assume that you are referring to the proposed increases in cigarette
taxes.  It is as fair as non-gun owners deciding how high to raise the
lax on guns; as fair as non-income tax payers deciding how high the
tax on income should be; as fair as non-tire users deciding how high
the federal excise tax on tires should be.  In short, not at all fair.
This is democracy -- fairness has nothing to do with it.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Date: 6 Jan 1993 05:45:32 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:
>In a previous article tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) spake...
>>Taxi drivers are mugged all the time and 7-11's are notorious for being
>>robbed would it bother you that much if a Fed.Ex. driver or the company
>>that hires him would rather not be shot for some cash ?
>>
>Banks get robbed. So do Brinks' Trucks; people at ATM machines, pedestrians,
>the paper boy, gas stations, liquor stores, supermarkets, restaurants, ...
>I guess, by your 'logic', that cash should be abolished all together.
>Hey, look at that 'carjacking' trend. It's just too risky to have people
>driving out there on the roads. Let's get rid of the cars too.
>
>Life's full of risks, pal. Deal with it or jump ship.

So, are you proposing that if I decide that I find the carjacking trend to
make driving too dangerous for me, I should be forced to drive, because *you*
don't think that the risk is that great?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Trivia that would peeve Ed Nilges
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:01:10 GMT

The decision by the Supreme Court to allow the publication of Ed
Nilges's beloved author Henry Miller's _Tropic of Cancer_ came
about in large measure because of a 218-page memo written by a young 
law clerk to Justice Brennan, a law clerk by the name of Richard
Posner.

Firm recommendation to U of C Law graduate Edward de Grazia's newish
book "Girls Lean Back Everywhere," for its history of censorship, though
it unfortunately oversimplifies the motivations of those who would
censor.

I've been reading the briefs to Schenck v United States.  For better or
worse, brief-writing has come a long way in the last 74 years...
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: blaisec@sr.hp.com (Blaise Cirelli)
Subject: Divorce - Spousal Support
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:24:49 GMT
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.9 PL6]
Keywords: i

My marriage setttlement agreement states that I pay my x-wife spousal
support for 5 years. I agreed to this reluctantly since my attorney said
that 5 yrs of payment was normal for a 10 yr. marriage.

I've learned later that when a spouse is healthy; there are no children and
she has marketable skill that this is a long period of time.

Any one out there from California who has renegotiated spousal support
duration or went to court to change an agreement. Please let me know
if this is something I would be able to do (i.e. renegotiate to 3 or 4 
years of payment.)
From: bdest+@pitt.edu (Benoit Desjardins)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: ** legal question about acquired rights.  Need info.
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:09:40 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh




I have a small legal question to ask you guys.  I live in an big
appartment complex in which dogs are allowed (pet owners are required
to pay $200 to the administrative office to have a dog).  But now we
received a letter from the administration stating that it is very
likely that dogs will stop being allowed, and every resident with a dog
will not be allowed to renew his lease.  Where I come from (Quebec),
this is illegal, since having a dog becomes an acquired right.  Is this
legal is the US?  Can someone give me the specific references to the
law that makes this legal or illegal?

                                              Thank you

                                              Benoit Desjardins

P.S. Please reply to benoit@med.pitt.edu
From: bryan@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: LSAT scores and admissions
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:33:34 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

I got my LSAT scores back yesterday, and did a bit better on it than I
thought I was going to (169 out of 180). I've got a grad school
GPA of 3.72, and an undergraduate GPA I'm kinda ashamed of (suffice it
to say that it's between 2.5 and 3.0).

So here's the big question: where can I get in? I'm interested in
specializing in media law, and I hear that Georgetown, NYU and
Columbia are the best schools for that particular specialty. Do I have
a snowball's chance i Hell of getting in to any of these? And even if
I get in, do I have a shot at scholarships?

I'd be interested to hear about anyone else's experiences.

Thanks in advance for your input.

-Bryan
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Oppose the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:09:57 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan8.165311.25649@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
> In article <1993Jan8.004555.27609@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, 
> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) said:
# # Could some of the net lawyers please explain with some precision
# # what this term "compelling interest" means, how it's different than
# # the class prejudices of judges, and why it is that compelling
# # interest is not needed for all laws.
# 
# There will now be a brief delay while everyone on the net who's ever
# studied constitutional law collapses in gales of laughter at the idea
# of explaining with _any_ precision exactly what "compelling interest"
# means...
# 
# -- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu#

I can explain it with great precision: the justices have decided
that they want to either uphold a law, or overturn a law, contrary
to what the Constitution says, and seek some justification for
their position.  That's REALLY what makes something a "compelling
interest."
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: verbal contracts
Date: 8 Jan 1993 11:44:18 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

The following is not legal advice.  I am not capable of giving legal
advice.  Only a fool would rely on anything I say here.

Yes, verbal contracts can be binding.  The Statute of Frauds requires
writing for contracts involving land, contracts of more than some
amount ($500?), and contracts that cannot be performed within one
year.

A trap for those who plan to use the Statute of Frauds to cheat someone:
it does not require that the contract itself be in writing.  It only
requires that there be something in writing that shows that there was
a contract.  Example: we make a verbal contract on something that falls
under the Statute of Frauds.  I deny that there was such a contract.
You write to me saying you will sue me.  I write back saying, "go ahead,
bozo, our agreement falls under the Statute of Frauds, and so is not
valid.  Ha!"  A court is likely to look at that and say "Hey!  This is
in writing and it shows that there was a contract!  The Statute of Frauds
therefore does not invalidate this contract!"

As a practical matter, though, proving that there was a verbal contract
might be hard, unless there are witnesses.  Sometimes you won't need to
prove a contract to recover damages, however.  Example: we make a verbal
agreement for me to paint your house for a certain price.  I paint the
house, and you then say that I cannot prove a contract, so you are not
going to pay.  Under common law, I'm out of luck.  Under equity, however,
there is a thing called quantum meruit.  The court will note that I did
do the work, and that you benefited, so justice demands that you pay for
the work.  Because there is no contract, what I get paid will probably
be what would be the fair market value for my services.

A less clear case would be if we made the same deal for me to paint your
house, and you wanted it painted in a very ugly color that no one else would
ever want to use for anything, and I then went out and bought the paint, but
before I could start you stopped me and said that you changed your mind.
I can't recover the cost of the paint (we are assuming that it is worthless,
because it is such an ugly color) under quantum meruit, because you have not
benefited from my purchasing the paint.  If I cannot prove a contract, but
I can prove that we were negotiating, and you knew that I was going to buy
the paint in anticipation of the contract, I might be able to recover the
cost of the paint from you under what is called promissory estoppal.  Under
promissory estoppal, if you make a promise to someone that induces them to
act to their detriment, you may be held liable for that.

--Tim Smith
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Post-acquittal partying (was Crown Heights Jury)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:05:55 GMT

In article <1ikpc9INN6r2@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>>A minority viewpoint, perhaps, but I don't see what's wrong, ethically
>>speaking, with either (1) a defense attorney holding a party for the
>>acquitted defendant to celebrate the victory or (2) with some of the
>>jurors attending.  (I can see zillions of things wrong with the idea
>
>What if the possibility of a party influences the jurors?

How do they know of the party, Tim?


--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 
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:44:57 GMT

> = (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

[re: presidential pardons...]

>>What about future crimes as well?

>Not a chance.

You're el correcto here.  I just commented that s/he could, but I meant 
future CONVICTIONS.  

My mistake.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: csmith@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:18:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.155233.22950@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>>You want examples of Democrat shenanigans? Okay. How about FDR's lying to 
>>congress regarding his preparations for WWII?
>>
>>Or the bugging of Republican Headquarters by the Democrats under both Kennedy
>>and Johnson? Neither of them were forced to resign in disgrace.
>
>Nixon resigned in disgrace because he made tape recordings of himself
>committing felonies.

OH! NOW I understand! His problem was getting CAUGHT! I see NOW!

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                (This sig intentionally left blank)                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:00:34 GMT

> = (craig edward smith) writes:
>> = (Michael Sandy) writes:

>>If an Impeachment can override a Pardon, could the Senate use
>>impeachment proceedings to override _Weinberger's_ Pardon?

>'Fraid not. Impeachment (even carried to removal from office) does not negate
>acts of a president while in office, even if those acts were the cause of
>the impeachment.
>
>But I would LOVE to see congress try it!  If anything could prove the
>imperial arrogance of congress, that would do it!.

Craig, I'm actually smiling at your last statement, but it's in
disbelief.

You and Michael are discussing Weinberger's, and five others', pardons
by Bush, who pretends there were no crimes.  Additionally, Bush is
likely covering up for himself by this action.

And you dare mention in the same posting the imperial arrogance of
CONGRESS?

If anything proves the revisionist tendencies of *some* right wingers,
here it is.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:56:31 GMT


In article <1993Jan6.053934.21832@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu said:

> ...the conviction of one Schenck, an anti-war socialist who had been
> passing out to conscriptees outside a recruitment center anti-draft
> leaflets comparing conscription to slavery.  He was convicted under
> a federal law for attempting to obstruct the draft.
...
> [Justice] Holmes doesn't even try to justify the anti-obstruction
> statute in the Congressional power to provide for the defense or
> raise armies -- he just notes that the First Amendment clearly
> doesn't outlaw all abridgements of speech (with the implication that
> "(freedom of speech)" is something different than "(freedom) of
> (speech)"), formulates the clear and present danger test as a
> dividing line, and then applies the clear and present danger test to
> decide the Schenck is on the wrong side of the line.
>
> Now, even today's Court would rule 9-0 in the other direction.

Are you sure about this?  Last I heard, Rehnquist _was_ still on the
Court, after all.
-- 
William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

  "If there is a bedrock principle      "Surely one of the high purposes of
  underlying the First Amendment, it    a democratic society is to legislate
  is that the Government may not        against conduct that is regarded as
  prohibit the expression of an idea    evil and profoundly offensive to the
  simply because society finds the      majority of people -- whether it be
  idea itself offensive or              murder, embezzlement, pollution, or
  disagreeable."                        flag burning."
                                                                             
    Justice William J. Brennan,           Chief Justice William Rehnquist,
      writing for the majority.                                dissenting.
  
  -- A small difference of opinion on the U.S. Supreme Court in _Texas
     v. Johnson_ (the first flag-burning case), 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber)
Subject: Re: Blacklisted from Banking System for $58.59 overdraft!
Keywords: ChexSystems, Bank, ATM
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:38:42 GMT

Don't panic!  There are all kinds of things you can do to fight this.
They all involve time and effort, unfortunately.

1) Write off the bank that denied you the account.  They are jerks.

2) Complain, in writing, via certified mail, to an appropriate officer
   at your former bank.  Explain the situation, document it, demand a
   copy of the report they filed with ChexSystems and copies of documents
   supporting their report.

3) Contact ChexSystems, send them a copy of the letter you wrote to the
   bank, demand a copy of your ChexSystems files, so that you may correct
   them, request to add a comment to you ChexSystems report explaining why
   you challenge your bank's assessment of you.  Memorialize all communications
   via certified mail.

4) Send copies of all of the above with a letter explaining all to your
   state and/or local Consumer Protection bureaucracy.  Send copies of
   your gov't letters to your former bank and to ChexSystems.  Let them
   know you are going to make a fuss, aren't going to go away, and be
   persistent and reasonable.

5) If none of this is satisfactory, take copies of all with you to your
   next proposed bank, along with letters of recommendation of your
   credit and character, preferably from local people, to a small local bank
   and open an account.  If you have any problems with lower level reps,
   escalate the matter to their superiors.  Be patient, you are, in essence,
   building a business relationship based on mutual trust, and the closer
   you get to a human level, the better off you are.

-Steve B.
-- 
Steve Barber                                             sbarber@panix.com
"The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans
Nothing I say is legal advice.  It can't be.  I don't know anything.

Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: steven@guava.net.com (Steve Nelson)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City, CA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:34:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.201327.20317@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>
>>>Am I mistaken in recalling that the Kennedy administration admitted to
>>>planning an assassination attempt on Castro ?
>>
>>Huh?  Relevance?  Congress hadn't forbidden this, unlike, say, sending
>>money to the contras or arms to Iran.
>
>David: You can argue with the specific examples that I offer all you
>want but that isn't the topic of discussion.  

Arguing specific examples is the only way to support or oppose an argument
successfully.

>Mike Polen wrote "so far
>only Republican administrations show a disdain".  I disagree 

Since you disagree that "so far only Republican administrations show 
a disdain for the law," please cite at least one example, with specific 
supporting evidence, which indicates that a Democratic administration 
showed a "disdain for the law."  Also, include your definition of "disdain 
for the law," since that is a subjective phrase.  Once you have done
that you will have successfully made your point.

In an earlier post, I provided information which indicated that the 
Johnson administration appeared to be deceitful regarding the Gulf
of Tonkin incident; however, I don't know whether that example meets 
your criteria for "disdain for the law."


>and so far
>we don't know what your position is except that you're attempting to
>define "disdain for the law and contempt for the public" as only doing
>things that Congress forbids.
>
>So... is it true that "only Republican administrations show disdain for
>the law" ?
>

If you don't think so, convince the readers by providing a well
constructed argument with specific examples and supporting data.


>tom
>


Steve                    Roll on you BEARS!!!
Xref: sparky misc.legal:22054 talk.politics.misc:66248
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:07:53 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1hvdvpINNa6h@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
> Tom Leylan) writes:
> |> Mike Polen) writes:
# |# Am I mistaken in recalling that the Kennedy administration admitted to
# |# planning an assassination attempt on Castro ?
# 
# Ah.  You have discovered the whole point.  The Kennedy administration
# admitted it.  The Reagan and Bush administrations are telling you

No, they didn't.  It came out in the Church Committee report in the
mid-1970s.  By then, the Kennedy Administration was history.

# they didn't do it, and that you can't ask any questions, and if you
# think they did it you are a no good anti-american, commie dupe.  Or
# worse, a liberal.

No one even asked questions about what Kennedy did, until more than
10 years later.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Post-acquittal partying (was Crown Heights Jury)
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:33:02 GMT


In article <19535@smoke.brl.mil>, 
matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) said:

> > ...I don't see what's wrong, ethically speaking, with either (1) a
> > defense attorney holding a party for the acquitted defendant to
> > celebrate the victory or (2) with some of the jurors attending.
> > [William December Starr]
>
> What would the media reaction been had the defense lawyers for the
> police officers acquitted of mistreating ex-convict Rodney King held a
> party for the defendants which many of the jurors attended?

[other hypothetical examples deleted]

> Could it be that what we're talking about here is not "unethical"
> conduct so much as "unseemly" conduct -- in any of the cases
> outlined above.  In other words, bad taste.

Yes, that distinction -- between "unethical" and "unseemly" -- is
something that I should have emphasized more explicitly in my original
posting... Ted Frank's original position (from which I believe he has,
upon reflection, retreated) which triggered my response was that "If
it's not covered by existing ethics rules, it should be."

The point I meant to make was that no matter how unseemly an attorney's
behavior may be, either in the eyes of the public or of his colleagues
or both, the force of law -- as embodied by the state's enforcement of
its ethics rules -- should not come into play until and unless the
lawyer actually crosses the line into territory that's labeled
"unethical behavior."

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Date: 12 Jan 1993 02:07:18 GMT
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
NNTP-Posting-Host: skybridge.scl.cwru.edu

Others said:
# FedEx of course will accept cash (I guess I should call them but somebody
# else can confirm it along with whether FedEx drivers do indeed not accept
# cash) if you go to the FedEx depot to pick something up.

I wish.

At least in the Rosslyn VA {Metro DC} offices, they will not accept
cash. I write a check, then refused to offer any ID, except that with
George Washington's picture. They took the check ;_]
--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Newsgroups: misc.legal