HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hornbooks -- Tax
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:45:19 GMT

In article <BuBDGJ.ILA@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:

>The term now
>refers to legal reference texts that attempt to summarize the law of a
>particular subject, like tax or property.  They aren't considered very
>authoritative, but they are good handbooks, sometimes.

I can think of a number of hornbooks that *are* considered very
authoritative: White and Summers's UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, for example,
or Wright's THE LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung
From: taa2@po.CWRU.Edu (Tamara A. Adrine-Davis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Loss of Innocence
Date: 15 Sep 1992 17:51:26 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: taa2@po.CWRU.Edu (Tamara A. Adrine-Davis)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) says:

>In article <1992Sep14.144521.180@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>> ...

[stuff accidentally deleted where I said that I'd continue to post]
>
>>Excellent.  See you around.
>
>  Just a little comment - please note that Ed Nigles has assumed "the
>white mans' burden" and encourages minorities (and other disempowered
>groups) to post - but only for as long as they behave in a manner which
>Ed considers appropriate for minorities/disempowered groups.  If you
>have the temerity to act as *you* see fit, or in any way to stop
>behaving as Ed sees fit for the noble savage or simple primitive -
>then *ZAP* you'll find you have stepped outside poor frantic Ed's 
>limits and you no longer will be favored with his simpering compliments.
>
>--henry schaffer  n c state univ

Oh dear, did I step into something here?  Hmm, well, gee, I only wanted to
post my thoughts on the idiotic vileness under the "Fuck You" topic.  Ah
well, such is life :).  

BTW, just a few words to say that at least one of the readers of 
alt.sex.bondage decided that he didn't want anymore follow-ups to "Loss of
Innocence"  muddying up the virtual play party.  Apparently there are one
or two who've forgotten that life doesn't revolve around sex.  In anycase,
If you'd like to follow up on the thread, you may want to skip asb.

Tamara aka Sartre
-- 
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
* They appeared while sie slept, with white coats and restraints. Two of    *
* them there were, both with a slightly malevolent glint in their eyes. In  *
* they came to hover over her bed. Is it a dream, or a descent into reality?*
Newsgroups: misc.legal,co.general,denver.general,talk.politics.misc,du.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Former CEO of Silverado Indicted on Bank Fraud Charges
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:40:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.015846.2394@mercury.cair.du.edu> elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:
>How did Neil Bush fit into the scheme?

As I recall, he was on the Silverado board of directors. But it isn't
clear if he knew about, or profited from, any of the illegalities: 
Boards often accept the CEO's recommendations without examining them
too closely. Most probably, he knew (or should have known) something
questionable was going on, but I doubt there is enough evidence for
any sort of legal action...

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Date: 12 Sep 1992 21:48:26 GMT
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
NNTP-Posting-Host: skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
Keywords: Ash nazg Cthulhu w'gahnagl fh'tagn burzum-ishi krimpatul.

Others said
# How about the FDA?  At least I wouldn't have thought the FDA is a
# law-enforcement agency, but the report
# 
# "TERRORIST ACTIVITY BY THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA)
{}
# did surprise me.  Has the FDA had such powers from the start, does it
# have them now, when it got them?  

Interesting question...

Last time I looked there were 54-odd federal law enforcement
agencies. No one is surprised by the Marshalls, as I think they
are the oldest. Nor the Secret Service, or the FBI. 

But there also is:
	ATF
	Customs
	Park Service
	National Archives Police
	Inspectors General {of various agencies}
	EPA
and so forth. The reasons are varied. EPA got LE authority when their
investigators kept getting shot at while attempting to get waste-site
samples, for example.

I guess such LE authority must derive from direct legislation, but I'm
not sure. Anyone have a cite? What I have been told, though, is that
the territory over which such authority holds varies. U. S. Marshalls
have the broadest, for historical reasons. I suspect that just like the
Capitol Hill Police, the National Archives folks have more limited
areas. But then it gets MORE complicated. Some states, such as
Maryland, have Peace Officers statutes. My understanding is that
such extends a mandate to the officer, despite an agency-limited
charter.

Oh, yes. Unless somebody has recently slipped one in there, neither the
CIA nor the NSA is on the list. The uniformed Federal Protective
Service guards at their facilities are a different matter, though.

--
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
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Defacing Money
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:15:42 GMT


In article <1992Sep7.054041.12967@wolves.uucp>, 
ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury) said:

> > What are the laws regarding the alteration of currency?  For
> > example, I've seen coins turned in to jewlery, dollars burned at
> > protests, and bills marked up by various groups.  Is any of this
> > illegal?  [Anthony Stallone]

> The statutory acts dealing with this subject are all acts that deal
> with counterfiting and fradulent use of altered monetary material.

[* * *]

> For quite a while, the Dept of the Treasury attempted to enforce the
> rules/laws concerning the alteration of coinage when a coin was
> drilled or turned into a piece of jewlery.  They are now limited to
> enforcement if the altered coin is attempted to be used as an item
> of legal tender.  That is, as long as you don't use the altered coin
> *as a coin*, but merely as a piece of art, there is no problem.

I've got here a nice little pamphlet called "Know Your Money" that I
picked up last year for $1.75 at the Government Printing Office
bookstore at the Tip O'Neill Federal Building in Boston.  (GPO
bookstores are fun places to browse and shop -- they've got all sorts
of weird stuff, they don't charge state sales taxes on your purchases,
and the one in Boston at least has a sign by the exit that shows a
handcuff being slapped on a wrist and says "In this store, shoplifting
*is* a federal case." :-)

Here's part of what the pamphlet has to say at p.21 under the heading
of "It's the Law":

      Manufacturing counterfeit U.S. currency or altering genuine U.S.
   currency to increase its value is a violation of Title 18, Section
   471 of the United States Code and is punishable by a fine of $5,000,
   or up to 15 years imprisonment, or both.

      Anyone who manufactures a counterfeit U.S. coin in any
   denomination above 5 cents is subject to the same penalties as all
   other counterfeiters.  Anyone who alters a genuine coin to increase
   its numismatic value is in biolation of Title 18, Section 331 of
   the United States Code, which is punishable by a fine of $2,000,
   or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both.

I'm working this quarter rather than attending school and I don't have
a federal-law-equipped law library available within easy lazy-man's
distance, so I'm not going to go to the trouble of digging up and
analyzing the actual federal laws themselves... suffice to say that I
think that Gregory Woodbury's statement that "as long as you don't use
the altered coin *as a coin*, but merely as a piece of art, there is
no problem" appears to be mostly correct, but you should take note
that the United States also has a law that closes the loophole
regarding altering a coin not to increase its face value but rather to
make it look like a different coin which is more valuable to coin
collectors. 

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Killing in defense of possessions?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:43:41 GMT

pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:

>mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>: "'Reasonable belief' means a belief that would be held by an ordinary and
>: prudent man in the same circumstances as the actor."
>: 
>: A jury would have to find that Paul's belief, under the circumstances,
>: was a belief that an ordinary and prudent man in the same circumstances as
>: Paul would hold.

>Since other people are talking about what I believe, I would like to
>state it specifically.

Paul, the point is not your belief, but its reasonableness, as that term
is used in the law.  What I am asking Mike (and he has answered well) is
whether or not reasonableness varies according to the life experience
of the defendant.  That is, would "an ordinary and prudent [person] in the
same circumstances" refer to someone confronting an intruder and whose
grandmother had been killed by one, or does it merely refer to someone
confronting an intruder (past experiences being irrelevant).  More narrowly,
I am asking if "circumstances" can be read to bend objectivity a bit, or
is it clear that "circumstances" refers only to the immediate situation
confronting the defendant (and not how he got there).

>If I were on the jury, then my belief would
>become the reasonable belief...

Not if you said something like that during voir dire.  The jury's duty at the
point of applying the law is not to substitute its own personal sense of
reasonableness, but to deliberate as to what reasonableness required of the
defendant.  Hence, I might say, if I were a juror, that I would hunt and
kill anyone who raped my sister, but that, objectively, that would not be
the action of a reasonable person.  I might truly believe that is what I would
do in such a situation, but as a juror I would be obliged to separate my
passion from my reason.

>Since there are 12 people on a jury it is
>likely that at least one of them knows someone who was a victim of a
>violent crime.

And that is why, here in New York, every jury candidate is asked if
they are such a person.  If so, the judge invariably asks them if they
will be able to reach a verdict without letting that experience bias
their decision.  If the answer is "no," (and honest candidates give that
answer here every day) the candidate is excused from that case.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Summary: Project to honor heroes in the fight against Racism
Keywords: (312)-E-B-O-N-Y--M-T
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:27:48 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <11924@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <1992Aug27.033615.5283@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) 
>writes:

>> In article <11919@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) 
>> writes:

>> >Malcolm X was a racist.  [Clayton Cramer]

>> Malcolm X admits, then later rejects, his own racism in THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY
>> OF MALCOLM X. Of course, you have to finish the book to know this.
>> [Mike Godwin]

>In the context of Ed Nilges' "argument" it doesn't matter that Malcolm
>X later repudiated racism.  Nilges was arguing that Viktora had no
>right to express his racist ideas, but that Malcolm X did have a right
>because he wasn't a racist.  My point was that Malcolm X expressed
>racist ideas, and if hate-speech laws had been present at the time
>he made the remarks I quoted, he almost certainly would have been
>prosecuted.  [Clayton Cramer]

All of this may be true, but if Mr. Nilges or anyone else is *really*
interested in fighting Racism, he will support the drive to honor 
the men who have fought so valiantly against Racism:

                             "EBONY MOUNTAIN

    "A drive is underway to honor Black heroes by creating an
     Ebony Mountain.  The mountain will represent a global tribute
     to five distinctive great Black men:  Dr. Martin Luther King
     Jr., Macolm X, Minister Louis Farrakhan, Marcus Garvey and
     Nelson Mandela.
    "Like Mount Rushmore, Ebony Mountain will be carved from a
     rock formation.  Still in the planning stage, a price tag 
     has not been pined on this monumentous project, which is
     being spearheaded by Al Brown.  Mr. Brown, president of
     Executive Network, noted that any interested individual
     can get more information by call (312)-E-B-O-N-Y--M-T."
               -- from the _Washington Afro_American_, 
                  September 5, 1992, page B12.

What about that, readers?  Have you called (312)-E-B-O-N-Y--M-T 
and pledged your generous contribution yet?  Or is all this talk
about opposing Racism just that -- talk?

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Up, you mighty race!"
    -- Marcus Garvey
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: edp@math.zko.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Subject: Software Rental Act?
Reply-To: edp@math.zko.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:10:34 GMT

Can anybody tell me whatever became of S. 198 of the 101st Congress, 1st
Session?  That was the Software Rental Act they were considering in
1989.  Did it pass?


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@alien.enet.dec.com
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Seizures, stops and searches (was: Political Parties in the U.S.)
Keywords: Sniffer dogs; Heroin; Cocaine
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:24:24 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Sep7.142932.7027@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu 
(William December Starr) writes:

>(I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear of documented incidents in
>which the police have taken a "No, you may not search this vehicle" as
>their cue to detain the driver and vehicle by the side of the road for
>ridiculous periods, to send for a sniffer dog to check out the car, 
>. . .  [William D. Starr]

If the Maryland State Police stop someone on Interstate 95 and they
suspect he is carrying drugs and he does not consent to a search of
his vehicle, they will indeed send for a sniffer dog.  That is what
a Maryland State Policeman told us publicly.

What the recent Court of Appeals ruling says is that the Police
cannot base their suspicion that someone is carrying drugs on
the fact that he fits some sort of race-age-and-class-based
stereotype.  But good law-enforcement professionals don't need
such an unfair (and now, unconstitutional) procedure.  They know
that most of the heroin going down I-95 comes from New York City,
and that most of the cocaine comes from open-air markets in
Philadelphia.  They have spotters in Philly watching the retailers
and small wholesalers buy their drugs, and they stop cars whose
descriptions and license numbers match those given by the spotters.

In other words, the Police usually know what they're doing, 
and they won't waste *their own* time detaining a motorist 
while they send for a sniffer dog unless they're pretty sure
that the dog will sniff dope.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of 
 possessions?)
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:16:09 GMT
 <c1zC02YN21Wm01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> <1992Sep14.022342.3272@eff.org>  
 <BuKMFI.8n8@world.std.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <BuKMFI.8n8@world.std.com>
srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:

> The "right" to nullify is a side effect.  Whether it is a feature or a bug
> is uncertain.  But, the characterization of a juror as a "nullification
> believer" is, respectfully, to gild the truth:  A juror who nullifies
> is, by definition, a juror who breaks her oath; a liar.  One who would
> do so knowingly ("I take this oath, but I don't mean it") has less place
> on a jury than Mike's jurors above ("I meant that oath, but now I just
> can't keep it").  The former (nullification believer) is a dangerously
> arrogant phony.  The latter (true nullifier) is an honest humanist.

Exactly what oath is it that the "arrogant phonies" break?  And exactly
how do they break it?
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Handling SSN parasite
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:20:04 CDT
Organization: Data Research Associates, St. Louis MO

In article <18qq0pINN1mf@agate.berkeley.edu>, jaffray@oreo.berkeley.edu (Alan Jaffray) writes:
> My question is, how much of a problem can this be for me?  The droid at
> the SSA told me that it's not a problem until he does something nasty using
> my number as ID, which seems ridiculous.  (oh, that bomb under your bed
> isn't a problem, it hasn't exploded, has it?) :-)

From the SSA's point of view it may not be a problem (they match on name, SSN,
birth date, and gender).  Its all the other databases, and cross-matching
that uses the SSN.

Will this actually cause you a problem?  Well, its hard to say.  According
to studies done by the SSA's Inspector General's office one out of every
ten SSN's in a cross-section of public and private organization's files were
incorrect (financial organizations such as banks, credit bureaus had between
6% and 53% error rate).  Even with all that bad data, the number of consumer
reported problems is still small (if you believe the industry figures).

Your major problem is he got in the databases first.  If the SSA confirms
that you are the sole owner of that SSN (they have made mistakes, and issued
the same number twice) you may be able to "push" his information out of
the databases as you create you own electronic persona.  His use of your SSN
may have simply been a mistake (either his, or some typist somewhere).
But since it didn't conflict with anything in the database, the record got
created with no further review.  Once your own record starts showing up, it
will often trigger a conflict report and spit out both records for resolution.

One thing I would avoid is any accusation, or implication that the other
person stole, or is doing something illegal because his name is associated
with your SSN in a database somewhere.  Just stick to the facts.
-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: (312)-E-B-O-N-Y--M-T
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:27:20 GMT

In article <19166@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>>. . .Furthermore, Louis Farrakhan is alive and my understanding 
>>is that you don't place a man on a mountain, or a stamp, until he is
>>dead.   ^^^   [Ed Nilges; emphasis added]
>
>Nelson Mandela is also alive.  Mr. Nilges may have in mind such examples 
>as Mount Rushmore and Stone Mountain, carved by white men in memory of 
>other white men who were dead.  But the drive for "Ebony Mountain" is 
>being spearheaded by a Black man.  Why should the white man's rule
>apply to Ebony Mountain?

It's obvious, especially given Nilges's love for the racist Marx Brothers,
that Ed is just a cultural imperialist.
-- 
           .........................................................
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
         here i sit looking for a warming smile in a house of cold wit
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Loss of Innocence
Date: 16 Sep 92 00:09:23 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1957quINN3el@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, taa2@po.CWRU.Edu (Tamara A. 
Adrine-Davis) writes:
> BTW, just a few words to say that at least one of the readers of 
> alt.sex.bondage decided that he didn't want anymore follow-ups to "Loss of
> Innocence"  muddying up the virtual play party.  Apparently there are one
> or two who've forgotten that life doesn't revolve around sex.  In anycase,
> If you'd like to follow up on the thread, you may want to skip asb.

It has no relation to misc.legal, either.  Take it to a newsgroup that gives 
a damn, guys.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: cigs13@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Defacing Moneynext
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:02:39 GMT
Organization: Strathclyde University VAX Cluster

In article <1992Sep5.003453.15529@oracle.us.oracle.com>, astallon@us.oracle.com (Anthony Stallone) writes:
> Question: What are the laws regarding the alteration of currency?
>           For example, I've seen coins turned in to jewlery, dollars
>           burned at protests, and bills marked up by various groups.
>           Is any of this illegal?
> 
> Thanks for your reply!

Briefly the answer is no, so long as the defaced currency is not intended to be
used as money.  (With foreign monies the answer may differ if jurisdiction can
be found.)  Prohibitions aimed at preventing counterfeiting are of course 
enforceable - however first amendment rights are involved, so a blanket no
defacing rule would be likely to be struck down (though the Supreme Court has
not ruled on this so far as I'm aware with regard to money).  The usual
disclaimer applies if you act on this opinion... 
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct