HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Date: 31 Dec 1992 14:24 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec31.081423.11613@netcom.com>,
 linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes...
>The reason I'm upset about the refusal to accept cash is that it can lead to
>a dangerous situation. Consider the following: MasterCard offers retailers
>all over the U.S. incentives (read: bribes) to refuse all forms of payments
>other than MasterCharge. If enough retailers comply we'll end up in a 
>situation where MasterCard is in a position to control the effective supply,
>flow, and value of money in the U.S. A bad credit rating can now totally ruin
>an individual (more than it can now). The federal reserve board will be
>rendered useless. And MasterCard can now exert enormous political control
>over industry and individuals (government? who needs that?)

Sounds like a possible Antitrust violation to me.  MasterCard would be
attempting to monopolize the credit market.

							Daniel Reitman

Xref: sparky misc.legal:21677 comp.sys.sun.misc:5981
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Attorney v. Lawyer
Date: 21 Dec 1992 14:40 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: misc
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec21.135251.29758@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
 cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes...
>In Ohio no one may represent another person at the bar except an attorney.

This reminds me of a case in Connecticut last year (sorry, don't know the
title) in which a criminal defendant decided to handle his own case with the
advice of a so-called legal advisor whose primary experience was handling his
own cases.  The papers indicated exactly who controlled the case was never
fully determined, but the defendant was convicted on all counts.  Just goes to
show you shouldn't go into court with a mechanic in the chair next to you.  :-)

							Daniel Reitman
From: janeczko@csd630a.erim.org (Mike Janeczko)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: dealing with a police officer
Date: 30 Dec 92 16:07:55 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

The latest trend in the Detroit area is thugs who dress up as cops and 
rob people.  My question is thus, what is a good way to question a cop
as to his authenticity?  Or, what things do real cops do that a bogus 
one wouldn't do?  I think announcing that you carry concealed will 
really put you in danger if it were a bogus cop.  
--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Janeczko               |   Environmental Research Institute of Michigan
Research Scientist             |   P.O. Box 8618
internets:                     |   Ann Arbor, MI 48107-8618
 janeczko@etd4260a.erim.org    |   Phone: (313) 994-1200 x2676
 janeczko@vaxa.erim.org        |   
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Not being allowed to vote.
Date: 24 Dec 92 14:52:11 GMT
Organization: Clark University

A friend of mine showed up at the poles to vote in the Presidential election.

After spending quite a while on line he was told that he couldn't vote because 
they had sent him an absentee ballot.  He never requested an absentee ballot, 
and never got one.  He wondered if maybe his family had registered him as an 
absentee, but was told that only he could do that.

After much arguing he was still not allowed to vote.

So, he was deprived of his constitutional right to vote.  What does this mean? 
Does he have any recourse, other than writing to his congressman.  
Apparently there were a few other people at the poles with the same problem.

Any ideas?

Just curious.

			Loren Finkelstein
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Summary: Ambiguous sentence cries out for interpretation.
Keywords: Bilderger; Illuminati; Elders of Zion; CFR; Trilateral
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:52:16 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Dec31.152945.18594@ncar.ucar.edu> tmayer@neit.cgd.ucar.edu 
(Tom Mayer) writes:

>      But then again with Communism gone . . .

Who's gonna tell the relatives of the Tienanminh Square massacre
victims, imprisoned behind the Bamboo Curtain, that Communism is
gone?  Who's gonna tell the inmates the island prison known as
Fidel Castro's Bol'shevik Cuba?  Who's gonna tell conservative
students and professors struggling to breathe free in the English
Departments of countless American universities that Communism is gone?

>      . . . and with most people uninterested
>      in the Trilateral Commission right wing conspiracy theorists have
>      to hang their hats on something.  [Tom Mayer]

With no commas in it, this sentence is ambiguous.  Does Mr. Mayer mean:

1)  . . . with most people uninterested in the Trilateral Commission,
    right wing conspiracy theorists (i.e., leftists or moderates who
    believe there is a right wing conspiracy) have to hang their hats
    on something; or

2)  . . . with most people uninterested in the Trilateral Commission,
    right wing conspiracy theorists (i.e., rightists who believe there
    is conspiracy led by the Trilateral Commission -- and let's not 
    forget the Bilderbergers, either -- to rule the world) have to
    hang their hats on something; or

3)  . . . with most people uninterested in the 
    Trilateral Commission right wing conspiracy, 
    theorists (i.e., theorists in general)
    have to hang their hats on something.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Xref: sparky misc.legal:21805 talk.politics.misc:65595 alt.president.clinton:1290
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:26:38 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Scott McClure) writes:

|> >	The "real issue" is that Special Prosecutor Lawrence E.
|> >	Walsh was appointed by the RayGun Administration to find
|> >	the truth and ferret out the weasels involved in 
|> >	Iran/Contra-Gate! One of Walsh's initial reactions was
|> >	** the fish smells from the head down **
|> 
|> So?  What's the big deal about?  It's all just a big liberal-sponsored
|> witch-hunt.  Why should such a powerful position be given to just one
|> person?  He doesn't have to answer to *anyone*.  That's just not right,
|> IMHO.
|> 
|> >	Line 'em up right alongside the lies, bank deals, oil
|> >	deals, arms deals, etc. of soon to be Ex-President Bush!
|> 
|> Right, like the Clinton administration will be any different.  It's always
|> the same.  It doesn't matter if it's Republicans or Democrats.  Sometimes,
|> you have to do "unpopular" and "politically incorrect" things to get
|> the job done.  It's the way the world works.  It may not sit well with
|> the average citizen whose only link to the rest of the world is CNN Headline
|> News.
|> 
This is great.  You missed the entire point.  In order to avoid doing
"unpopular" and "politically incorrect" things, they did "legally"
incorrect things.  Why don't you try some "legally" incorrect
things to "get the job done" and see how quickly you get a pardon.

When Republicans break the law, you call it a "liberal-sponsored" witch
hunt.  So when the cops come after you, they will probably be liberals?

So far, it is only Republican adminstrations that show a disdain
for the law and a contempt for the public.  If Clinton acts the same
way, I will work to get him out as soon as possible.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: SPS
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:32:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.160750.19838@panix.com>, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
|> 
|> This situation is analogous to a standard 4th amendment violation, the
|> use of improperly seized evidence at trial.  Convictions are on
|> occasion overturned (properly, in my view) because the
|> gun/knife/bloody shirt was obtained through an illegal search or
|> seizure.  This legal principle offers no support for the proposition
|> that the defendant in such a case is not factually guilty; it means
|> only that the constitution does not permit him to be convicted through
|> the use of the suppressed evidence, no matter how reliable or
|> probative it may be.

The analogy fails.  Physical evidence did not change when North was forced
to testify to Congress.  The appeals court told the trial court that it
must prove that North's testimony did not affect any of the witnesses
testimony.  Since North's testimony altered the recollection (and
therefore the testimony) of the witnesses the trial court dismissed the
charges.

-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Purported Contract for Studs'n'Sluts (Was: Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:02:49 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Dec18.191058.12162@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <19418@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) 
>writes:

>>Not so!  Once a man has conceived a child, his right not to become a
>>father receives precisely as much weight as his right to become a father,
>>viz., as much weight as the woman carrying the child feels like giving it.
>>She does not even have to tell him she's pregnant, until after the child
>>is born and she wants support money.  [Matt Rosenblatt]

>And you see nothing wrong with this?   [Kevin Darcy]

I didn't say I see nothing wrong with this.  There's plenty wrong with it.
Does Mr. Darcy think the the law ought to be that the mother *should* have 
to notify the father that she is pregnant?  Is the man's right to become
a father worth even that much?  If not, why should his right not to
become a father be worth that much?

>>The recent _Casey_ case is the current state of the law, as much as the
>>long line of cases and statutes requiring a man to support his biological
>>child.  Mr. Darcy is saying that he approves of one aspect of current law
>>("fundamental rights"), but not another.    [Matt Rosenblatt]

>I don't think it's appropriate to put a price on forced continuation of
>pregnancy, Rosenblatt, and I think you're pretty cold if you think 
>property rights are anywhere near as "fundamental" as the right to bodily 
>autonomy.   [Kevin Darcy]

That's funny:  The framers of the Vth and XIVth Amendments thought
property rights "fundamental" enough to mention them explicitly,
whereas the so-called "right to bodily autonomy" is nowhere mentioned
in the Constitution.  Let some junkie try invoking the "right to
bodily autonomy" as a defense to a prosecution for using heroin, and
see how far he gets.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Xref: sparky misc.legal:21615 talk.environment:5175 sci.environment:13744 alt.activism:19742
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Government to Grant Swift Endangered Species Act Protection to Hundreds of Imperiled Species
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:34:41 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Dec18.194923.24631@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.182903.19389@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>The word 'government' is used twice which is about twice too often.
>>And the nastier word 'court' is used at least once which hints of
>>lawyers, a species lower than pond scum that is in absolutely no
>>danger of extinction, though it should be.
>
>Its interesting that someone who has in the past (correct me if I'm
>wrong) supported the notion of property rights as a paen to many
>problems has such a problem with lawyers. Most property rights
>advocates that I know see courts, and presumably lawyers by
>implication, as a very integral part of their desired society. This is
>one of the best criticisms of libertarianism that I know, actually.

I agree that one of the more discouraging aspects of libertarian
philosophy is the tendency to run to court on the slightest provocation,
similar to liberal greenies in that respect. I do think that property
rights are a proper basis for dealing with most economic and environmental
issues, but rights are abstract things that are only sustained by power, 
and like Chairman Mao, I also realize that power only flows from the 
barrel of a gun. Governments, courts, and lawyers are collective wielders 
of that power, and such concentrations of power are corrupting. Therefore, 
I prefer restricting the use of power to the individual level. Code duello 
is perfectly adequate to deal with conflicts arising between individuals. 

Gary
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: why has statutory law been replacing common law?
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 16:28:40 GMT


In article <RJC.92Dec31131132@devo.unify.com>, 
rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) said:

> Not being an attorney, I can see no benefit in replacing common law
> with statutory law.  Article VI, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution
> reads: "All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before
> the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the
> United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."
>
> Doesn't this mean that the Magna Carta still has force of law
> through the 14th Amendment?

(I've taken the liberty of filling in the part of the clause that Mr.
Cole had replaced with ellipses.)

My understanding of this clause is that it was intended to codify the
continuity of national identity.  After all, there had been a "United
States of America" in existence, operating under the Articles of the
Confederation, for about a decade prior to the ratification of the
Constitution.  During that time, that national entity had done both
economic and diplomatic business with other nations.  Article VI,
Section 1, paragraph one, served to announce to everyone -- especially
foreign governments -- that the "new" Constitution-based United States
of America would still recognize and honor all the foreign debts and
treaties, trade agreements, etc., of the "old" Articles-based United
States of America.

The clause was, as far as I know, never meant to state or imply that
any of the Articles-based United States' _internal_, domestic laws or
policies were being explicitly carried over into the new Constitution-
based version.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: X1FT@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU
Subject: Responsibilities of Power of Attorney
Organization: The University of Akron
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:40:26 GMT

Greetings,
 
I'm new to this list so I don't know if this is an appropriate forum for the
following question(s), so please redirect me if there is a better place.
 
Scenerio:
A granddaughter was given power of attorney over an elderly grandmother,
with the full agreement of the grandmother and other grandchildren.
Subsequently, a significant amount of money was transferred from the
grandmother to the granddaughter (the one with power of attorney), apparently
for her personel use, and unknown to the rest of the grandchildren.
The grandmother (sometimes forgetful and confused) has since expressed
some second thoughts about the wisdom of this action and isn't even sure
(in her own mind) whether it was to be considered a loan, or a gift.
The money was transferred in the form of a check, signed by the grandmother,
so there is a legal paper trail.
 
Questions:
 1)  What exactly is power of attorney over another?
 2)  What moral and legal responsibilities is an individual with power
     of attorney bound by?
 3)  Are these responsibilities different if the two individuals are
     related?
 4)  If the grandmother is in full agreement with the money transfer,
     does a court or other legal authority need to oversee this to avoid
     concerns over conflict of interest?
 
Thank you all for your help in understanding this!
                                - Frank
Xref: sparky misc.legal:21640 alt.abortion.inequity:6112 talk.abortion:52649
From: NetCmmnd@boole.uucp (System Administrator)
Subject: Re: Put away your Motif manual; Sun's lawyers are at the door! (long)
Organization: Boole & Babbage, Inc.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:55:06 GMT

My 2.1 license does not say anything about OpenLook.
End User Object Code License
704-3349-10 Revision A of
December 1992

John Ahlstrom
Boole & Babbage

I can neither confirm nor deny that these opinions
are or are not held by anyone else.
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: divorce, bankruptcy,
Date: 24 Dec 92 16:13:16 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Nancy Feagans, in a message to All on 12-23-92 at 4:32am, said:

NF>|So.... any words of advice from the net?
   |________________________________________

               Don't make illegal left turns.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #11645  ASCII stupid question - get a stupid ANSI
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.consumers,rec.travel.air,ba.transportation
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Attorney v. Lawyer
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:55:57 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Dec21.135251.29758@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, 
cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
> 
> In the United States a notary essentially provides an "official" witness
> to documents (placing a seal on the document) and attesting that the
> person appeared before them, and signed the document.  Courts will not
> accepted documents (such as deeds) which have not been notarized.  Also,
> auto titles must be notarized when transferred.  The only other things
> notaries can do is take depositions.
> 
> Notaries pass a state exam and are certified by the state.  Lawyers become
> life-time notaries, whereas non-lawyer notaries must renew they notary
> charter (until recently, in Ohio, non-lawyer notaries could only practice
> in their county of residence -- but could also become notaries in any
> adjoing county).

Charles probably knows this, but I'd add that the above information is state-
specific.  Fopr example, becoming a lawyer in Ohio automatically makes one a 
notary with no expiration (as Charles notes), but the same is not true in 
California.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: Attorney v. Lawyer
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: misc
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:52:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.4141.28403@dosgate> "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com> writes:

>In England, lawyers are either solicitors or barristers. Both solicitors
>and barristers can appear before the lower courts, but normally only a
>barrister can appear before a higher court. A client cannot hire a
>barrister directly; instead, the client must go through a solicitor, who
>deals with the barrister.

>Judges of the higher courts are all former barristers.

>Canadian lawyers identify themselves as "barrister and solicitor" rather
>than "attorney". One exception is Quebec's notaries, who have legal
>training comparable to that of the regular lawyer, but whose practice is
>normally restricted to non-adversarial matters (real estate
>transactions, wills, trusts, etc.). In the rest of Canada, notaries
>public have the same limited functions as notaries public in the United
>States, except that in Ontario (and possibly certain other provinces)
>all lawyers are automatically notaries public.

In the United States a notary essentially provides an "official" witness
to documents (placing a seal on the document) and attesting that the
person appeared before them, and signed the document.  Courts will not
accepted documents (such as deeds) which have not been notarized.  Also,
auto titles must be notarized when transferred.  The only other things
notaries can do is take depositions.

Notaries pass a state exam and are certified by the state.  Lawyers become
life-time notaries, whereas non-lawyer notaries must renew they notary
charter (until recently, in Ohio, non-lawyer notaries could only practice
in their county of residence -- but could also become notaries in any
adjoing county).

At one time, becoming a lawyer (attorney) only required one to pass the
bar exam.  Now most states require graduation from law school before one
can take the bar exam.  

In Ohio no one may represent another person at the bar except an attorney.
Para-legals can only perform under the supervision of an attorney (mostly
preparing paper work).


Charlie
Newsgroups: misc.legal