HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Bastard children
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:03:36 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Jul23.142052.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>That's right, provide an example that applies to everyday people.  A
>King is generally able to get around the rules a lot easier than
>commoners.  The system Matt Rosenblatt mentions, was in place for
>French society as a whole at that time.  It's not fair that the King

	Don't be ridiculous.  You can't begin to assert that there
were no bastard children until the hippies discovered Free love.  I just
used the first good example that came to mind.  And in the past being
a bastard wasn't such a disgrace; the father could acknowledge the child
without marrying the mother; that's what Phillip did for William.

								wr


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Credit Cards - What are my rights?
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:41:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

jensen@tegan.jsc.nasa.gov (Linda Jensen) writes:


>But this is not the point.  I want to know how many times can they
>charge back to my acct. and what are my rights for not paying.  In
>both of the notes that they wrote, neither one dresses the fact that
>service was not rendered and they shouldn't get paid.  But in all my
>notes, I state this fact.

>Please help.  How many more times do I need to run to the bank to
>dispute this one charge?

At this point, I would write a letter to the bank informing them that you
are being subjected to harrasment by this company, as they keep charging
you for a service not performed.

Then, I would run, not walk, to the local courthouse and file a
small-claims charge against the dog-trainers.  You don't need a lawyer, and
it's low-cost.

You want to ask for two things: 

  1) reimbursement for your dog + court costs;
  2) injunction preventing them from charging your credit card again

Make sure you tell the bank that you are doing this once you have filed.

-Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky misc.legal:15041 soc.history:6744
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.history
Subject: Free Blacks Protected By Southern Courts
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:15:45 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


I had mentioned a while back in misc.legal that much to my surprise,
I had found that at least one slave state supreme court had held that 
slaves were protected by the Bill of Rights before the Civil
War.  I was asked for a citation, which I was unable to immediately
provide because this case wasn't the reason I was digging through
old law books, and I hadn't bothered to photocopy it.

Over the weekend, I went down to Hasting Law Library, and found the
case.  My memory was somewhat wrong.  The case found that free blacks 
were protected by the cruel and unusual punishment provision of the state
constitution, and that contrary to commonly accepted ideas of the
time, the Kentucky Supreme Court found that free blacks, even though
not citizens, were definitely "parties to our political compact,"
and protected by it.  They were reluctant to specify how far those
protections went, but did find that a whipping of a free black
without jury trial was a violation of the Kentucky Constitution.
The case is Ely v. Thompson, 3 A.K. Marshall (Ky.) 70 (1820).

This is the same state supreme court that two years later struck
down a law against concealed carry of firearms as a violation of
the state constitutional RKBA provision, so I guess I shouldn't be
too surprised.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:35:24 GMT

In article <92Jul24.010437edt.47913@neat.cs.toronto.edu> cbo@cs.toronto.edu (Calvin Bruce Ostrum) writes:

>|    But "CLS" doesn't qualify as the name of a "collective."
>
>Apparently, Mike has here committed (in his vernacular) a "typo",

Not at all. I misspoke, which is a different thing. 
Since the rest of your very, very clever posting is grounded
on showing us all that I didn't in fact make a typing error,
it strikes me as wasted cleverness. 

If you have a lot of time on your hands, Calvin, and you feel a need
to criticize me, why criticize me for something I did not say
(specifically, I did not say that my error in this case was a "typo")?
Incidentally, "typo" is used these days as a generic term for mistakes
made when one's typing fingers don't accurately represent the words
one was trying to type.

In the case of the CLS comment, I made no typos. But I nonetheless
misspoke. The distinction shouldn't be hard for anyone to accept.

I have to wonder about your motives here. Since you have invented
a comment from me in order to criticize it, why not tell us what you're
really after?


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Of the many definitions of poetry, the   
mnemonic@eff.org | simplest is still the best: 'memorable speech.'" 
(617) 864-0665   | 
EFF, Cambridge   |                     --W.H. Auden
From: Renee@cup.portal.com (Renee Linda Roberts)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Help please!
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 13:39:18 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <1992Jul29.192946.20447@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>

If you have an attic, put it in there. or possibly in your fireplace if
you have one (we did this and still got good reception. Didn't use the FP
though!). Talk with the association about making it as unobtrusive as
possible. (Hey, even making a donation to the association might help!).

Good luck!

Renee Roberts
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 11:49:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.044102.13361@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:

>Good.  Vacuously true it is, then.  But if the Court in Plessy had
>made the same finding of fact that the Court in Brown did, it would
>never have promulgated the separate but equal doctrine.  Because a
>judge would never create a doctrine which he knows will apply to zero
>cases.  Only a mathematician would do something like that.  Agreed?

Keith, I think we have come to the end of what I tell you usefully about
this case until you consult the sources I recommend to you. At this point,
it seems fairly clear that you're holding on to your thesis rather than
questioning it. It would be nice if you'd check the corroborating sources
I cited.

And I strongly suggest that one not rely on BLEAK HOUSE as the primary source
of one's knowledge about the equity courts. The distinction between law
and equity is still used today, even though in most jurisdictions, and in
the federal courts, the two sets of judicial powers have been combined.

I have no idea who's saying that Mapp overrules Wolf, and, in the context
of this discussion I don't care. Mapp is a different kind of case from
Brown. 


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,     |  "No object is mysterious. The mystery is your eye."
mnemonic@eff.org | 
(617) 864-0665   |                --Elizabeth Bowen
EFF, Cambridge   |
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: I'm Pro-Male-Choice
Keywords: RU 486; FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:30:41 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <1992Jul22.012850.7582@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <18971@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) 
>writes:

>>Under the assumption that no human child exists until birth, that
>>the only thing inside her is a clump of cells that she is using as
>>a loaded gun to hold me up, I would have no hesitation in getting 
>>RU-486 and attempting to prevent the birth of an unwanted child,
>>any more than that lady who attempted to smuggle the pill into
>>the U. S. would have any hesitation in using it to prevent the
>>birth of an unwanted child.   [Matt Rosenblatt]

>She is not "holding you up", Mr. Rosenblatt. She is committing no crime by
>being pregnant and expressing a wish to carry the child to term. And even 
>if it WERE a crime, there is no excuse for implementing the kind of 
>vigilante, judge-jury-executioner chemical warfare you are offering as a
>"solution" to the child-support crisis. Whatever happened to Due Process?
>[Kevin Darcy]

"Executioner"?  Who's being executed?  By hypothesis, "the only thing
inside her is a clump of cells."  And the argument that RU-486 is
"chemical warfare" is right out of the pages of the _National Right-
to-Life News_.  Chemical warfare is outlawed by the Geneva Convention,
so if this pill is chemical warfare, why are there people trying to
bring it into the United States?

>Getting back to the "feminism" tangent for a moment, however, let me just 
>say that I wouldn't be in favor of a woman doing essentially the same thing 
>either, i.e. slipping some sort of sterility drug into his food or drink 
>without his knowledge, just to save herself the inconvenience of becoming 
>pregnant and having to abort. OK, now do I still sound like a feminist 
>lackey to you?

"Slipping some sort of sterility drug into his food or drink" is not
"essentially the same thing" as terminating an existing pregnancy.
Once she is pregnant, should she have the right to terminate that
pregnancy without his knowledge?  The ruling in the recent _Casey_
case says that she does have that right.  When RU-486 becomes widely
available, he will have the *power* to terminate that pregnancy
without her knowledge, and the only argument that he should not
have the *right* to do so is based on the idea that the pregnancy
is taking place inside her body.  I don't respect that argument.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Stare decisis (was: Roe v. Wade upheld by...)
Date: 25 Jul 92 11:45:07 GMT
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <45ob021r1b7d01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com sez:
>In article <1992Jul24.013713.28081@zooid.guild.org>, goid@zooid.guild.org 
>(Will Steeves) writes:
>> RA> avoid the apearance of overturning Roe (abandoning stare decisis) that
>> 
>> Layperson alert!  Layperson alert!
>> 
>> What does that Latin statement mean in English?  Thanks.
>
> Literally, it means something like "the decision stands" (sorry, I can't 
>remember exactly).  What is means is that once a principle has been set forth 
>in one case, it should be decided the same way in the next: the doctrine of 
>judicial precedent.

A literal translation of the phrase is "to abide by decided matters".

Classicists will note that "stare" is the present active infinitive of
"sto", meaning "stand".  "Decisis" is the masculine/neuter ablative
plural form of the adjective (used here as a noun) meaning "decided".
When "sto" is followed by an ablative, it has the special meaning of
"rely on" or "abide by".

Terry's excellent discussion of the doctrine's use (and avoidance) in
American law requires no comment.

-- 
O net, thou art sick.  The invisible newbie that lies in the night in
the howling subject header has found out thy bed of followup joy, and
his dark secret cross-posting doth thy life destroy.  (Film at 11.)
	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Keywords: Hocus, Locus, Jocus (to the landlord belong the doorknobs)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:49:50 GMT

In article <18972@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>>>Yes, you simply stole it off the native Indians.  [Phillip Hallam-Baker]
>You know, I'm sick of hearing that I "stole" my land, to which I have
>lawful title going back all the way to Lord Baltimore.  I did not
>steal anything, and neither did Lord Baltimore.  ...
>In the time of Charlemagne, all the nations of the civilized world
>got together and enacted the "Code of Discovery."  According to that
>code -- a law -- if any man should discover a new land across the seas,
>it would belong to him, unless he claimed it for his king.  
>
>Now, the English explorers who first visited Maryland did not claim
>the new land for themselves.  They claimed it for the King of England,
>and therefore, under the Code of Discovery, that land belonged to the
>King of England.  As owner, he had the legal right to grant that land
>to anyone he chose, ...

So you got the land from the King of England, and _he_ stole it from the
Indians.  Not much difference.
--
Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.consumers
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 20:47:57 GMT

In article <92Jul26.044147edt.47521@neat.cs.toronto.edu> cbo@cs.toronto.edu (Calvin Bruce Ostrum) writes:
>
>I am aware that most everybody here thinks Mike is a great man, 

I certainly don't, Calvin, and I've received email that is critical of
Mike's behavior.  Once more (o ye laurels), it is astonishing that
people with such a desire to silence criticism pose as defenders of free
speech.

>so very few of them agree with what I will say.  I also know that Mike 
>is a great deal smarter than I am, and knows far more now about almost
>everything of importance than I will ever know in my lifetime.  

This needs a smiley.

>His value as a person, all things considered, is immeasurably higher.  
>But I do not like the way he often acts when he is caught up in an error, 
>or when someone disagrees with him in a way he does not like.  I feel 
>that he oftens makes fun of people who aren't as good as he is.  I 

Hast thou not known?  Hast thou not heard?  This is the brave new world
of "free speech" we have down here in the Moronic Inferno; you folks up
in Toronto should get au fait.  What has happened that an enormous,
across-the-board decline in educational standards has entailed that even
elite law schools have in reality given up on training their aliterate
students in reading and thinking.  Because the lawyers unleashed upon
the world in the past twenty years know, in their heart of hearts, that
they are untutored savages, they make a virtue of their savagery.  Their
favorite victims are feminists, members of their own generational cohort
who have had to work harder and display indeed much learning in the CLS
movement.  They are the first generation that dares not attack its
fathers; they turn on their sisters instead.  The treatment of Frug was
what they confuse with dialogue (its savagery was, after all, increased
because Frug was dead and unable to retaliate.)

I of course do not know whether Mike is a lawyer, a law student, a
paralegal sucking up to power, or precisely what.  The point is that his
behavior crystallises what's been happening, a real decadence.

>"misthinking" (conceptualising "CLS" internally as singular) he  
>merely "misspoke".  People often blame others for mistakes by saying 
>they have "spoken without putting their brain in gear".  For a man who 
>makes his living with his mind, and prides himself on his mental prowess
>(I speculate that this last point is true for Mike) this is much 
>worse than the opposite. So Mike misspeaks, but he does not misthink. 

Quite so.





Xref: sparky misc.legal:15033 rec.arts.cinema:113
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 12:46:13 GMT

In article <92Jul26.044147edt.47521@neat.cs.toronto.edu> cbo@cs.toronto.edu (Calvin Bruce Ostrum) writes:
>Mike Godwin insists upon knowing why I have bothered to point out his
>numerous errors with respect to the usage of "CLS".  Why is it 
>so important, he repeatedly demands to know?

<Lots of text deleted.>

I'm sorry I asked. I think you need to get a life. 

I have trouble with the notion of CLS as a single entity. Everything I
know about it suggests that this is a poor conception. I'll even concede
that my own usage is probably inconsistent, although I doubt this
inconsistency is as "systematic" as you say. One can criticize others
without claiming one is perfect. I take pains to concede my errors when
it's clear to me that I made them, and my transposition of of "Iago" and
"Othello," like my misspoken comment about Critical Legal Studies, were
errors. Apparently it's important to you to let me know that you don't
think they were the kinds of errors I thought they were. Fine. Thanks for
sharing.

That said, my problems with Ed Nilges go far beyond any quibble about the
usage of "Critical Legal Studies," and I wonder why you choose the most
tangential thing about my comments and decide to focus on it.

But, I hasten to add, please don't post any more explanation than you
already have. I'm immensely flattered that you think my psychological
processes were worth speculating about here in misc.legal, and no doubt
other readers of this forum are *just as grateful as I am* that you
took the time to share your speculations here.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis
Date: 30 Jul 92 06:43:50 GMT
	<1992Jul26.172151.7681@eff.org> 
	<1992Jul27.163928.10705@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> 
	<1992Jul30.013252.4845@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University


thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>I think the difference is semantic, but an important distinction.

I agree that it's semantic, but probably of no real importance.

>By *reversing* (not overruling) the result in Plessy, the court used
>Plessy's language.  

Reversed but not overruled, eh?

>...Nowhere do they explicitly reject the test that Plessy proposed.

However, they do explicitly say that there are no cases in the field
of public education to which that test can be applied.

>FWIW, the people who decide this stuff for a living, Shepherd's Citations,
>declared that Plessy wasn't overruled by Brown until about three or four
>decades later.  

You've totally lost me.  Brown wasn't written three or four decades
later.  It was written when it was written.  If it overruled Plessy,
it had to be when it was issued, not later.  It's kind of hard to
conceive of a "delayed action" Supreme Court decision.

>My vote's with Mike on this one.

I'll be sure to count it, then, if I decide to take a poll.

>>When Chief Justice Warren held that, in the field of education at
>>least, there was no such thing as separate but equal, he denied the
>>factual basis of Plessy, and therefore the legitimacy of its legal
>>doctrine.  

>Your second clause doesn't follow from the first.  

Then answer me this.  Suppose the Plessy court had believed that there
were not, and as a matter of sociological fact, there *could not be*
any situations in which racially separate facilities were equal.
Would it still have formulated the doctrine that separate but equal
facilities were permissible?


Keith
Xref: sparky misc.legal:14889 alt.censorship:6309 talk.politics.misc:36085
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Date: 27 Jul 92 04:25:31 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Jul27.034721.23197@m2xenix.psg.com> michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>
>Are kill files censorship?  I imagine that someone distributing information
>about how to efficiently filter out certain people or topics might be
>offensive to some people.

Kill files are no more censorship than is plugging your ears when someone
speaks to you.  You have a right to speak, but no right to force others
to listen to you.  Censorship only occurs when one person prevents
a separate, distinct, person from obtaining an otherwise available
piece of information.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: general electric
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: misc
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 22:58:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.740.22590@dosgate> "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com> writes:
>Press release from U.S. Department of Justice
>
> General Electric Pleads Guilty In Defense Fraud Case
> To: National Desk
> Contact: U.S. Department of Justice, Press Office, 202-514-2007
>
>   CINCINNATI, July 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Department of Justice
>today announced that the General Electric Co. has pleaded guilty to
>charges of defrauding the federal government of $26.5 million in the
>sale of military equipment to Israel.
>   The department said that General Electric at the same time had
>agreed to pay $69 million in fines, penalties, and damages for
>committing the offenses.
>   United States Attorney D. Michael Crites of the Southern District
>of Ohio said General Electric's guilty plea involved funds diverted
>from the U.S.-financed F-16 jet engine program with the Israeli Air
>Force from 1984 to 1990.


IMO a fine of $69 million will do very little to discourage future
behavior of General Electric.

Richard Foy                       Standard Disclaimer

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: jmarshal@ichips.intel.com (Jon Marshall)
Subject: Reporting someone to the IRS
Organization: Workgroup Computing Division, Intel
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:47:22 GMT

How does one go about reporting someone to the IRS that does not file
taxes and yet is making an income "under the table"? 

-- 
  J. Marshall
  jmarshal@ichips.intel.com  
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson)
Subject: Re: Defamation cause of action a federal right?
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:56:21 GMT

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>Hasn't Plessey been overturned implicitly?
>Yes, and so has Corrigan.  The only parts of Corrigan still quoted are
>the dissenting opinions by Holmes and Brandeis.

On the point at issue (whether repuational interest is a property
right) Truax is not overturned either explicitly or implicity --
it's a standard part of defemation law.  Look in the USCA, under
"due process" in both the 5th and 14th amendments.  You'll find
cases affirming that reputation is a property interest under these
amendments.