HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rcrane@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Robert Crane - OTHER)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Advice needed:  Pregnancy and immigration problems
Date: 14 Aug 92 02:46:27 GMT
Organization: Washington State University
Originator: rcrane@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu

My wife, a German citizen, is five months pregnant.  Because
the US does not have a socialized health care system, her
German social insurance will not cover the pregnancy.  So we
went to apply for Medicade and foodstamps as we are both
graduate students and do not have enough money to cover the
costs of a pregnancy and rasing a child.  The Social and
Health services people told us that for my wife and I to get
aid she had to be a legal alien.  So, we went to the
Immigration and Naturalization Service to get her permanent
residence status.  However, one of the requirements for her
to receive this status is that she have a sponsor (me, her
husband) and that this sponsor signs an affidavit of support
stating that the supporter will support the person for 3
years gauranteeing that the alien will not become a "public
charge."  Essentially, as I understand it, she is not
elgible for any health and social services for a period of 3
years eventhough she is married to a US citizen.  As an
alien she would qualify for any emergency medical service,
but if she wishes to reside in the US permanently, she would
have to pay back to the state all costs rendered before
applyimg for permanent residency.

Is this true?  Is there no way around this?  I have a very
difficult time believing that I will have to pocket the
entire cost of the birth.  Also, as I understand it, I as an
individual would not be elgible for foodstamps because
elgibility is based on the persons living in the house.
Thus, because I am married to an alien, I am not elgible for
foodstamps as an individual.  Is this true?

I would greatly appreciate any help available on this
matter.  We just talked to the immigration people today and
all of this is new to me at the moment.

Also, the immigration people stated that we may have
commited "visa fraud!"  Basically, I went to Germany with my
fiancee to meet her parents.  There she was granted a new F-
1 student visa to start her graduate studies.  But because
we had the intention to marry in the US we needed to get a
"Fiancee Visa" and that applying for the F-1 visa was under
false pretenses.  Is this a serious matter?  What should we
do about this?

Last, is there a FAQ somewhere that would answer these
questions?

Desperate.

-- 
-bob crane
rcrane@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu
"Ah Limbo!"
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 03:17:24 GMT

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) characterizing the
positions he opposes:

> The only coherent statement of the resultant position is:

>     "We got rights.  We got property rights, even though the 	
>     founding fathers forgot to list them in the Bill of Rights.
>     We got the right to carry and use guns.  We got the right to
>     free speech.  When rights conflict, normal white guys' rights
>     shall trump (supersede) the rights of women, African Americans,
>     and other dweeb outgroups as shall be designated."

Free speech rights belong to everyone. They are more important to
outgroups than to ingroups.

Here is my characterization of your position:

African Americans, women, and other groups lack power. One way to help
the powerless get power give the authorities (mostly "normal white
guys") the power to define and punish "hate speech".

As you might guess, I think it is counterproductive to give more power
to those who already have too much. As in example of this: in Great
Britain the first person prosecuted for "hate speech" was a black man.
(In the U.S. this would not happen, the authorities would make sure
the first person prosecuted was a white man but after that all bets
would be off).

Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU, said much the same thing in a
speech:

>From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
>Newsgroups: alt.censorship
>Subject: Re: On the other hand (was: Stopping vehement hate posting)
>Date: 27 Mar 92 02:09:16 GMT
[...]
>
>   "First, as we've seen, it's impossible to draw narrow regulations
>precisely specifying the particular words and contexts which should lead
>to sanctions.  Very fact-bound determinations are required.  Consequently,
>authorities inevitably have great discretion in determining precisely
>which words and precisely which speakers will actually be punished.
>
>   "But giving this censorial power to authorities strikes at the very
>heart of free speech values.  One ironic result is that likely targets of
>punishment are members of minority groups themselves.  Historically, this
>has been the consistent actual experience with laws that punish hate speech."
[...]

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: svaldez@ocf.berkeley.edu (Steve Valdez)
Subject: Subpoena's?
Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:43:31 GMT
X-Posted-From: tsunami.berkeley.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

NOTE: please send any e-mail replies to SVALDEZ@SDCC13.UCSD.EDU not
to the account from which I am posting this.

On Subpoena's you have the options of:
 1. requesting persons attendance
 2. requesting information with person present (ducestecum)
 3. requesting material evidence w/o person present...

 (and so on...)

now for option #3, the party being subpoenaed is supposed to 
(without showing up in court): put the (documents, whatever is
being sp.) in an envelope and this env. into a second env. and
send it to the court clerk.  Now does this mean that the court
will hold the materials until trial, or can I look/borrow these
materials to study ahead of the trial date?   i

Also, do I have to file subpoena's with the court in person, or 
can this be done by mail...?
From: jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (joseph.f.baugher)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Fully-Informed Juries (Again)
Keywords: oath of juror
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:16:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois


This is a revival of the "fully-informed jury" controversy that  comes
up  again  and  again  in misc.legal.  Recently, I was on jury duty in
Chicago, and I noted that the oath that jurors take here  in  Illinois
says  that  they  must  pledge to apply the letter of the law in their
decision even if they disagree with the law.   So,  if  I  decided  to
acquit  someone  of dealing drugs simply because I believed that drugs
should be legalized, I would be in violation of my oath as a juror.

Comments?


Joe Baugher			**************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories		*  "I'm shocked!  Shocked to find    *
2000 North Naperville Road	*  that gambling is going on here!"  *
P. O. Box 3033			**************************************
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033		
(708) 713 4548				
ihlpl!jfb                  Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!	
jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mgflax@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:22:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.161412.27423@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>When Keith finished talking, I proposed that our little group enact its
>OWN "hate speech" law, in spite of the Supreme Court, and for the rest
>of the trip we all avoided both racist and sexist talking or joking.
>This imporved the already high-quality communication of our patrol and
>we were proud to climb a couple of very difficult passes and peaks.

Congratulations.  Mutually deciding to talk about A, B, and C instead of
X, Y, and Z can often be productive.  But why do you characterize your
agreement as a "law" rather than a "contract"?

marshall
-- 
---
------- (c) 1992, Marshall Gene Flax <mgflax@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> -------
----------- 5 Joyce Lane, Woodbury, NY 11797, 516-364-9331,9379  ----------
- c/o Jack Gelfand,Psychology Dept,Princeton U.,NJ 08544,609-258-6739 (w) -
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dmercer@oracle.com (David B. Mercer)
Subject: What do tax lawyers do?
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA
Distribution: misc
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:22:41 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.


It was recently suggested to me that I hire a tax lawyer, so I have
some questions about them:

What do tax lawyers do?  Do they only offer advice on which tax forms
to fill out, or would they recommend tax shelters and other ways to
reduce ones tax burden?  Do they also offer investment advice?  Are
there other people, non-lawyers, who would do the job, or would a tax
lawyer be the best?

How much would a tax lawyer's services cost?  Do they charge by the
hour, by commission?  Basically, how much should I budget for such an
expense?  (Of course, I would hope that the lawyer would, in the long
run, pay more than he or she costs).

How does one find and select a tax lawyer?  How do you know if one is
good or not?  I tried asking my colleagues at work for
recommendations, but they all laughed; none of them employ such
services.  One of them offered to do my taxes for me (for a fee), but
that's not what I want a lawyer for.  I can fill out my own forms; I
would like advice.

Thanks in advance.  Email replies would be preferred (since you never
know when you Usenet connection is going to go flakey, as it
occasionally does), but I do read this group every day.  If requested,
I will post a summary of my findings.

---David B. Mercer
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Info needed on DNA vs blo
X-To: JAMES R. GEARSON
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 22:06:00 GMT

gearson@jove.Colorado.EDU (James R. Gearson) writes...
JRG> I am involved in a paternity case in the Chicago area.  I would like
JRG> to know as soon as possible whether this child is mine.   (If it is,
JRG> my wife and I intend to pursue custody.)  I have heard of various blood
JRG> tests and DNA tests.  Can the DNA tests be performed earlier than at six
JRG> months, as is the case for the blood tests?  Are these tests of the
JRG> same reliability?  What literature is there on these tests?

James, from what I know, a simple blood test will only detect inconsistencies
in blood types between father, mother, and child (I *think* that the mother's
blood *is* needed ... Can SOMEONE please confirm whether this is correct or
not - Very Important), and therefore can only tell you whether you are *not*
the father.

If the blood types are compatible, you might *still* not be the father.

So.....I would recommend a DNA screening.  And for these, I *also* think that
you need the mother.  (Again, can someone please confirm or deny this for
me....thanks).  At any rate, such tests can determine parenthood with a failure
rate of 1 in BILLIONS, and is even quite accurate if parenthood is being
questioned by *twins*.

BTW, the issue of whether the mother's blood is required is an important one,
because *if* the mother's blood *is* required, a man who fears that he has
been cuckolded, would HAVE to inform his wife that he had concerns about the
child.  I need not tell you how tricky this sort of thing would be...

This is just one of many problems that I run into, in discussions with people
who walk into In Search Of Justice (Canada's largest men's rights group) with
marital problems, so this information would be appreciated.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * On a clear disk you can seek forever
-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:20:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.013633.680@Princeton.EDU> mgflax@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.215056.4083@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>
>>Let's see, Chris Bartz will only allow as law those laws for which the
>>people vote unanimously.  This is utterly absurd.  What do you want?  A
>>Romanian (Ceaucescu era) plebiscite?
>
>Please read his posting again.  Our constitution gives the government
>the right to create some laws without unanimous consent, and withholds
>that permission about other laws.  (Regulating interstate commerce vs.
>establishing a national religion.)  But you seem to confuse, once again,
>laws and voluntary agreements.
>
The question is whether the First Amendment was applicable to Viktora.
As I've discussed in this forum, I don't think it was.  The Constitution
isn't a computer manual such that its rules have clear-cut application.

>>Bullshit.  The SC would have been held by its (racist) logic to trump
>>the rights of minorities with the right of (white people especially) to
>>freedom of speech.  It would therefore have had to decide the way it
>>did, and declare that the St. Paul law, even if unanimously accepted,
>>violated the constitutional rights of people thinking of living in St.
>>Paul
>
>Repeat after me: the coercive power of the state is strong and
>therefore limited.  It's limited to allow freedom of expression, among
>other things.  What people agree to individually is up to them, but
>what the state may coerce people to do is limited by frameworks such as
>the Constitution.  Got it?

I deny that Viktora was speaking in any meaningful sense, so no, I don't
"get it."  And it is hypocrisy, as I have stated, in a society in which
people check their rights to freedom of speech at the door of their job
to blather on about our great and absolute freedom of speech.  I don't
care to rehash this argument; please check the archives.
>
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Advice needed:  Pregnancy and immigration problems
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:22:36 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <1992Aug14.024627.13201@serval.net.wsu.edu> 
rcrane@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Robert Crane - OTHER) writes:

>Is this true?  Is there no way around this?  I have a very
>difficult time believing that I will have to pocket the
>entire cost of the birth.  [Bob Crane]

When my brother and I were born, our parents had to pay the
entire cost of our births out of their pockets.

When my sons were born, I had been paying premiums into a health
insurance plan for eleven years, so the insurance company paid
for most of the cost of their births.

So, parents get to pay for the births of their children --
either beforehand, with insurance premiums, or at the time
of birth.  At least, that has been the experience of two
generations of my family.   Why does Mr. Crane "have a very
difficult time believing" that he will have to do the same?

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Die Knechtschaft dauert nur noch kurze Zeit."
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 04:21:16 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Aug18.103813.28798@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>In article <1992Aug18.021822.27242@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:


>>A "district" is not a sovereign.  The Feds CANNOT retry you for the
>>same act in a different district if you've already been acquitted.

>Right. They have to find a way to call it a different act.

Please describe a single criminal act which could be prosecuted in two
seperate districts.

If you say, mailing 10,000 porno magazines all over the country, you
are wrong.  Obscenity is determined by a jury applying local community
standards, thus each time you mail a piece into a different "local
community" its a seperate offence with a distinct factual predicate.


>>The federal "second chance" is justified by principles of federalism,
>>not the "evil" of the act being prosecuted.

>I'm sorry, but I distinguish between the formal justification for the
>federal "second chance" and what real prosecutors really say to each
>other, and to the world, about it. Nobody talks in terms of federalism;
>everybody understands that the purpose of the second chance is not to let
>the bad guys get away.


Obviously that's not true, or Congress would have created a
comprehensive federal criminal code which mirrored that of the states.
The purpose of Civil Rights Act prosecutions are to guard the uniquely
federal interest in attacking conspiracies to violate civil rights.

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner

Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.women
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Equal Rights Amendment
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<19064@smoke.brl.mil> <1992Aug11.135618.25933@midway.uchicago.edu> 
	<1992Aug11.192630.16906@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 01:34:08 GMT

dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:

>>matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>>>After even the unfairly extended ratification time for ERA had expired, 

>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>"Unfairly"?  There's no requirement for ratification time at all.  It
>>was a self-imposed restriction.  I vaguely recall an amendment being
>>recently passed two hundred years after it was first proposed...

>Yes, unfairly. This self-imposed restriction was part of the
>text of the amendment. If they wanted to make the ratification
>time 10 years, they should have resubmitted an amendment worded
>to allow that and sent this revised amendment to the states. 

Unless my memory is playing tricks, the ratification period for the
ERA was not part of the text of the amendment, but was in a separate
resolution which Congress passed at the same time it approved the ERA.
That's why it was able to extend the period for an additional time.


Keith
From: Graham.Shaw@newcastle.ac.uk (G.D.Shaw)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Responsibility for copying machines
Date: 18 Aug 92 10:31:46 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU

The following is not intended to be an analogy to USENET; it does,
nevertheless, have some extremely disturbing implications if taken
to its logical conclusion.

The August issue of Personal Computer World (A British computer
magazine) includes a review of the Canon CLC-10 (a colour photo-
copier that can double as a scanner or colour printer).

According to the article, the copier features a control key, without
which it cannot be used.  It quotes the manual as saying:

"Warning: In cases of unauthorised copying, the person making the
copy, the person requesting the copy and the person responsible for
the supervision of the copier may be charged with an offence (and
subject to imprisonment)."

In the context of a colour photocopier, the main concern is
obviously forgery; nevertheless, if failing to properly 'supervise'
the copier is enough to commit a criminal offence, I would have
thought it would be more than enough to establish a civil wrong
(such as copyright violation).

My questions are therefore:
1) Does anyone know anything more about this?  Or are the manufacturers
   just being over-cautious in their advice?
2) If there is a risk of prosecution, does it apply in the UK, the
   USA, or both?  (The magazine was British, but the instruction
   manual could well have been aimed mainly at an American audience).
3) Is this restricted to photocopiers, or would it apply to other
   types of copying?  (DAT recorders?  VCRs?  USENET?)
4) What do you have to do to be liable?  (Conspiracy?  Recklessness?
   Negligence?  or Strict Liability?)

Graham Shaw (dph3gds@tuda.ncl.ac.uk)
Department of Physics, Durham University
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: K_LEPA@unhh.unh.edu (Kristen   Lepa)
Subject: Copyright on software...
Organization: University of New Hampshire
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 03:30:05 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.12

OK, here's a subject that's been floating around on comp.sys.mac.games:

There are some people who have the B&W version of a game.  This game wa
published by Mindscape software, which has gone out of business.  There
was a $5 update that users could get from Mindscape that made the program
color instead of B&W.  The question is this: is the copyright still valid?
and is there a *legal* way to distribute the color update, free or for a 
fee (the fee would maybe go to the person who holds the copyright, if it's
still in effect).  How can we find out who officially holds the copyright, 
so that we could ask permission to distribute the upgrade among ourselves?
This would, of course, only go to people who really own the game, since
there is a complex copy-protection system.  Any accurate advice would be
greatly appreciated, especially by those of us who own the B&W version of the
game.  Please post replies also to comp.sys.mac.games or reply directly to
me.  Thanks,

	-Kristen

k_lepa@unhh.unh.edu
From: bmhn_cif@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Meathead)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Apple computer sued..
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:44:39 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York


Please read this and reply to me via - email only.. I do not usally read
the newsgroups so I would not see them.. I am very interesting in what people
have to say about this article.. Has anyone heard anything like it.. etc.. 
Please diseminate it as you see fit.. I want as many people possible to hear
about this and reply to this.. Thank you in advance.. 
Brian S. Meehan
----------------------------------------------------------------
APPLE COMPUTER SUED FOR 200 MILLION DOLLARS IN PUNITIVE DAMAGES
FOR INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT

        Havre de Grace MD USA  June 19,1992 -- Moffett Computers
Plus More, LTD. has sued Apple Computer Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland for an incident in
1988 where Moffett  bid on a government  contract against
several Apple dealers, and won. Apple tried to stop the award of
the bid to Moffett without success. According to  Phil Moffett,
President of Moffett Computers, when that failed Apple wrote the
 Army stating that the computers sold by Moffett were stolen. 
The FBI and CID were called in to investigate the crime alleged
by Apple.  The Army froze funds due Moffett and ceased doing
business with them. Several months later upon completion of the
investigation it was determined by the FBI and CID that the
computers sold by Moffett to the Army were not stolen, and were
bought and sold legitimately . 

       Mr. Moffett  stated recently that Apple's efforts to
control the market violated his rights. Mr. Moffett is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages for the wrong committed
against him and his business and for the losses he suffered as a
result of this apparent case of a mega-corporation's  efforts to
squash the little guy.  The case is to be set for trial shortly.

MOFFETT COMPUTERS  PLUS MORE LTD.

2113D Pulaski Hwy. Havre de Grace MD 21078 USA

:end
From: mac@abacus.concordia.ca ( JOHN MCKAY )
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: email libel
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:25:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Cicma, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec
Originator: mac@abacus


I seek information on what precedents there may be (preferrably in
Canada but US welcome) for establishing that use of email may be
considered libellous. Please email me at the above address.
Thank you.

-- 
Thought for the day: Odd order groups are even.