HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Ham Radio Antennas, was Re: Info please
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 15:52:50 GMT

In article <712555630.AA00002@eilc.UUCP> Michael.Baumann@f60.n374.z1.fidonet.org (Michael Baumann) writes:
>
>        Not being involved in law, I have lost my way and need some
>assistance.  I have heard the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a
>rule/law/regulation that can be used to over turn a Home Owners' Association's
>ban on antennas.
>        I live in a town house and according to the Home Owners' Association,
>we (the tenants) are not allowed to erect an antenna.  As I have just passed
>the exams for my Technician Class license (amateur radio) and wish to become
>involved with the local RACES (emergency communications in disasters) group I
>need an out side antenna.
>
>        If some one could point me in the right direction for what/where to
>search or perhaps could provide some case cites that uphold the right of an
>amateur radio operator to erect an antenna to be used in emergency
>communications, I would greatly appreciate it.
>                                                        Mike...
> * SLMR 2.1a * E.I.L.C.  Your source for Information. 407-676-2998

There is NO FCC ruling that covers your situation.  The docket/ruling
you may be thinking of is PRB-1 which has been used to preempt
overly restrictive zoning and building code requirements that are
enacted by state and local municipal governments.  Your "tenents
agreement" is a private contract willingly entered into between
yourself and the owning entity for the townhouse.  Or, if you own
the townhouse, it is probably part of the CCRs (Covenents and restrictions)
that are a part of the deed.

I'm an ARRL Local Governement Liason, and to
the best of my knowledge, no one has successfully challenged
any of these "private" agreements using PRB-1 as a basis for their
argument.  Successful arguments against enforcement of the
"antenna ban" may happen if the ban has not been universally
enforced against others (eg. are there already TV antennas,
satellite dishes, other ham antennas) in the townhouse subdivision.

For addition help, contact the ARRL and/or a local attorney that is
familiar with the area you live in.

As always, this is my opinion, and should NOT be viewed as
legal advice.

PS - If your townhouse is typical wood construction, you can probably
put up a very effective antenna in the attic to participate in the
local RACES activity, especially if that is through the use of
local repeaters on 2 meters.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Roe v Wade (Latin)
Date: 27 Jul 92 07:58:10 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Jul24.151429.20328@rchland.ibm.com>, 
xzs0302@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (T.A. Gyorgak) writes:

> stare decisis   . to hold the decision. 
> 
>   I am not sure why someone would be read this BB without the basic terms of
> law from what I remember to be 7th grade Civics.    I went to school in
> Cleveland  so it wasn't anything special.  
 
Give the guy a break.  I'd never heard the term until I started reading 
cases.  I certainly knew the doctrine of precedent, but I'd never heard the 
Latin.  And I went to school in Cleveland, too.



Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard)
Subject: Re: Lawsuit to compel a fraud to run for President!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 01:54:55 GMT

I agree with Mike that the Perot matter presents itself as an unenforceable 
contract.  Do anyone see Perot argueing unenforceable as a contract for 
personal services?

Dennis
Xref: sparky misc.legal:14927 alt.censorship:6340 talk.politics.misc:36154
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: ProMaleChoice
Summary: Back to 900 BCE!
Keywords: Shotgun Marriage
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:47:42 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <1992Jul20.210046.2127@u.washington.edu> 
jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:

>Jennifer Bernold <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> writes

>> Matthew Rosenblatt says:

>> >This proposal would give the mother the power to sign away her child's
>> >right to any support from his father.    [Matt Rosenblatt]

>> Yet you'd allow the mother to "act for the interests of the child" and
>> sue the father for MORE money, . . .   [Jennifer Bernold]

>   I love it!  She has the right to get more money from
>   him -- but she doesn't have the right to get less!
>     I think Matthew has mastered the art of the "double
>   standard" -- no wonder he wants to live in the 50's.   [Mr. EuStress]

After some thought, I see that the '50's way did not do enough
for the child.  He still had to grow up without two parents.
To treat him right, we should go back a lot farther in time.

If a man gets a girl pregnant, and she is not already married,
he has to marry her and she has to marry him, in order to provide
a two-parent home for the child.  If he is already married, he
*still* has to take her as an additional wife.  The unfairness
of the present system arises from the fact that although he has
to act in the place of a "husband" to her, providing financial
support, he gets none of the benefits that a real husband gets
from having a wife at home.  If she had to marry him in order
to get the support, at least he'd be getting something in return
for his money.

If she is already married, it's adultery, with severe penalties
for the adulterer and the adulteress.  They shouldn't even be
*thinking* of fooling around in that case.

I maintain that any system where people know that an accidental
pregnancy will result in their having to get married will discourage
fornication.  That's the way it used to be: if he's not good enough
to marry, he's not good enough to sleep with, either.  The old
system provided for the children at the expense of adults' freedom
to fornicate like Studs'n'Sluts.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:40:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.221740.8240@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> ...  It's well known that computers can become a substitute for
>real-life, and surely the satisfaction one takes in a kill file is
                ^^^^^^
>related to the satisfaction one feels in destructive behavior (there! I
>showed him, he's in my kill file.)  The true silliness is in denying
>this fact.
      ^^^^
> ...

  Mind-boggling it is.

> ... Henry Schaffer lies.  ...

  Ed Nilges has stated this a number of times and in a number of
newsgroups.  I suspect that any chance of successful legal action for 
libel is very limited, because it would be very difficult to show that 
such statements by Poor Frantic Ed could actually cause any damage.  
All the defense would have to do is to show such other statements by 
Poor Frantic Ed as the one quoted above and the verdict would 
immediately be in favor of Poor Frantic Ed "for reasons of inanity".

--henry schaffer  n c state univ
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Property rights
Date: 21 Jul 92 02:48:57 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Jul16.121231.22031@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>In article <1992Jul16.012651.10987@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:


>>Similarly, if the govt. abolishes tresspass laws, it has taken away
>>all of your right to enforce your property rights in court, even
>>though it hasn't taken away all of your rights to use that property.

>I don't think this "follows." Are you equating "trespass laws" with the
>common-law tort of trespass?

In my hypothetical, I explicitly stated that the government had
abolished both civil and criminal tresspass.  What other "tresspass
laws" do you have in mind?


>>I think you're really begging the question.  The example I proposed
>>has no close analogue in other kind of taking cases.  To simply say
>>that it "doesn't take away all of your property rights" is just a
>>conclusory statement.

>Ooh, "conclusory"! Gosh, that stung.


Hey. There's no reason for gratuitous nastiness.  I'm not Clifford
Johnson you know.  

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
Xref: sparky misc.legal:15172 alt.censorship:6476 talk.politics.misc:36590
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Keywords: egnilges
Date: 30 Jul 92 12:59:53 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Jul29.130052.5110@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.031807.26821@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher) writes:
>># >Using kill files IS a form of censorship.
>>
>>I suppose, then, if I unsubscribe to this group, I go down in
>>history with Hannibal Lector? 
>
>Lack of perspective is not an argument.  The reduction to absurdity is
>within you.  Using kill files remains a form of (micro) censorship,
>which gives the lie to (undercuts) (deconstructs) (runs across the grain
>of) the loud adherence to "free speech" on the part of its "defenders."

Quit trying to change history, Ed. It was you who referred to the use
of kill files as "metaphorical murder".

>
>But "I've just unsubscribed and I can't log off" IS funny.  Thanks.

Indeed it is.

.sig
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.kibo,alt.religion.kibology
From: kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry)
Subject: Re: Lawsuit to compel a fraud to run for President!
Followup-To: alt.politics.kibo,misc.legal
Organization: Between a rock and a type specimen sheet, Boston.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 04:07:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.024437.4404@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
><italics on>Accord<italics off> Kibonia <italics on>ex rel.<italics off>
>Parry v. Spot-Kibo Comm'l Cleaning Corp., 12 <lower upper-case letters on>
>IRON. L. REP.<lower upper-case letters off> 2d 305, 78 <lower upper-case 
>letters on> SARCAST. SUPP. 1137 (C.D. Kib. 1969) (<italics on>per curiam
><italics off>), <italics on>reh. denied<italics off> 12 <lower upper-case 
>letters on>IRON. L. REP.<lower upper-case letters off> 2d 784, 79
><lower upper-case letters on> SARCAST. SUPP. 128, <italics on>noted in
><italics off> 37 <lower upper-case letters on> U.C.C. REP. SERV.
><lower upper-case letters off> (Callaghan) 2319 (C.D. Kib. 1970),
><italics on>cert. denied<italics off> Parry v. B.I.F.F. SERVICES INC.,
>257 U.S. (27 Wall.) 312, 42 S. <lower upper-case letters on> CT.
><lower upper-case letters off> 666, 14 <lower upper-case letters on>
>L. ED. <lower upper-case letters off>2d 12 (1970).

You left out the schwa!  And never mind the caps/lowecase/small-caps
stuff, what typeface is it printed in?  That's the important thing.  If
it's in ITC Souvenir, run away at maximum speed.  If it's a really
trendy law book, it'll be printed in Emigre's Variex Bold.

P.S.  I have a new case pending.  I'm suing myself, claiming that I
filed a nuisance lawsuit against myself.  
							-- K.


Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Subject: Not reading articles is a form of censorship.
Followup-To: alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
	<1992Jul28.002529.26485@fid.morgan.com>
	<1992Jul28.031807.26821@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
	<1992Jul29.130052.5110@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:50:06 GMT

NOT!  (and I think most readers, Ed excepted, know why).

--
--russ <nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
Peace is not the absence of war.  Peace is the presence of a system for
resolving conflicts before war becomes necessary.  War never creates peace.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: barr@tramp.Colorado.EDU (BARR DOUG)
Subject: Student loans
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:37:23 GMT

My question is this:
1. Mary obtains student loans of $10,000 before her marriage to John.
2. After being married to John for a year, John and Mary get a divorce.
3. Is John legally liable for Mary's loans?
4. When they divide property, and let's say John and Mary's estate has
   increased by $20,000 while they were married, is Mary's loan of $10000
   subtracted from her share of the divided estate?

Please respond with your answer with a reply.
From: Lyle_Seaman@transarc.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Shakers (was Re: shekers)
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:40:24 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs

wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
> In article <19001@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) write\
> s:
> > Yet the whole magazine is based on and filled with _sheker_
> 
>         Aren't they that religous sect that died out 'cause they thought
> it was ungodly to have sex?

No, they're the once incredibly successful religious sect that has
_almost_ died out (not quite, 
yet) because:
1.  Religion generally declined in popularity.
2.  The US Supreme Court ruled that they (and the Catholic charities)
could no longer take in foundlings, as it transgressed the separation
of church and state.  This was a terrible shame, since (IMO) children
growing up in a Shaker community had it pretty good, especially
compared to children growing up in modern foster homes.  The
prohibition had a dual effect:  it denied the Shakers one of their
most visible means of demonstrating the value of their religion, and
it denied them one of their most valuable reasons for existence.  So
it chipped away both from the inside and the outside.

The celibacy component of the religion merely insured that new Shakers
were committed to the movement, and were not simply continuing as
Shakers because their parents, grandparents, etc, were Shakers.
Adult converts to a religion are usually more committed than child
converts. 

Just picking a nit.  Note followup.
From: rion@Ingres.COM (Rion Cassidy (x3357) OGT)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Libel on the NET!
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:52:56 GMT
Reply-To: rion@Ingres.COM
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501



There was a discussion in a local "for sale" type group that involved a legal 
question and I want to ask it here, but as a fictitious situation to avoid 
bringing up any bad feelings that came up in the original discussion.

Here is the fictitious situation:

I have phoned an electrician (ABC electric) and asked him to come out and do 
some work on my home.  We settled on a price because it's a simple job.  He 
comes and starts looking at things and I am hanging around asking him 
questions about how he does his job and what type of parts and material he 
uses.  When I start insisting on what I believe to be certain quality levels, 
the electrician grabs his stuff and informs me that he is leaving; he doesn't 
want my business.  He has done nothing and charged me nothing.

I am furious.  I feel that this guy was trying to put in substandard 
materials and cut corners.  He also wasted my time.  So I go to the net here 
and post a message saying "Avoid this electrician!!"  I tell everyone how bad 
this guy was, making claims the he was dishonest, etc. I make sure to give 
his name (ABC electric).  I show a clear hostile intent to dissuade others 
from using this guy.  In my anger I intentionallly exagerate some of the 
guy's bad points and perhaps even make something up that didn't happen, just 
to convince everyone that the guy is slime.

Question 1:  Is there any basis for me sueing ABC electric for lost 
time, emotional stress, etc.?

Question 2: Is there any basis for ABC electric sueing me because of my 
public statements about him?  That is, have I committed libel?

Question 3: If others on the net see the story, and not knowing if the 
allegations are true or not repeat them as if they are, using public 
postings, are *they* committing libel at all? (e.g., if Fred posts followups 
saying "that electrician Rion used, ABC electric, was clearly a con man...")

Rion
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: cbo@cs.toronto.edu (Calvin Bruce Ostrum)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 24 Jul 92 05:04:55 GMT


In article <1992Jul20.232423.20557@eff.org>
   mnemonic@eff.ord (Mike Godwin) asks for forgiveness:

| >| True. But CLS doesn't qualify as a "collective." That was my point.
| >
| >They doesn't? 
| 
| Forgive me. I should have said 
| 
|    But "CLS" doesn't qualify as the name of a "collective."

Apparently, Mike has here committed (in his vernacular) a "typo",
in which he "transposed" quotation marks, and the phrase "the name of",
with some blanks floating around inside his head somewhere.  Such a  
mistake is quite understandable, and even excusable, given that 
he who committed it types as fast as Mike does, and is mercilessly
besieged by blithering idiots who shamelessly affect his proofreading 
ability.

So I am happy to forgive Mike, if this is the real story.  But I
am not confident that it is.

Mike earlier wrote, for example, in <1992Jul19.161456.2570@eff.org>:

| >Your criticism is off the mark.  There is no reason why nouns like
| >"womens studies", "critical legal studies", etcetera, cannot be
| >singular when one is discussing any of them as a field of interest,
| >despite the plural "studies".
| 
| I'd agree if CLS could reasonably be called "a field of interest." Doing
| so implies a unity that, so far as CLS is concerned, does not exist.

What is the "typo" here?  Following the same pattern, presumably Mike
was really thinking something like

	I'd agree if "CLS" could reasonably be called the
	name of a field of interest... ...so far as "CLS" is concerned,
	is not possessed what it denotes.
	
That's rather awkward, though.  Why wouldn't Mike take advantage of his
view that "CLS" is plural, and simply say
	
	so far as CLS are concerned, does not exist?

Well, probably because Mike himself uses "CLS" as singular and doesn't
actually realise it.  He probably engages in this unnecessary semantic
ascent when forced to abandon the singular use because the plural use 
looks awkward to him.

Mike also wrote (in <1992Jul19.222523.5118@eff.org>):

| How about hypocrisy flames? That's what I was calling you on. 

Ed originally accused some lawyers of "functional illiteracy", and Mike
tells us he accused Ed of hypocrisy because the sentence in which Ed
made the accusation was poorly crafted.  In the midst of these 
accusations, Mike himself consistently committed the same error that he 
accused Ed of making.  By Mike's lights, he should be criticising 
himself.  

Doubly so, really, because as far as I can tell, "CLS" is
used as singular by virtually everyone except Mike (in his dreams).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Ostrum                                            cbo@cs.toronto.edu  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	"Bee eye jee enn you tea aiych eye enn" -- The Roches
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Truax v Corrigan -- The Rest of the Story
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:29:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.190455.17789@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson) writes:
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>More importantly, the decision was only 5-4.  And the four were three
>>separate dissents by Pitney, Clarke, and, you guessed it, Holmes and
>>Brandeis.  In fact, the Holmes and Brandeis *dissents* are cited by the
>>Supreme Court as good law much more often than the Taft opinion, which,
>>as far as I could tell, has *never* been cited for the contention that
>>Clifford claims Corrigan holds.
>
>None of the dissenters challenged the at issue finding re a general
>federal guarantee of a basic cause of action for defamation, nor are
>they cited against such a finding.  Indeed, it appears that at least
>in this particular, the decision reflected law that was not at all
>controversial.

The issue is whether defamation actions are protected by the 14th
Amendment, remember?  That was your claim.  And the dissent did
challenge the majority's finding: "Nor is a state obliged to protect
all property rights by injunction merely because it protects some...
Thus, course ordinarily refuse, perhaps in the interests of free
speech, to restrain actionable libel."

You're being increasingly dishonest about Corrigan, Clifford.  I thought
it was merely wrong-headedness, but your quoted passage below deliberately
omits important language that undercuts your case.  CJ makes it appear
that the court is talking about libel, and only libel, when in fact the
court was talking about picketing and abusive actions taken towards
potential customers.
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.men,soc.women
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Self-Defense
Followup-To: misc.legal,soc.men,soc.women
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Jul22.104724.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
	<1992Jul22.225007.275@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
	<1992Jul23.035153.2572@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:01:20 GMT

<In article <1992Jul23.035153.2572@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
<   In article <1992Jul22.225007.275@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
<   >In article <1992Jul22.104724.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
<   >)You're worried about playing FAIR all of a sudden?  Murder is still
<   >)murder no matter how it's done.
<   >
<   >Self defense isn't murder.  However, killing someone in their sleep is
<   >*obviously* not self defense.

<   Situation: You're a prisoner in a cell.  Your prisonmate, who's five
<   inches taller, and a hundred pounds heavier, whom you have no hope 
<   of defending yourself against tells you one night: "When dawn comes,
<   I'm going to kill you."  He then goes to sleep.  Assume that going to
<   a guard for assistance has proven futile in the past, and that you have
<   no reason to believe otherwise now.  What do you do?  What should the
<   law be?

	You mean that the "burning bed" case took place in a prison?
	Odd, I thought it was in a house; you know, with a front door,
	back door, windows....openings in the buildings through
	which one may exit?
			 ....................................
<			 ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
<			 the university of chicago law school 
<			 official member of the cultural elit


	I'm glad to see that the cultural "elit" obviously 
	learned how to spell in public schools.