HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton)
Subject: Re: Divorce, bankruptcy, accident, liability...
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 23:02:04 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Nancy Feagans (nancy@hayduke) wrote:
: So.... any words of advice from the net?  Could there be any
: recourse for him?  Thanks in advance.
:------------------
The lawyer handling his divorce should not have let him give up the
car without getting the title out of his name. By the same token her
lawyer should have also insisted because if he every got in financial
trouble then her car might be seized. Was this one of those do it yourself
divorce jobs? If not I would talk to another attornery about whether or 
not the first two performed their work as required.


Another way is to pay off the family and then he could sue her for his
losses. Probaly won't collect anything.



John Eaton
!hp-vcd!johne




Xref: sparky misc.legal:21694 comp.sys.sun.misc:5988
From: guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.sys.sun.misc
Subject: Re: Put away your Motif manual; Sun's lawyers are at the door!
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:55:59 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara

>Disclaimer: this is not legal advice; just my interpretation of Sun's
>Solaris 2.1 license agreement.  I predict that Sun rethinks this policy.

And *I* predict that Sun will either issue a clarification to indicate
precisely what this "API that is the same as that of Software" means, or
will restate it, to reassure those who would interpret it the way you
interpreted it that it is *not* to be interpreted in that fashion.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren)
Subject: Re: OREGON renters rights question
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:42:18 GMT

johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton) writes:

>Yea, Forget about the apartment. They did nothing overtly illegal and he has
>nothing to gain by staying or fighting. Mom probably mentioned to the land-
>lords that her daughter was moving out and would no longer be contributing
>to the rent. She may have also mentioned that daughter was going to talk
>to the folks at Child Support Enforcement and when they were finished with
>your friend that he wouldn't have enough money left over to buy toilet paper.

>You are correct in that your friend is facing a very difficult situation but
>losing the rental is the least of his worries. Check out some of the horror
>stories in alt.child-support if you want a sampling of what might happen.


I kinda' figured what you said, that "they did nothing overtly illegal and
he has nothing to gain by staying or fighting".  I even told David that it probably
would be in his best interests NOT to try and renew his lease there, given that
management clearly is trying everything within their power to get him to leave.
Just for some more enlightenment:

His ex not only cleaned out their bank account, but cleaned out the apartment
as well, leaving only his TV, VCR and clothes, although she DID take everything
else, including bath towels and even some of his most favorite clothes.  She
and some of the apartment complex personnel also tracked mud throughout the apt.
in getting everything out, and I told David that he should probably go out and
rent a carpet cleaner and clean the carpet himself, because management would surely
NOT believe anything he said and would withhold a portion of his deposit for
cleaning the carpeting, with said portion probably being at least double what he
could pay to clean it himself.

Yesterday, his ex called from Seattle (a 3 hours drive from Portland) and asked him
for money for the month of January for their daughter.  This from a woman who has
not worked for the past year and whose mother came down from Seattle to take her
daughter and granddaughter back to Seattle.  David stated that he believes his ex
when she states that she will really only use the money for their daughter, Ashley,
but I told David to wake up and quit looking through love-sick eyes.  I also told 
him to get ahold of some legal advice on all of this.  His ex, in asking for the
money, said he could visit Ashley anytime he wanted.  I told him that once she
gets the money, there is nothing to say that his ex or his ex's mom couldn't get
a court order forbidding him to see either his ex or his daughter.  When David told
his ex that he had NO money and couldn't send anything for January, she got pretty
upset and said, "Why don't I bring Ashley down there and let YOU take care of her?"
David said "Fine, I'd love it!"  She hung up on him.

allen

p.s.  I used to subscribe to alt.child-support, but some of the stories were
getting pretty nasty, so I unsubscribed.  I might again, just to post this
problem.
From: brtmac@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu (Brett McCoy)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Put away your Motif manual; Sun's lawyers are at the door!
Date: 22 Dec 1992 19:58:35 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: maverick.ksu.ksu.edu

In <rhoward.725070100@matd> rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes:

>koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm) writes:
>>                                         Developed Programs may be used and
>>distributed, but only on computer equipment licensed to utilize Solaris
>>operating system software, unless an additional Developer's License Agreement
>>has been executed by SunSoft and Customer;
>
>You can't use Solaris and its tools to build an application that will
>run on machines with no Solaris license.  (I guess that implies I
>can't use Solaris to build an Xkernel for PCs where that individual
>has not licensed Solaris).

Let me get this straight.  If I install an i386 cross compiler version
of gcc on my Solaris box at work and use it to compile code to run on
my 386BSD box at home I'm breaking the license agreement?  That seems
utterly rediculous to me.
-- 
++Brett;
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 1 Jan 93 04:00:25 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <bhayden.725782587@teal>, bhayden@teal.csn.org sez:
>
>Are you suggesting that Ollie was ever even charged with diverting money
>to the Contra's? (i.e. violating the Boland Amts.)

North wasn't charged with violating the Boland Amendment (note the
singular), since it's not a criminal statute.  He was, however,
indicted on 2 counts relating to the fund diversion to the Contras
(note plural).  

A repost for your enlightenment:

===

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Bush pardons....
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:51:10 GMT

In <1992Dec31.114442.424@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com sez:
>
>  Chew on this 
>one, Norm:  if they were guilty of the major charges -- selling arms to Iran, 
>or sending money to the Contras -- WHY WEREN'T THEY CHARGED with these 
>crimes?

Chew on this one, Paul: you conveniently forget that North was, in
fact, originally charged with two counts relating to the diversion of
funds from the arms sales to the Contras.

Paul also conveniently ignores the fact that Walsh was forced to drop
these two counts -- the major charges in the indictment -- by AG
Thornburgh.  The process was quite simple: 

	1) North requested scads of classified documents (many of
which he was undoubtedly entitled to) for use in his defense.

	2) Thornburgh threatened Walsh that he would not release the
documents, and would instead file an affidavit with the court under
section 6(e) of the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA, found
at the appendix to 18 U.S.C.).  That section permits the AG to deny
defense access for national security reasons.  Of course, CIPA also
requires the judge to dismiss the relevant charges or take other
remedial action under these circumstances.

	3) Having been given this ultimatum, Walsh voluntarily dropped
the two main counts.


But don't let the facts stand in your way, Paul.  


===

-- 
			   797 F. Supp. 186

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: hacksaw@cellar.org (Hacksaw)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Property going to the state
Date: 27 Dec 92 05:27:03 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

My grandmother has recently taken ill and will probably spend the rest of her 
life in a nursing home. Medicare is currently paying for care, but her limit 
is about to run out(100 days). 
 
She does have a property that will be taken by the state to help pay for 
expenses after the hundred days. The family does have power of attorney of 
her assets. Is there a way we can sell the home just prior to it being 
confiscated by the state?
 
We've already talked to a lawyer and getting answers from him is like pulling 
teeth. He still hasn't answered the question forthright. 

Any responses would be greatly appreciated.

------
hacksaw@cellar.org (Hacksaw)
The Cellar BBS - (215) 539-3043
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: why has statutory law been replacing common law?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 18:12:55 GMT

lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:

>In <RJC.92Dec31131132@devo.unify.com> rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes:
>>   "All ... 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?

      No, it means the United States agreed to pay the debts incurred
by the Continental Congress in funding the Revolutionary War.  This
started the United States off with a good credit rating, rather than
angering everybody who had supported the war financially.  

					John Nagle
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 07:07:41 GMT

patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger) writes:

>Tom, I edited (for brevity's sake) because you're so fond of edited
>postings :-)

Hardly fond of them just cognizant of the impact of large followups on
the net traffic.
>
>And the Bush administration's attempts on Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah
>Khomeini, Moammar Khaddafy - are these of no consequence?
> 
>Walsh is close to the truth in Iran/ContraGate - it's making the
>BU[ll]SH[it] administration very nervous.  Soon they'll all be
>"out of the loop" and subject to subpoena without the protection of
>"executive privilege."  :-)

Patt: I don't want to tell you stuff it but look at your posting.

I never said that Republicans haven't done illegal things or bad things
or crummy things but you repeatedly blame everything rotten that has
ever happened on Republicans and praise Democrats for their continual
good deeds over the years in the face of the Republican slimeballs

Now you've resorted to turning the word "bush" into "bullshit" oh you
are so clever.

We're done for now... I had you figured out (I thought) when I first
read your stream of unconciousness messages in various newsgroups.

tom

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: nancy@hayduke (Nancy Feagans)
Subject: Re: Divorce, bankruptcy, accident, liability...
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:25:07 GMT

In article <Bzw2nG.2C8@vcd.hp.com> johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton) writes:
>Nancy Feagans (nancy@hayduke) wrote:
>: So.... any words of advice from the net?  Could there be any
>: recourse for him?  Thanks in advance.
>:------------------
>The lawyer handling his divorce should not have let him give up the
>car without getting the title out of his name. By the same token her
>lawyer should have also insisted because if he every got in financial
>trouble then her car might be seized. Was this one of those do it yourself
>divorce jobs? If not I would talk to another attornery about whether or 
>not the first two performed their work as required.
>
>
>Another way is to pay off the family and then he could sue her for his
>losses. Probaly won't collect anything.

I agree, John.  He had a supposedly very good attorney who seemed to stay on
top of things all the way through *except* for changing the name on the
car title per the final property settlement agreement.  His ex had her own
attorney, also.
 
I think he should hold his attorney liable for the financial impact of
this incident.  But he's so sick and tired of lawyers and the legal
system he just wants it over with.  I'm beginning to wonder, though, if
his ex will EVER leave him alone and get on with her life.  Sad case.


-- 

Nancy J. Feagans     (818) 306-6423
Jet Propulsion Lab   nancy@jpl-devvax.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
"Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious."
From: goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Woman's *Consent* Nec
Date: 25 Dec 92 14:47:00 GMT
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
X-To: HILLEL GAZIT
To: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu

You write:
HG>Herman probably implies that, that's why I don't like his solution.

Neither do I.


HG>I want women to have the full power to decide about abortion
HG>because I want them to take the full responsibility for the
HG>results of their decisions.

HG>I leave the "I want my cake and I don't give a damn about you"
HG>kind of "equality" to feminists like Michal and Adrienne and
HG>to the anti-abortion crowd.

Oh...they make you sick, too?

Well, for Pete's sake, Hillel, if they *do*, then please by all means say
something!  Don, Kevin, Karl, and I can't exactly hold our own forever.

All right, I apologise.  It's rather arrogant to be assuming that Don, Kevin,
Karl and I are the "only" people posting on the subject, but we seem to
produce, if not the majority, then at least the plurality of postings from
the Pro-Male Choice side.

If you feel like becoming more heavily involved, please, feel free.  If the
hypocrites bug you so much (as they bother me), it even seems like a good
idea.  :-)

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * James Brown: "I've fallen and I can't get down!"
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dao@TorreyPinesCA.ncr.com (Deborah Wagner 3621)
Subject: Foreclosure/VA
Organization: NCR (Torrey Pines Development Center)
Disclaimer: This posting does not necessarily reflect the opinions of NCR.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 23:23:34 GMT


QUESTION:  What period of time is specified before foreclosure proceedings can be
initiated by a lender/bank in Norfolk, VA.  In California, it is three months and
then off you go.

Due to physical difficulties, my family let it slip 3 months, at which point I
paid it up.  I do not have it comfortable in my budget for the due date, so I
am always sliding in right before the end of the "grace period" each month now.
They are always calling and "threatening" foreclosure on the current month!
CAN THEY DO THAT?  Thank you for any answers.
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: why has statutory law been replacing common law?
Date: 2 Jan 1993 00:24:56 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In addition to the U.S. Constitution, you have to look at your state
constitution and state laws to determined what English law is applicable.

For example, Code section 1-10 of Virginia says that "The common law of
England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of
Rights and Constitution of this State, shall continue in full force within
the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General
Assembly."

Is there any original state that did NOT keep English common law when that
state gained independence?

Where did new states get their common law from?  If there was a dispute over,
say, negligence, in a pre-state territory, what law applied?  Most states
became states before _Erie_, so I would guess that Federal common law developed
and was applied in these situations, but what happened after _Erie_?  I would
guess that _Erie_ pretty much stopped development of Federal common law in
areas such as torts, so what happened in states formed after _Erie_?  Did
they start out with old Federal common law, from before _Erie_, or what?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re:  Good Legal Writing
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:12:14 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Dec18.212823.10185@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, 
dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes:
> My favorite is the case in which a federal judge dismisses a case brought 
> against the devil.  I believe that it was U.S. ex rel. Moyer v. Satan and 
> his Helpers.  Every first-year should read this civil procedure classic.

I saw you already corrected to U.S. ex rel. Mayer v. Satan and his Staff, but 
it's still a little off.  The actual caption is U.S. ex rel. Mayo v Satan and 
his staff.  The cite for that, incidentally, is 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa., 
1971).  The civil procedure question is, of course, service of process.

Civ Pro seems to attract the interesting cases.  For other good ones, see:

- Ned Seawright v. New Jersey, 412 F. Supp. 413 (D.N.J., 1976), noting that 
injection of plaintiff's eye with a radium beam so that he now hears voces 
talking to him on the inside of his brain is a mere state tort, and not a 
civil rights violation justifying federal subject matter jurisdiction.  The 
case is most interesting for the suggested alternate measures of recovery 
suggested by the judge.

- Noble v. Bedford Marine, 789 F. Supp. 395 (S.D. Fla., 1992), sorting out 
the difficulties in determining if subject matter juridsdiction may be 
created by joinder.  The opinion is written in the style of Wayne's World.  
It may be found on Lexis by searching for 'schwing and "hurling chunks"'.  
For those curious, the holding was that the joined party's most bugus attempt 
at removal is "not worthy" and the defandants must party on in state court.

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: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Subject: Re: Diplomatic Immunity
Reply-To: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: misc
Date: 23 Dec 92 08:12:11 EST


There is another side to diplomatic immunity. If you are a diplomat
posted outside your home country and break a law in another country, you
may escape prosecution in the other country, but you may be prosecuted
under your home country's laws.

In one recent case, a Canadian immigration official who worked at a
Canadian embassy or high commission somewhere in South America was
apparently taking bribes. He was prosecuted in Canada under Canadian
law, and is now presumably behind bars somewhere in Canada.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Diplomatic Immunity
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 09:08:03 GMT

In article <1h5nc2INN6bc@gap.caltech.edu> roder@cco.caltech.edu (Brenda J. Roder) writes:
>Recently, I saw one show (Law & Order, set in New York City) which had
>someone with diplomatic immunity accused of murder.  They said that it 
>(immunity) didn't apply for crimes of a (greivous? serious? major? darn,
>I can't remember the exact word they used) nature, so they were able to 
>bring him to trial.  About a week later, I saw a different show (less
>serious The Commish) where they had a rapist ith diplomatic immunity.  They
>had to convince the Ambassador to waive this person's immunity before they
>could arrest him.  So the question is, which one was correct (more correct?)
>or is rape not sufficiently grave to warrant automatic waiver of immunity.

There's always the Danny Glover method of revoking diplomatic immunity...

Ted "I'm on vacation, it's 3 am, so this is hardly an accurate answer" Frank
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: nancy@hayduke (Nancy Feagans)
Subject: Re: divorce, bankruptcy,
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Distribution: misc
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:15:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.1297.22217@execnet> "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com> writes:
>
>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

Thank you, Hilary, for your astute observation.

-- 

Nancy J. Feagans     (818) 306-6423
Jet Propulsion Lab   nancy@jpl-devvax.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
"Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious."
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Not being allowed to vote.
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:03:11 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

> 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 becaus
> 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.


What recourse should he have?  Declare the election invalid? (-:
He could write to his congressperson, but a better approach would
be writing to the election office, explaining the problem. This
way, his registration can be confirmed so that he doesn't have the
same problem next time.

Your friend could have gone down to the elections office and gotten a
new absentee ballot if he really wanted to vote. Sometimes, resolution
requires both sides to take some action. 

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton