HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Soldier of Fortune negligence upheld (was: False allegations ...)
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:50:41 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Dec20.190851.9672@panix.com>, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) 
writes:
> As I understand it, SoF faced more than one such suit.  According to
> an article I read a month or two ago (in NY Law Journal?  Natl Law
> Journal?), they recently lost their appeal in a case where they *were*
> found liable.
> 
> ["Cite?  Cite?  I don' have to show you no steenkin' cite!"  There was
> a time when Mead Data would have allowed me find the answer for free;
> nowadays, it's folks like Terry, Ted, William D., and Tim who will
> have to run the dispositive Lexis search.]

Heh, heh.  Braun v. Soldier of Fortune, 968 F.2d 1110, 20 Media L. Rep. 1777 
(11th Cir., 8/13/92), affirming a jury verdict of $4,375,000, where the jury 
found that Soldier of Fortune acted with negligence and and malice in 
publishing a personal service advertisement through which plaintiffs' 
father's business partner hired an assassin to kill him, in the face of, 
inter alia, Soldier of Fortune's 1st Amendment defense.

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: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Bankruptcy and divorce in California
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:13:25 GMT

renglish@cello.hpl.hp.com (Bob English) writes:

>Suppose a couple were deeply and debt with a failing marriage, and after
>separation and filing for divorce, one of the members of the couple
>files for bankruptcy.  Is the other member liable for the entire debt?

>--bob--
>To the best of my knowledge, H & P are neither getting divorces nor
>declaring bankruptcy, so I can't see how they might care...

Yes.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Re: Know the source of Liberty's quote, "tired,huddled masses"?
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:08:34 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec30.063443.8603@netcom.com> lion@netcom.com (carl loeber) writes:
>i
>
>Anyone know where that phrase derived on the Statue of Liberty?
>

"The New Colossus", by Emma Lazarus is a sonnet (14-line poem)
that can be found in many anthologies of American poetry.  It was
written specifically for the Statue.  The last 6 lines are quoted
more often than the whole sonnet, and are:

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp", cries she
With silent lips.  "Send me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776
Xref: sparky misc.legal:21638 alt.abortion.inequity:6109 misc.test:14506 talk.abortion:52643
From: ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,misc.test,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Embryos as Property?
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:53:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.UfBdwsu00iV4A4gHF1
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 21-Dec-92 Re: Embryos as Property?
by Peter Nyikos@math.scarol 
> Funny you should talk this way, Woodyatt.  When I took Loomis to
> task for calling a group of women "chicks," you chimed in with the
> solemn pronouncement that his words are evidence of "institutional
> sexism".  I then asked indirectly whether you regarded Mr. Loomis
> to be an institution.  According to the above paragraph, it would
> appear (correct me if I am wrong) that you do not.  So, now I have
> some questions for you.

A sensative reader of the post in which I used the word, "chick" may
have noticed a slight satiric content to my use of the word.

> 1. Was Mr. Loomis guilty of sexism (however mild) in his word usage?

Would Mr. Nyikos have my atone for my sin by saying the rosary with that
traditional prayer:  Hail, Mary, chick of grace?

> 2. If not, would you say he is a victim of institutional brainwashing
> as to what are the acceptable ways of referring to women?  (BTW later
> on he said "chick" = "hot babe", another term which I consider to be
> evidence of sexism on the part of the person using it.)

Let me ignore Mr. Nyikos' rambling in point 2, and mention that in a
recent  post on the local bboards of CMU, I referred to my
african-american interlocuter as a "negro" and no one took offense.  The
african-american thought it was amusing.  I wonder why Mr. Nyikos is
unable to let satire be what satire is.  Obviously, he didn't do quite
as well on the verbal part of his GRE.

> 3. Or is it the case that Mr. Loomis is so Politically Correct that
> he can use any word about women that he pleases without any taint
> of sexism clinging to him?

As the High Priest of Jeffersonian Thought and Only True Interpretator
of the Constitution, I am that which is Politically Correct and Without
Sin.  Merely Touch the Screen and you will feel the healing power of my
thought cure you and any Republican thought.  You will never vote
Republican again, unless perhaps it is for Bill Weld.

Good bye for two weeks.  Perhaps, I will notice some other taboo to
molest over the break.

Michaeloomis
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Soldier of Fortune negligence upheld (was: False allegations ...)
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:58:58 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <bdQp02gt2ftt01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

>Heh, heh.  Braun v. Soldier of Fortune, 968 F.2d 1110, 20 Media L. Rep. 1777 
>(11th Cir., 8/13/92), affirming a jury verdict of $4,375,000, where the jury 
>found that Soldier of Fortune acted with negligence and and malice in 
>publishing a personal service advertisement through which plaintiffs' 
>father's business partner hired an assassin to kill him, in the face of, 
>inter alia, Soldier of Fortune's 1st Amendment defense.

It should be noted that the "malice" referred to in this summary is a term
of art. It does not mean mean "malicious intent"--instead, it means
something like "recklessness."


--Mike






-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: dealing with a police officer
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:01:47 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <JANECZKO.92Dec30103643@csd630a.erim.org> janeczko@csd630a.erim.org (Mike Janeczko) writes:
>The latest trend in the Detroit area is thugs who dress up as cops and 
>rob people.  My question is thus, what is a good way to question a cop
>as to his authenticity? 

Er, how do we know that these weren't real cops?

Paul
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: richard@aisg.com (Richard)
Subject: Collecting on Judgement
Keywords: judgement collecting court
Reply-To: richard@aisg.com (Richard)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 21:10:01 GMT

Hello,

	I got into an accident earlier this year and the it is the other
party's fault.  The other party does not have any insurance on the car
and refuse to pay a dime for the damage.  We went to court and the judge
rewarded me the cost to fix the car.  However, the other party still
refused to pay for the damage even after I filed for final judgement.
My queation is how can I collect on this judgement and if there is good
attorney or investigator out there can help me out with the problem.

My mailing address is:

	Richard Ching
	3452 Lake Lynda Dr #245
	Orlando, FL 32817

email address is richard@aisg.com

any help will be greatly appreciated.

Richard Ching
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: The Forces of Darkness and Ee-vil
Keywords: Mazda v. Harriman
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:19:12 GMT

In article <19495@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>the forces of Darkness (e.g., War, Feminism, Pestilence and Death).  

I hear Somalia's suffering from an outbreak of the Horsewoman of Feminism.

Ted "how did 'Ivy' get classified with the Forces of Light?" 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: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1993Jan3.060044.7047@mtu.edu> <1i77gjINNcp2@shelley.u.washington.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 18:56:34 GMT

In article <1i77gjINNcp2@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

   >because it is not a good idea to send cash through the mail. I would, however,
   >expect any company (credit card/gas/phone/etc.) to take cash If I paid at
   >their office in person.

   What if almost all customers of the company do not use cash?  As an extreme
   example, would you really expect to be able to walk into Boeing and pay
   cash for a 767?  So few of their customers pay cash (none, probably), that
   they probably do not have a procedure set up to deal with a large amount
   of cash.

Most likely it's that they don't want their drivers carrying cash.  Who's
going to rob a truck full of worthless credit card slips and checks made
out to Federal Express?


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: SPS
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:16:07 GMT

nIn article <1992Dec31.160750.19838@panix.com>, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
|> In <1992Dec31.002807.11313@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com sez:
|> >
|> >But there were witnesses whose recollection and testimony changed because 
|> >of North's forced testimony.  Specifically, McFarland's story changed after
|> >hearing North
|> 
|> So what?  McFarlane's alleged reliance on that testimony does *not*
|> impugn the verdict at all.
|
So what? So the evidence used in the original trial is highly questionable.
At what time was McFarland telling the truth?  When he testified to Congress
before North or after North?  The testimonies were inconsistent.  I presume that
every witness in the trial watched the nationally broadcast Congressional inquiry
and every witness had their recollection of events altered.  And every witness
could alter their version of events to account for North's version.

I'm reminded of the Willie Smith trial.  The accusor gave many depositions over
an extended period of time.  The defense was able to study these depositions
for months and to use them to rebut her testimony.  Willie Smith and his lawyers 
created a version of events that he testified to without having any depositions
available as rebuttal.  This version of events was the version the lawyers decided
would have the best effect on the jury.

To repeat: every witness could alter their version of events to account for
what they knew would be North's version.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: der@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Dave Ritchie)
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 15:31:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard NARC Atlanta

In <1992Dec31.081423.11613@netcom.com> linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:

>So I ask again why do they refuse to accept cash as payment? 

  Well, FedEx does not accept cash because if they did, it would cause an
increase in robberies of and possible petty theft by their drivers. 
Checks, on the other hand, are hard for both robbers and drivers to 
convert to cash.

-- Dave Ritchie
der@hpuerca.atl.hp.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism
From: kckbxr@next15pg2.wam.umd.edu (Robin Hood)
Subject: Re: Tracking down debtors 
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:16:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.192316.15874@nosc.mil> psm@nosc.mil (Scot Mcintosh)  
writes:
> I've gotten a judgement against some individuals and need
> to collect. Only two little things stand in my way:
> finding them and finding out what their assets are. I
> know there are companies out there who sell credit records
> and other financial information. Someone mentioned
> a company or computer program (he couldn't remember
> which it was) called Professional Credit Checker,
> but didn't know where they're located. I'd appreciate
> a pointer to this or any other company in that business.
> General advice or even war stories on the subject of
> judgement collection would also be of interest (I've
> got the Nolo Press book).

If a company is selling my financial information, I'd sure like to know  
the name of such a company so that I could sue the living hell out of them  
for invading my right to privacy.

bill
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: psm@nosc.mil (Scot Mcintosh)
Subject: Tracking down debtors 
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:23:16 GMT

I've gotten a judgement against some individuals and need
to collect. Only two little things stand in my way:
finding them and finding out what their assets are. I
know there are companies out there who sell credit records
and other financial information. Someone mentioned
a company or computer program (he couldn't remember
which it was) called Professional Credit Checker,
but didn't know where they're located. I'd appreciate
a pointer to this or any other company in that business.
General advice or even war stories on the subject of
judgement collection would also be of interest (I've
got the Nolo Press book).

-- 
----
Scot McIntosh
Internet: psm%helios.nosc.mil@nosc.mil
UUCP:     I have no idea
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Embryos as Property?
Date: 23 Dec 92 10:48:29 CST

In article <Bzpx2C.87v@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

>The first question is what is the important part of the content of the 
>fertilized ovum.  A fair analogy would be that of aa photograph; here the
>non-nuclear part of the protoplasm corresponds to the film or plate, and
>this is contributed solely by the mother.  The nuclear part is in small 
>part the mitochondrial DNA and some related material; this may be 
>compared to the emulsion.  While these are essential, it is generally
>recognized that the important part is the effect of the exposure to light,
>and this corresponds to the chromosomes, which are contributed in equal
>number, and roughly equal content, by the two parents, barring certain
>accidents which cannot be ascertained at this point.  The situation is
>unusual in this respect; their contributions to the genetic material are
>necessarily almost equal.
>
>Then there is the problem of carrying the child.  This corresponds, in
>the photographic analogy, to the developing and printing process.  Again,
>the photo shop is paid for this, but has no rights from this to the
>photograph.  

To whom do those rights usually go?  The owner of the camera?
Next analogy.

>             Nor does the photo shop have the right to destroy the
>photograph.  While a child is not a photograph, and the analogy is
>not perfect, it does point out the problems of joint rights of the
>biological parents, at least until these are relinquished.
>
muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: Diplomatic Immunity
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:06:40 GMT
Organization: The Devil's Advocate

In <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.


I recall a true incident a number of years ago.  The son of a (North?
South?) Korean diplomat in NYC was accused of rape.  Because of his
diplomatic immunity, his sole sanction was to be required to leave the
country and not come back.

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

Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: ddaye@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David C Daye)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Copyright of personal likeness?
Date: 27 Dec 92 15:35:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: magnus.1992Dec27.153503.20181
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Ohio State University

Hi!  I'm a performer who has recently discovered a terrific photo
of myself in a textbook that's been in circulation for the past 8 years.

I'm curious about a person's rights to his/her likeness.  Do ordinary
citizens have any, to the extent that permission to publish a photo
of them is ever required?  If so:

Does this change if the citizen is obviously performing in public?
Does it matter if the citizen earns income from performing?  Does
the situation change further for persons who are widely known as
public figures? 

Finally, are there distinctions for use of likenesses in different
situations, such as news, educational texts, or artwork?

E-mail is fine; public comment if you think dicussion would be 
interesting to others.

Thanks
David Daye.
-----------------
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Bankruptcy and divorce in California
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 17:23:19 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1993Jan1.201325.16331@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>renglish@cello.hpl.hp.com (Bob English) writes:
>
>>Suppose a couple were deeply and debt with a failing marriage, and after
>>separation and filing for divorce, one of the members of the couple
>>files for bankruptcy.  Is the other member liable for the entire debt?
>
>>--bob--
>>To the best of my knowledge, H & P are neither getting divorces nor
>>declaring bankruptcy, so I can't see how they might care...
>
>Yes.

This is state specific, and depends on when the debt was incurred.

If it was incurred during the marriage then the answer is usually "yes".

If it was incurred >before< the marriage then it would depend on whether the
state is a community property state.  If so, then "yes", as all property
(including negative property ;-) becomes joint at the time of marriage.

If not, then the debt incurred >before< the marriage would normally revert
to the person who incurred it.

Having this occur before the divorce is final muddies the water
substantially in non-community property states.  Consult an attorney.

I ain't one.

(PS: 	If you are about to marry someone who has a lot of debt, and you do
	not live in a community property state, DO NOT get added to those
	accounts as a signatory.  This, in some cases, can protect you from
	getting "stuck" with the debts of your SO if the marriage breaks up).

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Know the source of Liberty's quote, "tired,huddled masses"?
From: gregb@netlink.cts.com (Greg Beron)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 07:59:05 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

lion@netcom.com (carl loeber) writes:

> i
> 
> Anyone know where that phrase derived on the Statue of Liberty?
> 

It's part of a poem by Emma (?) Lazarus.  The full text of the poem is on 
the tablet Lady Liberty is holding in her left hand.
-Greg

--                    
INTERNET:  gregb@netlink.cts.com (Greg Beron)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!gregb
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 12:39:39 GMT

In <1992Dec30.100400.6809@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

>>So far, it is only Republican adminstrations that show a disdain
>>for the law and a contempt for the public.  If Clinton acts the same
>>way, I will work to get him out as soon as possible.

>Well if we're willing to close our eyes then "so far only Mike Polen has
>demonstrated a disdain for the law and a contempt for the public".

>Don't you at least recognize that you're making this "only Republican"
>stuff up ?  We all realize it... maybe you're only 12 - 16 years old
>and only remember the last few adminstrations.

>Perhaps you only think disdain exists at the Presidential level.

Well, only the president and his subordinates really make up 
"administrations."  By no stretch of the imagination is Marion Barry
part of any administration.

>Would you be happier if George Bush smoked crack like the last Mayor
>of D.C. ?  Oh that wasn't contempt for the law, the hooker he had in
>the motel made him do it.

Well, I *do* have contempt for that law.  Plus contempt for entrapment.

>Am I mistaken in recalling that the Kennedy administration admitted to
>planning an assassination attempt on Castro ?

Huh?  Relevance?  Congress hadn't forbidden this, unlike, say, sending
money to the contras or arms to Iran.

>I'm not asking you to kiss Bush's feet but raise your eyes and look
>out over the horizon.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Copyright of personal likeness?
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:59:58 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Dec27.153503.20181@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, 
ddaye@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David C Daye) writes:
> I'm curious about a person's rights to his/her likeness.  Do ordinary
> citizens have any, to the extent that permission to publish a photo
> of them is ever required? 

Generally copyright isn't a source of such protection.  There is a "right of 
puiblicity" that might be being violated, but I don't know the elements of 
that, so I'll refrain from attempting an answer in favor of someone who does.

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