HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Title Insurance
Summary: 'Tis a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury.
Keywords: Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:35:42 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

What risks does title insurance cover?

Hypothetical #1:  Duncan buys Blackacre and lives there.  MacBeth
murders Duncan and lives, undetected, at Blackacre.  MacBeth does
not record what he has done in the land records.  Later, MacBeth 
impersonates Duncan and sells Blackacre to MacDuff, a bona fide
purchaser for value and without notice that MacBeth is not the
rightful owner.  At the time of the purchase, MacDuff buys title
insurance from Chicago Title Company, whose title search has failed
to turn up MacBeth's theft of the property.  Two years later, Duncan's
sons Malcolm and Donalbain find out about the murder and return
to claim Blackacre.  MacBeth, as a thief, had no valid title to
convey even to a bona fide purchaser, so MacDuff has to give 
Blackacre to Malcolm and Donalbain.  Question:  Does Chicago
Title have to pay MacDuff the amount of his policy?

Hypothetical #2:  The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers buy Blackacre
with proceeds from their illegal drug business.  They use the
property as a base for this business.  They earn so much that
they decide to move to a bigger house in a better neighborhood,
so they sell Blackacre to Ruth Schwartz, who has no idea what
business the Freak Brothers have been engaged in.  Mrs. Schwartz
buys title insurance from Chicago Title Company, whose title
searchers somehow fail to discover the Freak Brothers' business.
Two years later, the Freak Brothers are busted, and the Feds find 
out about their previous operations and seize Blackacre under the
forfeiture provisions of the anti-drug laws.  Actually, Blackacre 
was forfeit to the Government as soon as the Fabulous Furry Freak 
Brothers bought it with drug proceeds, and if not then, it was 
surely forfeit as soon as they began dealing in drugs there.  
So they had no title to convey, even to a bona fide purchaser
like Mrs. Schwartz.  But Chicago Title did not discover this.
Question:  Does Chicago Title have to pay Ruth Schwartz the 
amount of her policy?

Is title insurance a gamble by the insurance company, based on
the assumption that their title searchers will be able, most 
of the time, to find any defects in the purchaser's title that
might subject the company to liability under its policy?  What
happens in a case where the defect is something, like the
"relation back" of a forfeiture, that the title searchers
could not possibly have found in their search?  If title 
companies are liable in cases like this, and the number 
of seizures from bona fide purchasers becomes significant, 
are the companies going to have to cover their increased 
losses by raising the premiums they charge their customers?

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Filibuster
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:57:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: afit.1992Nov9.175727.15303
Distribution: na
Organization: Self-similar


One question:  What are the current rules regarding filibusters in the
Senate?  The old rules (as I understand them) were that (1) to invoke
cloture required a 2/3 majority of the senate and (2) the speeches
during a filibuster were not restricted (that is, they could be about 
anything -- not just about the topic under consideration).  Are these
still current or have they been changed?

Thanks.

-- 

Will Bralick					wbralick@afit.af.mil

Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: 4 Q's: Deadly Self-Defense Against Rape
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:05:55 GMT
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma

In article <1992Nov10.193943.4958@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>Four questions which arose in a more-or-less unrelated topic elsewhere
>on the Net:
>
>	1) Is it generally true that deadly self-defense is allowable
>	   against rape, even if the (rape) victim's life doesn't appear to be 
>	   in any immediate danger? I've seen some extracts from the Model 
>	   Penal Code (see Section 2.04. Use of Force in Self-Protection. (2) 
>	   (b)) that seems to suggest that it _is_ generally allowable, but 
>	   the Black's definition of "self-defense" ("..., but it is never 
>	   reasonable to use deadly force against his nondeadly attack"), 
>	   along with some other sources, seems to suggest the opposite.

In this day of aids, all rape should be considered a deadly assault.

>
>	2) If not _generally_ true, in what states is it allowable?
>
>	3) If allowable in one or more states, how recently were these 
>	   exceptions made?
>
>	4) If allowable in one or more states, is it known how much 
>	   _deterrence_ of rape played a part in the respective legislative 
>	   intents and/or the establishing precedents?
>
>Any and all answers to any and all questions (even if only partial answers)
>would be greatly appreciated.
>
>							Thank you,
>
>							 - Kevin
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
From: andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson)
Subject: jurisdiction argument
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:03:43 GMT

I'm unsure if this has been discussed on the net before (if it is, and anyone
saved the threads, _PPPLEASE__ mail them to me), but my roommate has been
talking to me about an interesting defense in criminal (and civil?) lawsuits.

Essentially, what it boils down to, is that for most Americans, it cannot
be proved that the Constitution has jurisdiction over them.  One can, thus,
challenge the judge/prosecutor to produce evidence to produce evidence that
the Constitution has jurisdiction over him, and -- supposedly, EVERY TIME
this defense has been applied, the court backed down and dropped all charges.

This is from my very limited understanding of the whole thing, but my
roommate his literally stacks of documentation to support it.  (Some of which
I will post, if people see a demand for it.)

(if possible, please send replies in mail as well as posting them, as I very
rarely have time to read the net anymore..)

-marc anderson
andersom@spot.colorado.edu


Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Bob Sherman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: have phone number, need address
Date: 5 Nov 1992 03:24:00 -0500
Organization: Not much!
NNTP-Posting-Host: mthvax.cs.miami.edu

In <921104.120059.amiller@almaden.ibm.com> amiller@almaden.ibm.com (Alex Miller) writes:

>I want to take someone to small claims court but I don't know
>their address and they refuse my phone calls.  Small claims
>says I must have a name and address - are there other options?

You might want to contact Computer Assisted Research On Line at
800-329-6397. If the number is a listed one, they can get the
rest of the information for you, and their fee is reasonable.

-- 
   bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu | bsherman@nyx.cs.du.edu  | MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN 
   an764@cleveland.freenet.edu  |                         | 
Xref: sparky misc.legal:19918 rec.autos.driving:6619
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: ***Police intimidation ???
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:45:29 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Nov11.024246.20735@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, 
hasch@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Veljko Roskar) writes:

>  
> Right there my wife and I thought this was ridiculous and
> expected a ticket for gridlock or something like that but
> he came back and gave us a ticket for $260 (!), for
> "Disobeying a lawful and direct order of a police
> officer." (!!).
 . . .
> I'll have a chance to ask the cop questions if I plead
> not guilty. AGAIN, I REALLY DO NOT FEEL GUILTY IN THIS
> MATTER. Here are questions I have so far:
>  
> 1) Why where you shouting and initmidating other drivers
> and  my family when no emergency was apparent?
>  
> 2) Why didn't you let me make the left turn at this
> intersection, since there was no backed up traffic in the
> street I wanted to turn into?

I don't want to squash your hopes, but you probably won't be able to ask 
these questions.  The issue on trial will be whether you're liable for the 
charge "Disobeying a lawful and direct order of a police officer."

Your questions will presumably be limited those that relate to the issues:

  - was there a direct order;
  - was the order lawful; 
  - did you disobey.

The purpose of the trial is to find out your culpability, not the propriety 
of the cop's actions, reprehensible as they may be.  You're on trial, not the 
cop.

Unless you can tie the questions you want to ask to the issues being tried, 
the judge's job is not to allow them.  On an outside shot, you might be able 
to tie the lack of an emergency (your question #1) and the lack of backed up 
traffic (your question #2) to whether the order was "lawful", but you'd 
better be prepared to do so, because otherwise, you'll get cut off.

I'm kind of interested in what others might have to say on this, so I'm 
keeping misc.legal in the newsgroups line.

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,soc.rights.human,alt.activism,soc.culture.african.american
From: ndallen@r-node.gts.org (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Two Deputy U.S. Marshals Indicted for Civil Rights Abuses
Organization: R-node Public Access UNIX System (416-249-5366) 24hrs.
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1992 00:07:54 GMT

Here is a press release from the U.S. Department of Justice.

 Two Deputy U.S. Marshals Indicted for Civil Rights Abuses
 To: National Desk, Legal Writers
 Contact: Amy Casner of the U.S. Department of Justice,
          202-514-2007

   WASHINGTON, Nov. 5  -- The U.S. Department of Justice
announced today that a federal grand jury in Oklahoma City, Okla.,
returned a seven-count indictment against two deputy U.S. marshals
charged with violating the civil rights of Jude Hardesty, a federal
inmate, by allegedly assaulting Hardesty as he was being
transported on a U.S. Marshals Service plane.
   At the same time, three individuals pleaded guilty in federal
court to civil rights charges in connection with their roles in the
assault.
   The indictment charged Anton Anderson with one violation of
18 USC, Sec. 371, conspiracy to commit an offense, and 18 USC, Sec.
100, making false statements, and three counts of 18 USC, Sec.
1512, obstruction of justice.  E. Wayne Waldron, a supervisory
deputy U.S. Marshal also on the plane, was indicted for willfully
permitting the assault to occur.
   The indictment, announced by John R. Dunne, Assistant Attorney
General in charge of the Civil Rights Division, alleged that on
May 25, 1990, Anderson and other persons assaulted Hardesty
by kicking and striking him while he was restrained with leg
restraints, waist chains and handcuffs and in the defendants'
custody.  The indictment said Hardesty suffered bodily injury
as a result of the assault.
   The indictment also said that Anderson and other persons agreed
to conceal the assault by lying to federal investigators, including
officials of the U.S. Marshals Service and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.  In addition, the indictment alleged that Anderson
obstructed justice in several other instances by persuading and
intimidating other individuals in order to prevent information of
possible federal crimes from being communicated to federal
officials.
   Dunne said Larry G. Casey, Thomas Reed Hanna and Charles L. West
pleaded guilty today to violations of 18 USC, Sec. 242, deprivation
of rights under color of law.  Casey and Hanna pleaded guilty to
felony violations and west pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor
violation.  At the time of Hardesty's assault, Casey and Hanna were
special Deputy U.S. Marshals and West was a legal technician with
the federal Bureau of Prisons.  They are awaiting sentencing.
   Casey and Hanna could be sentenced to 10 years imprisonment
and/or fined $250,000.  West could be sentenced to one year
imprisonment and/or fined $100,000.
   This case is a result of an extensive investigation by the
Department's Civil Rights Division, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Investigations Division of the U.S. Marshals
Service.
 -30-
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: 4 Q's: Deadly Self-Defense Against Rape
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 15:12:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.220009.19754@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.210555.17644@chpc.org> rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov10.193943.4958@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>Four questions which arose in a more-or-less unrelated topic elsewhere
>>>on the Net:
>>>
>>>	1) Is it generally true that deadly self-defense is allowable
>>>	   against rape, even if the (rape) victim's life doesn't appear to be 
>>>	   in any immediate danger? I've seen some extracts from the Model 
>>>	   Penal Code (see Section 2.04. Use of Force in Self-Protection. (2) 
>>>	   (b)) that seems to suggest that it _is_ generally allowable, but 
>>>	   the Black's definition of "self-defense" ("..., but it is never 
>>>	   reasonable to use deadly force against his nondeadly attack"), 
>>>	   along with some other sources, seems to suggest the opposite.
>
>Answer: it varies from state to state.
>
>>In this day of aids, all rape should be considered a deadly assault.
>
>Only if you assume all rapists are HIV positive.  At any rate, there
>are separate laws for intentional transmission of a deadly virus.
>-- 
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 

A couple of pragmatic thoughts:  In this day and age it is certainly
proper to assume all rapists are HIV positive or at the very minimum,
that any particular individual rapist has a probability of being HIV 
positive.  

Anyone that is being raped must by default be in fear of her safety
and her life.  That alone justifies (in my view) any means
possible to escape or avoid being raped, up to and including killing
the attacker.  It should not be the burden of the victim to make a
determination as to "am I only going to be hurt 
if I resist the rapist or is this rapist
going to possibly kill me?"  Pray tell how anyone can be
expected to make such a judgement call at the time of the
rape attempt?

Lastly, what is the probability that a rape victim who killed
her assailant would ever be charged under some criminal law?
I sure don't believe there's a District Attorney likely to
push for such a charge NOR is it likely that a jury would ever bring
in a guilty verdict against the victim.

Rape is ASSAULT and it absolutely implies the prospect of harming
the victim.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Dead Candidates
Date: 14 Nov 92 02:04:31 GMT
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs

In article <1992Nov9.122950.44551@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> bryan@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>Since we're on the subject of dead candidates...
>What would happen if some fanatic blew up both Bill Clinton and Al
>Gore? Would the College then have to pick a candidate out of thin air?

I believe that if this happens before the electors meet, the Demo Party can
choose an new slate of canidates.  As electors are alos chosen by the
party I assume that they would still be committed to vote for what ever
slate of people the Party chose.  Oh, the electors meet Dec 10.

If it happens after the electors meet, I believe the usual succession rules
hold so the Speaker of the House would become pres, followed by
the pres pro tem of the Senate.  Note these would be the current Speaker and
pres pro tem, not those that may be chosen by the new congress.

Now suppose that Clinton, Gore, the Speaker and the PPT are all killed
on Christmas day.  In that case we have a major Constuitional Crises, because
on inaguration day the old cabnet is disolved and the new cabnet is not 
officially in office, so that is no one left in the succession, OOPS.

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mspayer@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Mike Payer)
Subject: Re: Supreme Ct. Insurance non-ruling
Reply-To: mspayer@PacBell.COM (Mike Payer)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 04:38:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.214019.29062@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> ddaye@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David C Daye) writes:
>Yesterday the Supreme Ct. refused to hear a case in which an employer had
>changed health insurance plans after an employee had begun submitting
>claims for treatment of AIDS.  The effect on the employee, as I under-
>stand it, was to reduce his coverage from $1,000,000 to $5,000 for his
>disease (lifetime max).
>
>My wife, a former insurance claims adjuster, contends that since the former
>insurance co. had been paid for coverage, and since a claim had been filed
>under that policy, the former co. should have been liable for treating
>the disease. 
>
>She's convinced that the courts have effectively allowed insurance co.s
>to renig on services they've promised and contracted to provide,
>any time they deem it costly to do so.  If so, this has implications
>far beyond the AIDS population.
>
>Does anyone wish to comment on what we're missing in all this? 
>
>
>David Daye

What I am being told is that the court ruled that company's that are
*self* insured can change their coverage any time they want. This does not
apply to company's that are paying the premiums to insurance company's
like blue cross, etc.

So if someone knows let us know.

	MSP - mspayer.pacbell.com
	
				......SOMETIMES THE DRAGON WINS
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Help Request - Hypnotic Refreshment of Testimony
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:30:13 GMT


In article <1992Oct28.135123.1@vaxa.strath.ac.uk>, 
cigs13@vaxa.strath.ac.uk said:

> I've just gotten a call from BBC Radio Scotland looking for
> information on the use of hypnotic regression (which I'm told is
> better called hypnotically refreshed testimony) in a legal context.

This isn't precisely on point, as it deals with the hypnosis of
witnesses by the police during the investigation of a crime rather
than any hypnosis of witnesses during the trial, but...  If you've got
access to the Massachusetts Reporter (the collection of decisions
written by the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court) you might want to look up
_Commonwealth v. Kater_ (no, I don't have the citations at hand,
sorry).  Right now, defendant Kater is undergoing his third trial for
the kidnapping and murder of a fifteen-year-old girl named Mary Lou
arruda, his first two convictions having been thrown out by the SJC
due to that court's skepticism about the use of hypnotism to enhance
witness' recollections.  From the Boston Globe, 28 October 1992:

      Kater, 46, has been convicted twice of murdering and kidnapping
   Arruda and sentenced to life in prison without parole...  Each
   time, however, the state Supreme Judicial Court has overturned the
   conviction because the judge permitted evidence that had been
   obtained from witnesses after they had been hypnotized.  Two of
   these witnesses identified Kater as the man they saw driving along
   the street where Arruda was last seen just before she disappeared.

     Judge Peter M. Lauriat, who is presiding at this trial, ruled in
   January that in the case of these witnesses only prehypnosis
   recollections written down by investigators at the time they were
   made could be admitted.

Kater's primary (only?) defense in all three trials has rested on
questions of identity and alibi -- he claims that he didn't do it and
that he was working all that day in a doughnut shop in a different
town.  Accordingly, the prosecution's case has always depended heavily
on the veracity of the witness' reports of seeing Kater on that street
on that day... if it turns out that these witnesses had remembered (or
had _thought_ they remembered, as the case may be) enough details to
identify Kater only after they were hypnotized, the state's case may
very well sink without a trace.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Harvard (Was: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:19:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.031203.22492@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:

>BTW, what's FOAF?

Friend of a friend. It's a term from the study of urban myths.

Speaking of urban myths, I thought it was well-settled that the University
of Texas School of Law surpassed both Chicago and HLS as the law school
of choice for cool people.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I can solve this Orient Express thing without
mnemonic@eff.org| breaking a sweat. It's that simple."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Hercule Perot
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard)
Subject: Re: Translation?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:33:42 GMT

In article <Bx7qvr.Ctz@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com writes:

>
>This paragraph is part of a promise to repay a loan:
>
>    The makers, endorsers, and guarantors of this note hereby
>    severally waive presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment,
>    protest and notice of protest.  I sign this note intending
>    hereby to charge my separate estate with its payment.
>
>I'm a native speaker of English, and I know what all these words mean
>individually, but when I string them together I get the impression that
>it's saying "I don't have to pay you back even though I signed this
>note".
>
>Am I out a couple weeks' pay or what?
>

My reading of the clause which you post in that you do indeed promise to pay, 
even in the absence of notice and the like.  Moreover, you pledge to use your 
entire estate to pay if necessary.
Newsgroups: misc.legal