HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 03:50:58 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In  <1964@sousa.ltn.dec.com>  pimentel@luner.enet.dec.com (John Pimentel) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Oct13.003325.24835@cfctech.cfc.com>, kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes...
>>>In article <Bvx7Bo.DzG@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Ok.  But the delivery of the raw material HAD to be accepted by the
>>>>receiver in order for child manufacture to take place.  The supplier is
>>>>legally forbidden to have a legal voice in manufacturing decisions.
>>>What the hell are you talking about? "Child manufacture"? "Raw materials"?
>>>We're talking about HUMAN REPRODUCTION, fer crissakes, not heavy industry!!
>>>
>>>You, sir, are a babbling idiot with nothing but a pro-life agenda and some
>>>cheap scare tactics. Please demanufacture yourself into raw materials, and
>>>leave us alone...
>>
>>Actually the discussion had taken this twist by a Pro-Choice individual
>>stating that the man's only "contribution" was the sperm or "99.9999% of
>>the raw material and 100% of the labor was provided by the woman".

>Nope, you're wrong.  That was stated by a "pro-lie" person who makes
>up extremely stupid arguments and then attributes them to pro-choicers.

>>if you wish to believe that the twist came from a Pro-Life that's alright,
>>as I've never seen a Pro-Choice keep the facts straight. (no smilie, just
>>the facts).

>You probably *should* have included a smilie, as it would have made
>you look like less of an idiot when it was pointed out that you
>couldn't keep the facts straight.

>--
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Hello Larry.  Here's a little proof that my summary of the pro-abort 
position is pretty darn accurate:

-------------------------Cut here----------------------------

From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:11:08 GMT
Subject: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: misc.legal

The National Center For Men is preparing to litigate the equivalent of Roe V. 
Wade for *men's reproductive rights*. Below are excerpts of a letter written by 
Joe Appelbaum, the litigation chairman for the National Center For Men.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><> Begin Excerpts <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Fighting For Fairness and Equal Rights
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Post Office Box 317
                                                       Brooklyn, New York 11240
                                                       Telephone (718) 845-2010

	We are attempting to overturn very sexist laws which deny men the
right to decline fatherhood in this age of "reproductive freedom" for women.

	A man's life, future and wallet are currently in the hands of his 
female partner if she gets pregnant and decides to have the child contrary
to his wishes. He is denied any say in the matter. He is not allowed to say, 
"I do not choose to be a father and I don't want to be held financially
responsible for this child." We are going to petition the federal courts to
permit a man, prior to fetal viability, to go into a family court and 
relinquish rights and responsibilities to the unborn child. We want a legal
"right to choose," too.

	Our attorney, Robert Smith, has agreed to take this case "pro bono,"
but we still have to cover his expenses. I, myself, have pledged $200 for
this case (I was a paternity suit victim). If you have been, too, there is
no need for me to emphasize the importance of this lawsuit. If you haven't
been (yet), try to imagine a deceptive and uncaring woman taking you to 
court to force you to support a child, when you were never given a choice.
The financial consequences alone could total over $100,000 for twenty-one
years or more.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><> End Excerpts <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

We can use this filing as an opportunity to raise America's consciousness 
about men's lack of reproductive rights. We would like to maximize media 
interest by simultaneously petitioning the federal courts in other districts 
nationwide. If you would like to join us, you can

	1.) Distribute this letter far and wide.

	2.) Help find an attorney in your area who will file papers in federal 
	    court.
--------------------------------------Cut Here--------------------------


-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18416 alt.folklore.urban:25290
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History (was: Presidential UL's)
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:55:59 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

>In article <1992Oct5.232154.26267@nezsdc.icl.co.nz>, derek@nezsdc.icl.co.nz 
>(Derek Tearne) writes:
>> In article <8f=S02DR24U801@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com 
>> (Terry Carroll) writes:
>> >In article <1992Sep29.164051.16126@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, 
>> >jlpicard@austin.ibm.com (Craig Becker) writes:
>> >> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>> >> ....
>> >> > > This does bring up an interesting question, though.  In case of
>> >> > > nuclear attack or something that wipes out a large number of high
>> >> > > officials, what is the line of succession? 
>> >> > 
>> >> > The order is:
> * * *
>> >
>> >1/19/1886, 24 Stat. 2 scraps the old list, and substitutes a new one: Vice-
>> >President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of 
>War[etc...]
>> 
>> You mean to tell me that in 1886 they already had contingency plans for a 
>> nuclear attack.  Now that's what I call planning ahead!
>
>No, just the "or something".  :-)
>
Wasn't the assassination of Lincoln part of a larger conspiracy to kill a
number of Northern government figures, including Scty. Seward?

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: Lawrence Schilling <lschilling@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Date: 06 Oct 92 09:15 PDT
Subject: Re: Project Hermes
Nf-ID: #R:1992Oct5.110042.6498@atlastele.c:2004541536:cdp:1427200015:000:584
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!lschilling    Oct  6 09:15:00 1992


Project Hermes is still active.  It can be accessed
without cost at Cleveland Freenet, modem 216-
368-3888.  Begin at the Courthouse and follow
menu prompts to the Supreme Court Opinions
Files.  Or "go hermes".  The Supreme Court's
complete order list issued yesterday was
online that morning as #830.  Hermes on
Cleveland Freenet is a wonderful resource that
may well be resented by commercial providers.
It should receive our enthusiastic support.
Heavy use will help demonstrate to the
Supreme Court that the Freenet is a valuable
outlet for its opinions that should be
continued.
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisance Common Law
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:25:37 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct13.180715.3391@telebit.com>, brunner@telebit.com (Eric 
Brunner) writes:
> Goodness, did I actually write that California appelate decisions are
> binding
> on Illinois? 

No, you did not say that specific point, you made an incorrect comment that 
is a superset of it, that a particular California state case had settled all 
of the US law in the matter, including Illinois.

On this particular point, I don't think that either of us is adding anything 
new here; unless I hear a new point from you on this, I'm going to drop this 
issue and refer you back to my prior posts.
> 
> >As you note, most states have A.N laws.  An entirely different question 
> >than 
> >the point I was dealing with, which was that a single case settled the law 
> >for the nation.  The Restatement, like a case from a foreign state, only > 
>has 
> >an advisory status.
> 
> This seems to be a pretty important point. Silly tort law teachers, refering
> to the turntable cases as common law and the progressive adoption of the
> exception to the general liability rule in trespass.

Perhaps an important point in many or most contexts, but completely 
irrelevant to the point I was addressing, and readdressed in the comment 
above, to wit, that no state's case settled the law for all others.

> >I have to plead ignorance in that area;  I haven't seen treaty used as a 
> >source of law for issues involving purely domestic parties.
> 
> You think I'm going to touch this one? How do I know what constitutes
> "purely domestic parties" in the arbitrary readers mind? Divorce is
> usually thought of as domestic, but one could argue that it fails the
> arbitrary test because the issue is the extension of the venue of the
> state entity (family court), to bind across jurisdictional lines. No
> way San Jose. I got my daughter back into California using Hague language
> in my Cal order, if that isn't the real issue, I don't want to know.

You've misread what I've written again.  Let me restate it for you:

 1 - I'm not familiar enough with that area to discuss it, 
 2 - I am not aware of any cases applying treaties in purely domestic cases.

I'm not saying they can't be; I haven't studied that area, and plead 
ignorance.  Because I'm insufficiently educated in this area, I'm not going 
to assert an opinion in it.

Wish some other folks would similarly restrain themselves.


Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:12:14 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <Oct.14.14.40.55.1992.16913@math.rutgers.edu>, 
cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
> But what if one of them wasn't born a 'merkin?

Then he gets skipped.  The list only applies to such officers as
are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution 
(3 USC 19 (e)).

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: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's freedom of speech
Keywords: Those croppies who will not lie down
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:17:10 GMT

Dunno about what the net.libertarians will say about Sinead -- and
couldn't care less -- but I'm with you!  When I read about her
presentation and the live audience response, I cracked up.  That Sinead
is a pistol; didn't she refuse to stand up for the US national anthem at
some sports event? and it seems to me she refused to do a previous SNL
because of the other guest (Andrew Dice Clay).  The great thing about
her is that she *truly* refuses to make the usual pop star compromises
on her integrity.

Plus she even makes skinhead sexy.

Jeff Frane

-- 
gummitch@techbook.COM  Public Access UNIX at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400)
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Carjacking as a federal offense
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:02:50 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <ffda02id25Q.01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
> Yes; even if a motor vehicle is manufactured in Michigan and purchased in 
> Michigan, it will be deemed to have been transported, shipped and received in 
> interstate commerce, because the car business is an interstate business.  
> While the individual article wasn't received in an interstate transaction, 
> the transaction was part of commerce that is interstate in nature.
> 
> In passing, let me note that I'm not defending this application of the 
> Commerce Clause, just noting that that's how it's done.
> 
> Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152

Yes, rather like the ABA's conclusion, reached some years back, that
the federal government has the authority to regulate or even ban
handgun ownership, even on a handgun that never crosses a state line,
because the metals contained within the gun almost certainly have
crossed a state line as either raw steel, or iron ore.  (They missed
the near certainty that the iron ore crossed a state line at some
point in the last few eons because of plate tectonics).

These are the sorts that could (if their politics were phalangist
instead of liberal) conclude that the federal government has the
authority to regulate private consenting adult sexual conduct 
because the participants, the condom, or underwear, at some point 
crossed a state line.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: precedents for "gener
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:58:41 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Roger B. Dubbs Iii, in a message to All on 10-05-92 at 11:50am, said:

RB>|Are there any precedents for the interpretation of Article I,
   |section 8, clause 1 of the US Constitution:
   |     "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties,
   |   imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common
   |   defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties,
   |   imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
   |which grant Congress the right to pass laws to 'provide for the general
   |welfare of the United States' in the general sense?
   |_______________________________________________________________________

          You're looking at the clause.  Virtually all domestic regula-
          tion is effected pursuant to the exercise of the Commerce
          Clause (3).  If you look at any federal spending or regulato-
          ry legislation, there will invariably be a finding or decla-
          ration to the effect that the subject matter affects inter-
          state commerce.  Then, of course, there's always the "Neces-
          sary and Proper" Clause (18).


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  There once was a [ ] from [ ] whose [ ] was
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18790 alt.folklore.urban:25914
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History (was: Presidential UL's)
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:28:10 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct15.061640.20725@news.columbia.edu>, 
lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
> I think the new
> President became a female assistant Governor of a state who evaded the
> bombing.

Or vice versa.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fightin' Words
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:39:42 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

Richard, we're crossing two concepts here, which, while at first they appear 
similar, are actually completely seperate.

Your comments, I think, are with reference to whether words may rise to a 
level of provocation to permit another to attack him (e.g., whether nasty 
words may serve as a defense when another attacks or kills upon hearing the 
words).

Mine are with reference to whether words may rise to a level where their very 
utterance is a legal injury, and so may be regulated based on their content 
(e.g., whether nasty words may serve as a component of the offense itself).

I know very little about the issue you're interested in.  As far as mine is 
concerned, that was the basis for the 1942 SCOTUS Chaplinsky decision, which 
decision is in wide disrepute since it was issued.  Chaplinsky has never been 
used by the SCOTUS to uphold a convistion based upon speech, but has been and 
continues to be used by state and lower federal courts to do so (which was my 
point in citing to the Ohio _Semple_ case).

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: "herman diller" <herman.diller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: taped conversations
Date: 7 Oct 92 04:41:53 EST
Reply-To: "herman diller" <herman.diller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information

Subj: TAPED CONVERSATIONS                     Enter message under this line

I realize that a conversation between two persons can be taped if one
person knows the conversation is being taped.  That is not my question,
before anyone tells me that it is legal.  My question is can a conversation
be taped by a person trained in the art of interrogation (i.e. police oficer)
and the questions are guiding the answers to a desired outcome?  I know that
at the very least it is unethical and immoral, but it seems to me that a
conversation which is taped for a desired outcome, and only that conversation
and not the rest of the chatter of the day, to be used not for recollection but
to entrap another person can not be legal, and if it is legal, can someone
direct me to a firm which will take a try at stopping this type of outrage.
Please, I have been in contact with the ACLU and they tell me that it is legal.
I guess I don't fall into the criteria for their defending my rights, so don't
recommend that organization to me.  Thanks for any help

Herman Diller
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.12 #393s  Brentwood BBS!  Harrison, New York  (914) 835-7898
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mwhhlaw!tim (Timothy E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: Joint Acct vs single account with beneficiary
Reply-To: uunet!mwhhlaw!tim
Organization: Martin Wade Hartley & Hollingsworth
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:54:21 GMT

In article <25979@oasys.dt.navy.mil> tobias@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Tobias)  
writes:
> 
>     Questions re a joint bank account in the name of a parent and his/her
> child vs. an account in a parent's name with the child as beneficiary
> (i.e. payable on death):
> 
> - Assuming parent is source of money, does setting up joint account with
> child make money subject to gift tax if it's >$10,000?
> 
> -Is going through probate (i.e. getting ripped off by probate attorney)
> avoided in either type of account upon death of parent?
> 
> -re my "ripped off" comment above, maybe I'm wrong, though I doubt it.
> What is typical legal fee: flat charge, percentage of $ involved...??
> For example, for a bank account in parent's name only, $XX, no beneficiary
> named (except in will), what percentage of XX would probate attorney get?
> 
> -Is a federal tax involved only if total inheritance is over $600,000?
> 
>     Thanks in advance for your help.
> 					 Steve

Why is it that Steve feels he can accuse me of being a "rip off artist" and  
then ask for free advice?

--
Tim Hollingsworth
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,misc.headlines
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's freedom of speech
Followup-To: alt.test,alt.rock-n-roll,rec.music.misc
Keywords: Those croppies who will not lie down
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 12:55:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.211710.6230@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:
>The great thing about
>her is that she *truly* refuses to make the usual pop star compromises
>on her integrity.
>

this probably belongs in a music newsgroup, but how can you say S. O'Conner
has any kind of integrity after "Nothing Compares to You"? That song was
not only terrible, it was a blatant sell out. I dunno, maybe its because
I care more about music than politics that i dont associate S O'C with
'integrity', or at least not ARTISTIC integrity.

not to mention the fact that she used Bob Marley's "War" as a vehicle to
spread hostility, which is certainly not the intended purpose of the song.

r
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Men & elves
Summary: Now, *that's* evil.
Keywords: Act xxi of 1850 [the 'Lex Loci Act']
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:36:41 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <12609@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <3864@unisql.UUCP>, wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:

># 	My definition of evil is an act that causes unwanted harm and/or pain 
># to another for the sake of profit, pleasure, or amusement.  By my 
># [wharfie]

>That qualifies as my definition as well.  [Clayton Cramer]

># definition Ted Bundy was an evil man, but two guys giving each other 
># oral sex aren't.  [wharfie]

>You know someone that does define it as evil?  I don't.  I know people
>that define it as sin, I know people that define it as being repulsive.
>[Clayton Cramer]

Abomination?

>(I define it as both, but that's not a good reason to pass laws 
>against it).  [Clayton Cramer]

How 'bout "failure to pay taxes"?  That's not "evil," nor even 
"repulsive," although those Bibles that have the "Render unto Caesar" 
verse in them may well call non-payment of taxes "sin."  Something
does not have to be "evil" for us to pass laws against it.

>But "evil"?  Sorry, I know no one who thinks that.  [Clayton Cramer]

Now, cutting a living seven-month fetus up into pieces (i.e., "causing
unwanted harm and/or pain to another") for the sake of his mother's
"emotional health" (i.e., "pleasure") or her "economic and social 
equality" (i.e., "profit") or to prove that "it's her body and 
hers alone" -- *that's* evil.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,rec.arts.tv
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's Freedom of Speech ( was Re: SNL - Oct 3, Latest on Sinead reaction
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:34:30 GMT

In article <ed.718526442@cwis> ed@cwis.unomaha.edu (Ed Stastny) writes:

>I happen to agree with Mr.Nilges.

That makes 3.  (Including Ed Nilges.)

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: The Cost of Law (Was Re: Liens - Advice needed)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:31:21 GMT

>>Is there any *practical* legal recourse I can take?  The
>>deadbeat who sold me the house is in New Mexico.
>
>For $95?  Forget it.

This brings to mind something I've wondered about.  How much does it cost
to sue someone, assuming that there are no attorney fees.  For example,
suppose a retired lawyer gets pissed off at a person or a company and
wants to sue.  What kinds of out-of-pocket expensis will there be?

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18285 alt.censorship:7948 misc.headlines:6538