HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:43:17 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan8.073836.6197@psg.com> michaels@psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:


|If an Impeachment can override a Pardon, could the Senate use
|impeachment proceedings to override _Weinberger's_ Pardon?

All impeachment does is remove someone from office.
Since Weinberger is not a current office holder, impeachment is meaningless.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:28:10 GMT

> = (William F. Tell) writes:

[...]
>Haven't most or all of the Iran-Contra convictions that went to trial
>(like Poindexter's and North's) been overturned on appeal?  

Yup.  Because the botched Iran-Contra hearings made their subsequent
trial testimony invalid.  Were you under the impression they were
innocent? 

>Why doesn't Walsh give it up already?

Because, unlike you, Walsh (and much of the American public) realize
several things:

(1) Much evidence was destroyed, AS ADMITTED TO by people like Ollie
and Fawn, in concert with the "Justice" Department, at the beginning of
Iran-Contra;

(2) EVEN OLLIE has stated in his book that "Reagan knew everything"
(study that statement for a moment);

(3) Bush, most everyone in America agrees, has lied his ass off about
his involvement in I-C...Weinberger himself proved it, as does Bush
in purposefully withholding evidence (that which we know of...) until 25
days ago;

(4) the further attempts by Republicans outside the administration,
like that grumpy jerk Dole, to whitewash the affair is beginning to PISS 
PEOPLE OFF; and

(5) the cavalier attitude of some people that "lying to Congress" is
as insignificant as running a red light is abhorrent to those of us that
believe in the three branches of U.S. government, and are damned chary
of attempts to give presidents dictatorial powers.  Presidents, need I
add, of _any_ party.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Post-acquittal partying (was Crown Heights Jury)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:04:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.220555.18301@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1ikpc9INN6r2@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>>>A minority viewpoint, perhaps, but I don't see what's wrong, ethically
>>>speaking, with either (1) a defense attorney holding a party for the
>>>acquitted defendant to celebrate the victory or (2) with some of the
>>>jurors attending.  (I can see zillions of things wrong with the idea
>>
>>What if the possibility of a party influences the jurors?
>
>How do they know of the party, Tim?

At any rate, the possibility of a party cuts both ways.  (Damn, I spent
too much time talking to Eugene.)  

Okay, I took a flyer and I was wrong, given the volume of e-mail informing
me of such in my box and my inability to vocalize a coherent reason why
such a party is unethical.  It does strike me as unseemly, though.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: First Amendment Stuff
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:23:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.195506.5605@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.053934.21832@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Judge Learned Hand had proposed
>>a test whereby only actual incitements could be punished, and any
>>speech not containing explicit incitements was protected, context be
>>damned--this test had been rejected as unenforceable, for any clever
>>speaker worth her salt could achieve the same results without reciting
>>the magic words to qualify under Hand's objective test.
>
>And yet, Ted, this is the law of the land after Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Would you really call Brandenburg an adoption of _Masses_?  It strikes
me that both would protect speech that the other wouldn't.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Slut v. Stud:  Whose name gets published?
Summary: What's sauce for the goose . . .
Keywords: double standard
Date: 7 Jan 93 14:50:23 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

[Reposted from article <1993Jan6.155652.4903@cs.ucla.edu> in sci.med.aids]

>"Federal Judge to Consider Renaming AIDS Suit Against Magic Johnson" 
>United Press International (01/05/93)

>     Kalamazoo, Mich.--A federal judge will determine Wednesday  whether 
>to replace Magic Johnson's fake name, "Richard Roe," with his real one 
>in a lawsuit against him.  The suit was filed by an East Lansing woman 
>last October who claims that Johnson infected  her with HIV.  The woman, 
>known in the suit as "Jane Doe," sued  on behalf of herself and daughter 
>"Infant Doe."  She said that Magic Johnson infected her during a one-
>night stand in 1990.  The woman claims she wrote Johnson a letter in 
>August 1992 about her accusation, according to an affidavit filed with 
>U.S. District Judge Richard Enslen.  Johnson filed his own affidavit, 
>stating  that he is Richard Roe but denying any memory of receiving the  
>woman's letter.  Johnson objects to the woman's request to retitle the 
>suit with his name but not hers.  His attorneys argue in court documents 
>that if he is publicly added to the case title, the woman should be as 
>well.  Lawyers for both sides blame the each other for revealing 
>Johnson's identity to the news media. 

What are the legal issues here?

Should it make a difference that Earvin "Magic" Johnson is a public
figure independently of this lawsuit, whereas "Jane Doe" is not?

Should it make a difference that she is the plaintiff and he is
the defendant, i.e., the one she accuses of having done wrong?

Should the "double standard," according to which the reputation of a
girl who participates in a "one-night stand" suffers much more than
the reputation of a man who participates in a thousand such "one-night
stands," make a difference in how this lawsuit is titled?  That is, 
should the law acknowledge that it is worse to be called a "Slut" 
than to be called a "Stud"?

Would publicizing the plaintiff's name tend to deter other girls 
from sleeping with celebrities on a "one-night stand" basis, thereby
possibly saving some of those girls' lives?  And if so, would such 
a public benefit outweigh any damage to "Jane Doe's" reputation 
from revealing her real name?

These are all things for the court to ponder before making a decision
on both parties' requests.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: csmith@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:52:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.073836.6197@psg.com> michaels@psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>
>If an Impeachment can override a Pardon, could the Senate use
>impeachment proceedings to override _Weinberger's_ Pardon?

'Fraid not. Impeachment (even carried to removal from office) does not negate
acts of a president while in office, even if those acts were the cause of
the impeachment.

But I would LOVE to see congress try it!  If anything could prove the
imperial arrogance of congress, that would do it!.
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                (This sig intentionally left blank)                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bsm@utrcv1.res.utc.com (Brian S. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Blacklisted from Banking System for $58.59 overdraft!
Organization: United Technologies Research Center
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:07:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.181007.49@cobra.dra.com> sean@cobra.dra.com writes:
>From: sean@cobra.dra.com
>Subject: Re: Blacklisted from Banking System for $58.59 overdraft!
>Date: 5 Jan 93 18:10:07 CST
>In article <bsm.8.0@utrcv1.res.utc.com>, bsm@utrcv1.res.utc.com (Brian S. McCarthy) writes:
>> I tried to open a checking account at a bank near my home last week, and 
>> found out that I'm on what they call "ChexSystems", which apparently is a 
>> national blacklist of people who have really bad checking account records.
>
>I believe the Fair Credit Reporting Act would apply (for real legal advice,
>consult a real lawyer).
>
>However I would question doing business with that particular bank.  The
>decision to not grant you a checking account is the bank's, not ChexSystems.
>You should treat this as an example of the type of customer service you
>would receive from the bank in the future.  If you thought this was an
>example of poor customer service, why would they improve in the future.

Obviously, I have no intention of doing business with the bank that 
blacklisted me in the future.  As a matter of fact, I closed my account with 
them September 4, 1990, right after the incidents with the malfunctioning 
ATM.  The trouble is, they have put me on this blacklist, and NO BANK IN THE 
COUNTRY will open a checking account for me for SIX YEARS (actually, 
starting in 1990 so only three and a half more...)

The bank that put me on the blacklist never gave me any clue that they were 
doing such a thing.  I didn't find out about it until last week when I tried 
to open a checking account at another bank.

>
>On the other hand if bank tried to "work with you" in clearing up this
>problem, that would be a better indication of good customer service.  Perhaps
>suggesting a different type of account (higher required balances, etc).
>
>By the way, I think the 30 day clock has started ticking so WRITE (phone
>calls don't count) a letter to the bank and ChexSystems asking them to explain
>and verify the information.  Standard suggestions apply, don't accuse, rant,
>or rave.  Remember "just the facts."

This I have done.  What the bank says is that their policy is NEVER to take 
ANYONE off ChexSystems PERIOD, no matter how they got on there.  They 
are adamant.  This is a really, really bad bank.  I am an ex-employee, 
so I know.  The branch manager even had the nerve to say something like "
You're a former employee, so you should have known how messed up our 
computers are..."

>-- >Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO>
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
---------------------------------------
Any opinions expressed here are mine alone,
and are not those of my employer or anyone else.

Brian McCarthy
United Technologies Research Center
East Hartford, Connecticut
(203)727-7638
bsm@utrc.utc.com
---------------------------------------
Xref: sparky misc.legal:22091 alt.politics.clinton:19704
From: joem@meaddata.com (Joe Mehrle)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 6 Jan 1993 15:00:23 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: baseball.meaddata.com

In article <1993Jan6.132029.16160@cis.ohio-state.edu>, csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
|> With all of this talk regarding pardons and the possibility of removing the
|> ability of the president to pardon, why don't we, at the same time, either
|> eliminate the special persecutor...uh, I mean prosecutor, or eliminate the
|> power of the "unendicted co-conspirator" endictment. If that is not a title
|> intended purely for persecution and media gradstanding, I don't know what is.
|> How do you defend yourself against it? It says, effectively, "He's guilty, but
|> we can't prove it." If you can't prove it, SHUT UP!
|> --
Your missing the point.  The special prosecutor is requested my the
attorney general (who works under the direction of the president).
The attorney general asks the special judiciary committee (Judges) to
select someone.  Next, the special prosecutor can be terminated only
by the attorney general BUT the attorney general needs GOOD CAUSE
which is reviewed by the special division of judges.  Congress exerts
no authority in this, all they get is progress reports and the
president maintains the ability to fire if he establishes good cause,
which he has been unable to do (at least I am guessing that otherwise
Bush could have avoided the pardon fiasco). Walsh has been a lifelong
republican and he is investigating the biggest government known to man
and that government (executive branch) is not cooperating.  This non
cooperating atmosphere invariable costs a lot of money, but money is
not the point.  The point is holding all people including our
president accountable for violating the law, our president is not a
king and justice knows no price tag.  One last thing since the
president controls the justice department and FBI he constitutionally
retains the power to investigate the congress and/or judiciary but no
one can investigate the president or it would violate the separation
of powers doctrine in the constitution so all we have to prevent a
corrupt president is the watchdog media, and the special prosecutor
which the president still maintains the power to terminate.  I think
it all makes much more since when you understand the process by which
all this takes place.
 
|> +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|> |                (This sig intentionally left blank)                 |
|> +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|> Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)
|> 

-- 
Joe Mehrle                       "I don't know why I
Mead Data Central, Dayton, Ohio   did it, I don't know why I liked it,
Internet: joem@meaddata.com       and I don't know why I'll do it again"
UUCP:     !uunet!meaddata!joem           -Bart Simpson-
From: pjhst10+@pitt.edu (Peter   J Hill)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: patent/copyright question
Date: 6 Jan 93 15:05:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: blue.1436
Distribution: misc.legal
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


 I am designing a board game (imagine monopoly, but totally different),
and am in the mist of putting together a prototype.  Does anyone know
What I do to protect the game from being stolen.  Do I have to get
a patent, copyright, trademark, what.  And where can I get information
on how to do it. 

Thanks

pjhst10+@pitt.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: How to determine legitimacy of company?
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 05:59:59 GMT

dittrich@carson.u.washington.edu (Dave Dittrich) writes:


>I am posting this for a friend of mine who is considering paying
>for a service offered by a company called National Consultants in
>Santa Monica, CA (he lives here in Seattle, WA).  The service
>involves assistance in applying for citizenship ("Green cards")
>through a government sponsored program.  They wanted him to send
>money in the next day or two to reserve a place in the lottery,
>but that they couldn't tell him for sure when he would find out
>the results.  (They did claim an 80% success rate for the $450 fee
>they charge).

>A representative of the company suggested that he call the Santa
>Monica Chamber of Commerce to verify their legitimacy.  He did
>this, but the person he spoke to there answered so quickly that,
>"yes, they are legitimate," that he felt a little strange.
>("Shouldn't they have to look something up, instead of answering
>right away?" he thought.)

Better Business Bureau is better. The chamber of commerce will
probably say anyone that pays their dues is legitimate.
Also, Dunn and Bradstreet is very good, but costs money.

>If you want to *really* check up on the legitimacy of a company that
>asks for you to send money quickly, but can't really say when you will
>get the results of their service, how can you do this?

>If they are running a scam, what agency of the government is tasked with
>investigating it?  (I would assume the FBI, since interstate mail is the
>means of performing the transaction).

Locally, it is usually the Attorney General for your state.
Nationally, the Post Office / Postal Inspectors is/are a better shot 
than the FBI.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:15:31 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1993Jan6.125132.14923@cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>Or the bugging of Republican Headquarters by the Democrats under both Kennedy
>and Johnson? Neither of them were forced to resign in disgrace.

Or how about the Kennedy-Nixon election?  Most experts recognize that if Daley
hadn't played his games in Illinois, Kennedy would have lost.  Where do you think
the Chicago motto of "Vote early and vote often" came from?  Not Republicans.


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Oppose the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Keywords: Ist Amendment; compelling interest
Organization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:16:35 GMT

matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>The Religious Freedom Restoration Act could be the basis for a claimed
>right of pregnancy termination even if the Supreme Court goes back on
>the decision that dissenting Justice White called "an exercise in raw
>judicial power," viz., _Roe v. Wade_ 410 U.S. 113 (1973).  Some cold-
>hearted career-girl Feminazi could squawk, "The worst sin in my
>particular religion is failure to realize one's full self-potential,
>and carrying this pregnancy to term will interrupt my progress up the
>promotion ladder, so my religion *demands* that I terminate it, and
>the Religious Freedom Restoration Act backs up that demand."  That's
>why the Roman Catholic Church opposes the Act in its present form,

If you amend the RFR act to disallow coverage based on what people
*MIGHT* claim as a religious tenet, you'll end up with class A religions
(covered by the RFR) and class B religions (not covered because of some
political or religious view).  Now you can pass laws that affect only class
A or class B religions, by using laws that affect class B religions under
the weaker protection, but don't affect the class A religions because the
laws don't meet the stricter standard.  Horrible.

---
Merlyn LeROy
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Pardons, Impeachments and Crimes (was President pardons himself)
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:44:39 GMT


In article <C0pEK6.IA6@vcd.hp.com>, 
johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton) said:

> > Can the President of the United States pardon himself? [Mike Judson]
>
> Not if he has been impeached. The only reason Ford could pardon
> Nixon was that Nixon was never impeached.

This isn't quite correct.  The controlling language is found in the last
paragraph of Article I, section 3, of the Constitution:

   "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to
   removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any
   Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the
   Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
   Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

While it's true that a President cannot issue a pardon in cases of
impeachment, he still can issue a pardon which covers and negates all
other criminal prosecution.  Thus, in an alternate universe in which
Nixon didn't resign and was impeached and convicted, Ford could not have
"unimpeached" Nixon but he still could have issued a pardon which would
have protected Nixon from facing any other criminal charges.

(Such a distinction might have been very important to our alternate-
universe Nixon, since the maximum penalty associated with impeachment-
and-conviction is removal from office and a ban on ever holding federal
office again, while normal criminal prosecutions carry, of course, the
possibility of fines and prison sentences.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: may@Apple.COM (Patrick May)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: CA Traffic Court
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:47:58 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

Hi,

     I have to appear in traffic court in San Jose at the end of the month
to defend myself against a ticket for running a red light and not having
a license.

     I didn't run the light, it was yellow all the way through.  I was only
about a car length from the intersection when it changed and I judged it to
be safer to go through.  I kept my eye on it and it did not change to red
while I was in the intersection.  What are my chances for beating this one?

     I also had a license, issued by the State of Maine and valid for several
more years.  As a consultant I move around a lot (five states in four years)
so its much easier to keep my legal address, license, bank accounts, etc. in
one place.  It was my impression that each state had to accept the other's
licenses as valid, correct?

     The license charge bothers me because the officer called in my plate
number and then asked how long I'd been in California.  I said something
like "Not long." and he pressed for more information, which I gave (rule
number one about getting pulled over: don't annoy the nice officer).  When
he found I'd been in the state more than 10 days he wrote me up for not
having a license.  Is the charge bogus?  Does his failure to inform me that
he could use my statements against me invalidate the charge?  I'm really
angry that he used the intimidation factor of his gun and uniform to
extract information he used against me.  I don't fault him for it, he'd
be stupid not to, but it rankles.

Thanks for any help,

Patrick May
may@apple.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              "A contract programmer is always intense."
From: bongo@DIALix.oz.au (John Bongiovanni)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: US dual citizenship info?
Date: 8 Jan 1993 19:50:48 +0800
Organization: DIALix Services, Perth, Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.dialix.oz.au
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.4.19 #1

Is there a FAQ file somewhere out on the Internet about US citizens who
have become citizens of other countries? Where do I find it and how
do I get it?
Thanks in advance! Cheers.
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing