HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Custody case question
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:24:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.142821.21102@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <Btp658.Jr2@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>>My professor of Family Law (Ms. Kristian Miccio, a much-honored
>>activist and very hard-core feminist) claims that the father has
>>an advantage in custody disputes because he usually has the better
>>income and, unlike the mother, is not socially assigned the duty of
>>staying at home with the kids.  
>
>Furthermore
>
>1) Most judges are male.
>
>2) There's a huge double standard in terms of "appropriate" moral standards
>   for the parent.  In Illinois, any mother "living in sin" has lost custody
>   when it was challenged, while fathers engaging in cohabitation have
>   successfully won custody.  
>
>3) Working women are at a disadvantage in custody, because their incomes
>   are often lower because they've taken time off from work, yet, as a
>   woman with a career they have no inherent advantage as a parent, given
>   that state law prohibits a presumption for the mother.


But (4) A woman who decides to stay at home has a distinct advantage,
even if she previously worked, because it is unacceptable for the
higher-paid man to give up his job and stay at home.  OLD male 
judges are quite happy to think that having a mother realize
her home duties is best for the children.

Although in PA there is no legal presumption that the ability to stay
at home is better for the children, the effective presumption is
precisely that.  And it applies especially to women, especially with
small children.

As for (2), do you have any modern statistics to support this?
(That's not a challenge, just a question!)  It may have been true 
in the past but I'm not so sure it holds now.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Graffiti Ordinance Ex Post Facto
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:18:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.121616.983@cbnews.cb.att.com> ran@cbnews.cb.att.com (Robert A. Neinast) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.185106.4511@aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>> My city is working on an ordinance to allow the city to take action of up
>> to six months in jail if a person does not remove graffiti, or allow the
>> city to remove it. The ordinance is directed at one specific individual.


Thanks to everone who responded to my questions. the ordinance is to be
on the next council agenda. I plan to use the info provided to try
to get the council to defet it. I have one other question. If the ordinance
is targeted at one old women, does it in any way violate her civil rights?




>
>I suspect there's nothing she can do about it.  However, she can
>certainly get back at them.
>
>(I'm assuming the graffiti is on a large fence or wall.)  After the
>graffiti is cleaned up, she replaces it with
>

I am planning to end my talk by quoting this post and holding up a sign
that says this:


>              City Council:
>          A Bunch of Dickheads
>
>or similar sentiments.  This is now political speech, is certainly
>more offensive (at least if you're the dickhead on the council),
>and just as certainly protected.
>

And I will try to persuade them to try to work with her to find a
reasonable solution as suggested below. I don't beleive that she is
adversarial, I think it is the City Council who is.


>Probably the best thing to do, though, is for her to try to stop the
>whole thing from being so adversarial.  Presumably she really doesn't
>want the graffiti, just doesn't like the way it was removed before.
>Maybe an understanding can be reached where the council acknowledges
>her concerns, and promises to get it cleaned in a manner that
>addresses her concerns.  If nothing else, the threat of the above
>might at least get them to listen to her.
>
>Regards,
>Bob
>-- 
>                                                                  _
>". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch."                 Nipetlahuini.
>Robert Neinast (ran@cblpo.att.com)
>AT&T-Bell Labs
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification??
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:55:57 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Aug27.172703.12451@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, 
regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George) writes:
> Can somebody give me references on jury nullification: what precisely is
> it, does  it exist in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence? I would like some pro-
> and con- references if possible, to try to sort out what it is.

 
I'd suggest reading U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113 (D.C. Cir., 1972).  The 
decision stated that, even if one concludes a right of the jury to nullify 
(which this case does not), it is not proper to so instruct the jury.

Judge Leventhal's majority opinion argues against jury nullification, and is 
well-reasoned and provides an excellent source of references and a historical 
perspective on the issue.

the dissenting portion of Judge Bazelon's opinion is well articulated in 
presenting the opposite view, as well.  

I'd suggest to anyone interested in the issue that he read both opinions, and 
use its references as a starting point for research.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16510 alt.censorship:7180
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:39:21 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <1992Aug26.200058.18192@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
>Seconded!  It is obvious that under this blanket some speech is  more equal 
>than the other.  Not being allowed to suggest abortion at federally funded
>clinics, not being able to blow the 
>whistle on your employer with job protection from the govt, violates 
>ones right to free speech.  
>But what we all strive to protect is the racists right free speech, right?  
>But then again whites (no offense) are not really affected by racism, eh?

You are making some very inaccurate and (to me) offensive judgements.

I am every bit as opposed to the abortion gag at federally funded
clinics as I am to the hate speech law.  More so, if you go by my
actions, since I have participated in letter writing campaigns to 
fight the gag rule, and did no such thing to oppose the hate crime
statute.  I would have, but I didn't hear about it til it was repealed.

I would defend hate speech by blacks as readily as I would hate-speech
by whites.

The fact is that no one has posted here defending the gag rule, and no
one has posted trying to stifle hate speech by blacks.  Were anyone
to do so I would take them on as readily as I have taken on Ed Nilges.

I would like three things from you:

1)  An explanation why you assume that because I am opposed to laws
against hate speech, I am not opposed to the gag rule.

2)  An explanation why you assume that I am only protecting hate
speech by white males, when no other case has been discussed.

3)  An apology.

I will be surprised if I get two of the above.

Joe
 
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.motorcycles
From: jeq@i88.isc.com (Jonathan E. Quist)
Subject: Re: ++ADVICE ON POTENTIAL LAWSUIT(on a motorcycle)++
Organization: INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 15:15:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.190359.2242@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mgarber@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Max D Garber) writes:
>
>I recently bought another motorcycle to add to my collection and this is what 
					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>happened:
>
>The day after I bought it, I had to charge the battery each time I tried to 
>start it.  My fiance's uncle was there both times and he said that from what he
>saw, it had been charged many times before-I agreed.

Your fiance's uncle said it had be charged many times in before.  Gee, sounds
like you have an admissable expert witness there.... :')

Precisely what did he see to arrive at that conclusion?  A bunch of dizzy
electrons screaming "don't charge me again!"?

>[Much stuff deleted.]

You say you're adding to your motorcycle collection.  If you've been riding
for a while, and have a number of bikes, then didn't you have the foggiest
clue what you were looking at before you bought the thing?  What possible
justification could you have for taking legal action against the guy who
sold it to you?  Motorcycle charging systems are historically bad.  Motorcycle
batteries are historically frail.  And used motorcycles bought from
individuals are historically suspect until they've be checked by someone
who knows what they're looking at.  Apparently you didn't get any advice
before you bought the bike.  Sorry, but I think you got about what you
asked for.  I'd be more concerned about the shop that took you for $450 in
repairs, especially if they replaced one regulator and didn't bother to
find the reason why it blew in the first place.  Unless you can afford
repairs like this, I'd suggest finding another repair shop and/or learning
to do some of your own repairs.
-- 
Jonathan E. Quist                              INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation
jeq@i88.isc.com  '71 CL450-K4 "Gleep", DoD #094        Naperville, IL
        There are many things a person should experience in a lifetime.
       Among them are an infant's first cry, and an infant's first laugh.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:15:35 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug28.034802.27700@fid.morgan.com>, sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.213055.17263@midway.uchicago.edu>
> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
# #Who is this "we"?  Does it comprise of any minority or woman?  Ofcourse not.
# #I guess the old white boy network is always and unconditionally united!  And 
# #correct of course! (Just in case, the last sentence was sarcastic!)
# 
# Who authorized you to speak for all minorities and women?
# 
# I'm a member of several minority groups; you certainly don't speak for
# me.  In fact, with the possible exception of Ed Nilges (and has
# anybody ever seen Ed Nilges and Sheheryar Hasnain at the same time?),
# I don't think you speak for anybody else.
# 
# Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com

Nonsense.  Ed and Sheheryar speak for a number of faculty members
at Sonoma State University.  They speak for many of the people
that I know that call themselves liberals.

Ed and Shehryar are the reason that I say, "liberalism = fascism."
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Maryland Law Brief
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:19:04 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <19125@smoke.brl.mil>, matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
> Better yet:  No matter how many dealers and couriers we arrest and 
> jail, there will be more of them as long as there are users to buy 
> drugs.  It is like the "Hydra" of Marvel Comics -- "cut off a head 
> and two more will take its place.  

The Hydra comes from Greek Mythology, and I think it's gross that you
are quoting Marvel Comics.  Are they (Hydra, that is) still appearing
in _Captain America_?  I know that they were the nemisis of Nick Fury
agent from SHIELD.  

You are correct about the drug situation.  I can see giving up some of
my civil liberties temporarily in a riot, or natural disaster
situation, but not the drug war.  === Al Sparks
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: elvis@netcom.com (kEvin A. Thornbury)
Subject:  Feasibility of small claims for unnecesary medical tests?
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 11:03:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

I recently went to see a doctor over a relatively minor problem.
Following the office visit, he prescribed medication and took
a sample on which to have lab work done. The office visit produced
a reasonable charge, but the bill from the lab was outrageous.

I now believe that the lab test was completely unnecessary. After
speaking with the doctor over the phone about the results, I realized
that the treatment for the condition would have been the same regardless
of the results of that particular test; the results might have been
"interesting" but would not have changed the doctor's advice or the
prescription.

The lab is independent of the doctor, and the bills are separate.
Could I use small claims court to force the doctor to pay for the
lab work?


kEvin
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:49:38 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug27.143515.545@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.133400.13173@hubcap.clemson.edu> grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) writes:
> >egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
# #Freedom of speech hardly is cause for others to enjoy what you have to
# #say.  It does prevent the government from punishing you (but not from
# #others punishing you in their own ways) for what you say.
# 
# Punishment is a form of force, and we give government a monopoly of
# force.  In societies other than The Moronic Inferno (the USA), job loss
# is not thought to be a sort of "punishment" that can be meted-out at
# will by any employer; it is difficult to fire people in such societies
# precisely because it is recognized that excluding people from jobs as
# "punishment" is a form of economic force majeure which should NOT be
# deregulated.

Hmmm.  I understand in Germany, one of those places where you can't
be fired at will, quitting at will isn't so easy either.  Because
employers are only allowed to fire quarterly, it also means that
it's difficult to find a job except quarterly.

I'm sure that Ed and other liberals would love feudalism -- no
problem about being fired there!  The lord of the manor and the
serf had their obligations clearly stated, and there was no danger
of "economic violence" caused by being fired.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mwhhlaw!tim (Timothy E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: Endorsing checks for deposit via ink stamp?
Reply-To: uunet!mwhhlaw!tim
Organization: Martin Wade Hartley & Hollingsworth
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:04:17 GMT

In article <Btux2t.Dq8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:

> Interesting. At my bank, they INSISTED that I sign the back of a check
> that I had written for cash. I've had accounts at other banks in the
> past, and never had to endorse a check made out to CASH. Clearly,
> required endorsements vary from institution to institution.
> 

Strictly speaking, you did not indorse the check, you signed as an  
accommodation party.  A check made payable to "cash" is the same is a check  
made payable to "bearer."  By signing the back, you promise (among other  
things) that the check was not stolen from anyone.

By the way, Banks like to pretend that they can make any rules they like.  They  
can not.  They are bound by the terms of the Commercial Code just like you and  
me.

--
Tim Hollingsworth
From: wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Advice for first year law student?
Keywords: Mac vs. DOS
Date: 29 Aug 92 19:39:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Your typical phone company involved in your typical daydream

In article <1992Aug27.030959.4996@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
]>I truly do not know this, so I ask:  are the current generation of
]>Macs able to fully emulate a DOS machine?  Or only to read/write to a
]>DOS disk?
]Not only the current generation of Macs, but even some older models can be
]made to emulate DOS machines just fine. As I said earlier, one should
]check out the Insignia Solutions line of PC emulators for the Mac if 
]you genuinely need to run DOS software at home on your Mac.

On the other hand, what does SoftPC cost?  Probably ~$400 ?
It may be worth getting yourself a cheap DOS machine, either a $500
desktop or a <$1000 laptop, which will give you similar performance.
-- 

				Pray for peace;      Bill
#Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.ho.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# Any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced ...
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16705 misc.consumers:15841
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: Endorsing checks for deposit via ink stamp?
Date: 30 Aug 92 09:24:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Green Hills and Cows

In article <1992Aug27.182113.20031@Happy-Man.com> Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com writes:

>In any case, my bank's written policies require that the
>check be *endorsed* rather than *signed*, so I would
>expect a proper stamp is technically acceptable.  They
>never complained when I used one in the past.

Interesting. I have yet to make a mark of any kind on the back of any
of the checks that I receive for my consulting work. For the past
twenty years or so, I have simply deposited the checks without stamping
or signing. The bank stamps, "Deposited to the above account--absence
of endorsement guaranteed" on the back. No check has ever been
returned.
-- 
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16571 misc.consumers:15783
From: ChazL@county.lmt.mn.org (Chaz Larson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: Endorsing checks for deposit via ink stamp?
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:59:30 GMT
Reply-To: ChazL@county.lmt.mn.org (Chaz Larson)
Organization: LaserMaster Corporation

On the subject of unendorsed checks:

One month, while writing all my bill checks, I accidentally made my car 
insurance check out to my local electric company, then mailed it off.  I 
noticed it when reconciling that statement, when I found two checks made out 
to East Central Electric; one was endorsed by American Family Insurance, and 
my bank paid it without any problem.  Somewhat disturbing.

chaz


..must think...bubble pipe will relax me and I think...
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:22:16 GMT

In article <BtnLup.Irz@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>
>
>Your algorithm works out to:
>
>if(!(totalitarian_system)
>  {
>    piss;
>    moan;
>    whine;
>    cry;
>   }

Not only are none of your points worth replying to, Chris, there's a
stupid blunder in the above pseudo-C code.  Can you spot it?  I teach a
(politically correct) seminar in C programming that you may wish to ask
your boss to authorize at your site some time soon.




Give up?  The error, of course, is an unbalanced set of parentheses on
the first line.  The second left parenthesis, behind the ! "not" symbol,
is not needed, but incompetent programmers often overuse parentheses
because of their principled refusal to learn operator precedence.  They
call this "structured", using, as far as I can tell, the word
"structured" to mean "stupid."

Anyway, thanks for a laff, and remember that PC C seminar I mentioned!


Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.motorcycles
Date: Wed,  2 Sep 1992 17:40:46 -0400 
From: "Peter A. Simon" <ps3p+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: ++ADVICE ON POTENTIAL LAWSUIT(on a motorcycle)++
Distribution: na

>I was told that a small claims suit would be best fit for this case. 
Do I have
>anything on him??  this is how the case would look:
> 
>I HAVE:  Repair bills, statements from bike shop stating that the repair was 
>due to the wrong size battery in it, statements from uncle that it had been 
>charged many times before.
> 
>HE HAS:  Himself, his mom and dad saying "IT'S NOT HIS FAULT, HE SOLD IT!!"

I've sued in small claims court twice.  Each time I won.  The judges are
used to "he said, I said" evidence.  Once the judgement was split (the
judge figured I was half right, I guess).  I went into it with the
attitude that whether I won or lost, it would be a valuable lesson in
civics.  

One suggestion:  Go the library and bone up on the procedure and a
little bit of law.  In one case, the other guy tried to tell the judge
that I'd damaged something of his and I was able to say, "That sounds
like a counterclaim.  If he had a counterclaim he had to file and I had
to be informed 48 hours blah, blah, blah."  The judge said, "You're
right.  Shut up, defendent!"

Anyway, go for it.  Learn how your government works.  Learn what
"justice" is.  And if you lose, you can still firebomb his house.


-peter

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*                             WATCH BACK!                           *
*                                                                   *
* DoD #10o00                 Suzuki LS650H         NAUI INST. #1434 *
*                             (for sale)                            *
*                             Honda CM400                           *
*                           (for sale, too)                         *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:12:26 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

[A reply to an article in misc.legal.]

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

[...]
>In other words, the fashionable, terminally hip cynicism about
>government as "coercive by nature" is the wedge by which Fascism enters
>our society, NOT oddballs such as Edward Nilges having marginalized
>opinions.
[...]

My understanding of U.S. history is that the belief that government is
coercive by nature was the wedge by which our constitutional democracy
entered the world.

The belief, based on our experience with the English Parliament and on
the English experience with the king, is a premise of our system of
government, not passing fad.

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: pas@kepler.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)
Subject: Re: Scum clarification (was: Re: Nilges
Organization: University of New Hampshire
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:32:55 GMT

en: Ed Nilges

en: Tedster deliberately distorted this to "scum of all nations" [...]

That's a lie, Ed. He quoted you accurately.

-- 
-- Paul A. Sand           | What is the sound of Perl? Is it not the sound of
-- Univ. of New Hampshire | a wall that people have stopped banging their
-- pas@kepler.unh.edu     | heads against? (Larry Wall, comp.unix.shell)