HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:17:19 GMT

In <1993Jan4.190237.20702@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com sez:
>
>Testimony changes but it is reliable.  Not very impressive Mark.


Try this, Eric:

a)  Eric Titmas asserts that Homer wrote in iambic pentameter.

b)  Eric Titmas reads a few books about Homeric poetry and scansion.

c)  Eric Titmas agrees in the end that Homer used dactylic hexameter.


The fact that his position changed doesn't mean that his ultimate
conclusion in (c) is wrong.  To ascertain the validity of (c), one
would have to look to his sources.  If there's no reason to doubt the
opinion of Homeric scholars like Milman Parry, then the Titmas opinion
based thereon is correspondingly reliable.

Similarly, even if McFarlane's trial testimony differed from his
earlier accounts because of the influence of North's testimony, that
fact is *irrelevant* unless there's a substantial legal reason to
doubt the reliability of North's version.



Unless anyone besides Eric needs more remedial instruction on this
elementary point of logic, I intend to let this thread die of natural
causes. 


-- 
		   Shut up and wave yer flag, boy.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Post-acquittal partying (was Crown Heights Jury)
Date: 9 Jan 93 04:35:29 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>What if the possibility of a party influences the jurors?
>
>How do they know of the party, Tim?

I was imagining either a world where a lot of people give parties for the
jury, or one defendant who gets tried a lot.  For instance, suppose that
after each acquital, John Gotti threw a big party, and (heck, let's make
it interesting) gave everyone who attended a few thousand dollars.

Could future juries then anticipate that an acquital would lead to a party
for them, and perhaps be influenced?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: SPS
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:15:25 GMT

In article <C0CoKw.7z8@panix.com>, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
|> In <1993Jan4.190237.20702@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com sez:
|> >
|> >Testimony changes but it is reliable.  Not very impressive Mark.

|> 
|> Similarly, even if McFarlane's trial testimony differed from his
|> earlier accounts because of the influence of North's testimony, that
|> fact is *irrelevant* unless there's a substantial legal reason to
|> doubt the reliability of North's version.

Mark earlier tried to compare the "tainting" of the testimonial evidence to
the suppression of a gun/knife/bloody shirt on illegal search and seizure
grounds.  Well of course a gun is still a gun no matter what North's 
coerced testimony was but testimony did change because of it.

There is no reason to doubt the reliability of North's version.  But there
is substantial reason to doubt the reliability of every other witness.
The appeals court told the trial court to demonstrate that testimony wasn't
altered because of North's coerced testimony.  The trial court could not do it.

Make any conclusion you want about North's guilt or innocence but don't think
you're persuading anybody with this flawed argument.

-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
From: mark.schumann@pcohio.wariat.org (Mark Schumann) 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the F
Date: 10 Jan 93 22:10:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PC-OHIO BBS - Cleveland, OH - 216-381-3320
Reply-To: mark.schumann@pcohio.wariat.org (Mark Schumann) 


MZ!Not so.  Insofar as Paragraph 3 of the GPL explicitly regulates the
  !terms of *all* copying and modification, and insofar as the selfsame
  !license fails to make an exception from its provisions for the
  !copyright owner, his ownership is abrogated precisely to the extent
  !rights are regulated along with everyone else.  The sole exception to
  !this regulation is, unsurprisingly, constituted by the FSF, which in
  !accordance with the Paragraph 8, is allowed to modify the GPL at will.

No.

The GPL grants rights to the user.  The copyright holder is not
bound by _any_ license.

 * SLMR 2.1a * Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. -Euripides
                                                                                                    
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|       PC-OHIO PCBoard BBS - Cleveland, Ohio - 216-381-3320       |
|   Computer Shopper Best BBS in America - 35 lines USR DS 16800   |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<markp.726102356@dragonfly.wri.com>
	<1993Jan7.044250.22723@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 09:03:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.044250.22723@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

   >In <1993Jan3.123939.18521@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

   >>Congress hadn't forbidden this, unlike, say, sending
   >>money to the contras 

   >Wrong. The Boland Amendment exempted the NSC.

   No, it didn't.  

   You can say that it didn't apply to the NSC.  That would be a ridiculous
   claim, too, but at least it has the possibility of being accurate.  This
   claim does not, since nowhere did the amendment say "Oh, by the way,
   the NSC can ignore this."

   Actually, the NSC had no business doing *anything*, since it was purely
   an advisory group, as it was conceived.

   Secondly, this is a ridiculous stretch that only one of those lawyers
   Dan Quayle was bashing would even attempt to come up with.  The Boland
   amendment forbid all federal agencies and departments from aiding the
   contras.  To claim that the NSC is not covered by this is absurd.

No, the Boland ammendment forbade all intelligence agencies from aiding
the contras, not all agencies of the gov't.


Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: Holos Software, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 23:35:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.060854.20847@mtu.edu> pecampbe@mtu.edu (Paul Campbell) writes:

>No. It's not. Although the name has changed (they call themselves
>liberals in this country), communism by any other name (socialism,
>American Liberalism, or Marxism) is the same thing.

This gets my nomination for the stupidest thing I read on the network
all year.  (It's only January, though.)

Socialism = European social democracy = American liberalism = Communism

Denmark 1980 = Romania 1980
Mitterand = Stalin

!!!!!!

Back in the early 1970's the John Birch society used to rant about what
a commie Nixon was.  I guess if you stand far enough to the right everything
looks like it's on the other horizon.

-- 
Len Reed
Holos Software, Inc.
Voice: (404) 496-1358
UUCP: ...!gatech!holos0!lbr
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: SPS
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:16:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.222206.19939@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan5.210549.2213@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
|> 
|> >You see Mark, there are benign changes in testimony and there are malevolent 
|> >changes.  So take your remedial instruction and stuff it.
|> 
|> If there are changes that enhance the quality of testimony as well as
|> changes that diminish the quality of testimony, it follows that we cannot
|> conclude that the alteration of Robert McFarlane's testimony after North
|> testified made that testimony less reliable. It may have made it more
|> reliable.
|> 
Absolutely.  The testimony might be reliable and it might be unreliable.  But the 
assertion that "the jury returned a guilt verdict and even though the court
threw out the verdict because the evidence was tainted this shows North
was really guilty" is true only if the evidence is reliable.

-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:47:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.131123.16469@cis.ohio-state.edu>,
csmith@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:


|>If I had $10,000 in a bank account that I was going to buy a car with, and
|>I won $10,000 in the lottery and deposited it in the same bank account,
|>and then bought the car, did I buy the car with the lottery winning?
|>
|>Not really, since I was going to buy the car anyway.
|>
|>Same with the profits from the sale of arms to Iran. There was an account
|>of funds going to the Contras already in existance. This account was used
|>for a lot of other things as well. Did the funds from the arms sales go
|>to the Contras? It can be argued both ways.

You can also argue black is white but that dosent stop it being stupid.

The only money that could be paid to the contras was money that was the result
of operations concealed from congress. If Craig is party to other illegal
operations of Bush/Regan perhaps he can let us know.


|>Maybe selling arms to Iran was bad policy. But was it criminal? Did nothing
|>good come from it?

Plenty of evil came from it.

For a start the weapons helped prolong a war that cost a million lives.


|>Maybe Congress did not want funds going to the Contras, but the Executive
|>did. Who decides foreign policy, anyway?

The Senate, try reading your constitution.


|>Americans did not find this incident nearly as scandalous as the liberal
|>media
|>did. The constant barrage of the media has shaped public opinion somewhat
|>(just
|>as it has made Anita Hill a martyr when the real martyr is Judge Thomas) but
|>Americans still don't think it is that much of a scandal.

In fact public opinion in the US was overwelmingly opposed to Iran and also
opposed to the supply of arms to the Contra terrorists.

Nicaraguan public opinion was alos opposed to the supply of arms to the Contra
terrorists, in fact even today under a US tolerated government when asked the
majority of Nicaraguan people consider the Contras as terrorists.
 


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Post-acquittal partying (was Crown Heights Jury)
Date: 9 Jan 93 07:05:50 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1ilkmhINN8j7@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>>What if the possibility of a party influences the jurors?
>>
>>How do they know of the party, Tim?
>
>I was imagining either a world where a lot of people give parties for the
>jury, or one defendant who gets tried a lot.  For instance, suppose that
>after each acquital, John Gotti threw a big party, and (heck, let's make
>it interesting) gave everyone who attended a few thousand dollars.
>
>Could future juries then anticipate that an acquital would lead to a party
>for them, and perhaps be influenced?

If such parties are such common knowledge, presumably they can be addressed
through the voir dire process.  I agree that it still looks bad.
-- 
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
Xref: sparky misc.legal:22287 talk.politics.misc:66907 alt.president.clinton:1475
From: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 9 Jan 93 14:31:33 GMT
	<TT.93Jan5163855@marius.jyu.fi>
	<1993Jan8.213559.12410@advtech.uswest.com>
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla
Originator: tt@tarzan.math.jyu.fi

In article <1993Jan8.213559.12410@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:

>  As Bush the weenie proved, a pardon can be used to pretend
>no crime was committed at all.

Exactly.  Perhaps it would be good to require that a pardon
is effective only insofar as the crimes are confessed:
e.g., after being pardoned the pardonnee must list all crimes he wants
to claim pardoned and anything he omits will remain prosecutable.

>Yes.  Here's something scary: Neil Bush may be walking around RIGHT NOW
>with a paper pardoning him, from his dad.  Neil could whip it out the
>moment he's convicted of anything.  If he's never convicted, no one ever
>knows that George _issued_ the pardon.

Huh?  You mean there is no need to publicize the pardon in any way --
Bush could write blanket pardons to everybody he thinks might beed
it at some later date?  

>>For that matter, who could control it -- can the Supreme Court judge
>>such a pardon unconstitutional?  Could a presidential pardon be
>>overruled by anything short of impeachment (if even by that)?

>ONLY by that.  Otherwise, the power is absolute.

But will even impeachment override pardons made before it -- what if,
as soon as the impeachment process is started the president issues
pardons to all and sundry in a hurry, or is his power of pardon
suspended during the impeachment process?
--
Tapani Tarvainen  (tt@math.jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Summary: Child neglect is a crime, too.
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract
Date: 4 Jan 93 20:56:11 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <29DEC199214311936@oregon.uoregon.edu> 
dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:

>In article <19496@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) 
>writes:

>>  Fornication Contract:  The party of the first part, hereinafter
>>  "Stud," and the party of the second part, hereinafter "Slut,"
>>  for good and valuable consideration, agree as follows:  If
>>  sexual intercourse between them results in pregnancy, Slut 
>>  hereby consents that Stud may use RU-486 to terminate such
>>  pregnancy at a time and place of Stud's own choosing.
>>  [Matt Rosenblatt]

. . .
>As I have noted in several other posts, this contract, even if supported by
>consideration, probably is not enforceable as illegal, unless, perhaps, the
>administration of RU-486 is limited to licensed clinics and practitioners, 
>not at this time available.   [Daniel Reitman]

Well, sure it's illegal!  It has been pointed out that what the Slut
is doing is "permitting" the Stud to engage in conduct that amounts
to a *crime*.  And since a *crime* is an action against all the people,
or against "the King's peace," or against whatever else they teach in
law school that it's against, her "permission" is not enough to fix
things so the Stud can really *do it* and get away with it.

Funny thing, though:  Neglecting one's children, failing to support
them -- that's also a crime.  Just ask those yo-yos out in Chicago
who got locked up for leaving their kids alone for nine days.  Just
ask all the fathers presently behind bars for having failed to pay
support to their children.  If the "Fornication Contract" is unenforceable
because it entails the commission of the crime of "Male Choice," the
"Pre-Sex Contract" is equally unenforceable because it entails the crime
of child neglect.  And that's as it should be.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Xref: sparky misc.legal:22105 talk.politics.misc:66475 alt.president.clinton:1369
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 6 Jan 1993 14:51 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <TT.93Jan5163855@marius.jyu.fi>,
 tt@marius.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes...
>I agree, but I think pardon should be possible only _after_ conviction
>and sentencing.  

Pretty well established in the U.S. that this pre-indictment pardons are legal.

> 
>Hmm.  Does the US president's power to pardon any limits at all: 
>Could he pardon himself?

Possibly; this has never been tested.  A president may not, however, avoid
impeachment by pardon.

>Could he pardon someone "for any and all crimes he may have committed"?

See Ford's pardon of Nixon.

>What about future crimes as well?

Probably not, but I'm sure this one has never been brought up.

>For that matter, who could control it -- can the Supreme Court judge
>such a pardon unconstitutional?  Could a presidential pardon be
>overruled by anything short of impeachment (if even by that)?

In the Andrew Jackson administration, the Supreme Court ruled that a
presidential pardon was a special procedure which overruled any criminal 
conviction.  (Sorry, I don't have the exact case.)  Impeachment is generally
not considered a pardonable proceeding.

							Daniel Reitman
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lrabe@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lee A Rabe)
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:19:10 GMT


Out of curiousity......

until very recently, I had neither a checking account or a credit card, yet
I fairly regularly received packages.

If someone had sent something FedEx, I would have HAD to pay cash.  Would they
have been forced to accept it?

Thanks,

Lee Ann
From: sam@wa4phy.async.com (Sam Drinkard)
Subject: Adoption anullment possible?
Organization: none
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:32:32 GMT

Question for anyone who might be able to provide some insight to this.. 
Might get kinda long, but here goes..

Suppose a man married a woman with 2 kids, both minors.  After about 2 years,
he decides to adopt them.  Things are fine until they move to MA, and then
are forced to move back to Colorado Springs... Out of the blue, the wife
leaves the husband, (still living with HER parents) and wants a divorce.

Divorce gets ugly.  She contests, raises all kinds of hell asks for spousal
support but doesn't get it.  Divorce goes final.  Time laps between adoption
and now is about 5 years.  

Man discovers AFTER the divorce one child was fathered out of wedlock, but
was never told.  (not his either)

Ex-wife causing all kinds of problems, and does not permit visitation except
twice/mo.  Biological father of one child gave up all rights to chile on the
condition that she not try to obtain 8 years back child-support.  

Now, she lets biological father see child more than adoptive father.  Other
child born out of wedlock more or less same situation, except no child
support.

Since there were circumstances and facts that were obviously not told, tho
not necessarily hidden, what effect would this have on attempt to have the
adoption anulled?

His X-wife from what we saw/ascertained of her was looking for "meal-ticket"
only.

Any thoughts?

Thanks.. 

sam
-- 
	S.W. Drinkard			| Internet: sam@wa4phy.async.com
	4428 Branchwood Drive		| Internet: sam@galois.nscf.org
	Martinez, GA  30907		| Amprnet : sam@wa4phy.ampr.org
	(706) 868-8029			 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: johnma@sco.COM (John Marco)
Subject: Anybody know of a good probate lawyer in NM?
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 22:54:51 GMT


To fellow netlanders:

Could anybody reading this group recommend a good attorney who is 
competent in probate issues, wills, etc. in the Albuquerque, NM area?
The reason I ask is that a person I know has been involved in a 
dispute over a will for two and a half years on a dispute that seemingly
should have been resolved quickly.  Getting her current lawyer to respond
to her calls is like pulling teeth.  I have a feeling this lawyer is 
addicted to crack or just plain lazy or incompetent.  I suggested that
the person I know should fire her attorney and find one who will pay
attention to the case and respond to her questions and requests in a
prompt and businesslike manner.  Is that too much to ask?  Anyhow, 
I would greatly appreciate any referrals to an attorney who is competent
in handling probate and will disputes.  I would really like to see 
more effort put into this case than is being done by the current attorney.

My sincere gratitude for any information you can provide me with.

----------------------------------------------------------------
John Marco
E-Mail: johnma@sco.COM
UUCP:   ...!uunet!sco!johnma
Snail:  John Marco, 135 Felix St. Apt. 5, Santa Cruz, CA 95060.
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: katop@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Chris Katopis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Stat. of Limit. on Personal Injury in NYS
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:32:03 GMT
Organization: Temple University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]


How long after someone trips on your sidewalk, can they bring a suit for
personal injuries in New York State?

My cousin tripped over the holidays, and said he wasn't looking, all	
his fault, we're family ... don't worry about it.

but, i still don't know ....	

(BTW, how exactly could I locate this info on lexis/westlaw?)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Pardon stuff..Define please
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:30:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.031524.18267@cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
:In article <TT.93Jan11220850@tarzan.jyu.fi> tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
:
:>>A pardon does not indicate guilt. It therefore can be used to stop the
:>>prosecution of an alledged crime.
:>
:The facts are already basically out. Arms were sold to Iran to obtain the
:release of hostages. Profits from the sale of these arms went to the contras
:in Nicaragua. Fait accompli. The question is, is this really something that
:should not have happened to the extent of running up $40 million is costs
:(so far) and prosecuting anyone you can? Remember the indictment that came
 
I think the cost of prosecution is irrelevent.

Doesn't anyone remember (from the war against Tripoli)

"Millions for defense; not a cent for tribute".
 
The idea of NOT prosecuting simply because it is expensive turns my stomach.
I think that is tax money well spent.
--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"