HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's given name
Date: 23 Jan 93 05:33:33 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <1993Jan23.000300.3953@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, rcsaito@cs.washington.edu (Richard Saito) writes:
> Can somebody tell me what Bill Clinton's given name is?  I saw it on 
> Final Jeopardy a few weeks ago, but I forgot it.
> 

William Jefferson Blythe.

BTW, it is not uncommon for people to have their names changed, particularly
when it happens before they are of legal age due to divorce and remarriage.
It almost happened to me when I was in my teens, but I chose not to go along
with it. It did happen to my sister-in-law. Once the name is changed it
is legal and binding (BC's mother remarried a man whose last name was Clinton,
and for whatever reason his name was changed). Alot of Rush supporters and
Rush himself try to make it seem like it was some sort of streamlined
public relations scheme to make his name more recognizable or something. These
people are truly insane...

-Garrett


> -Richard
> 
> P.S. nobody got the question right
> 
> 
> -- 
> -Richard
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: allyn@netcom.com (allyn)
Subject: Attractive Nuisense
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:47:48 GMT

I have a question:

Last haloween, I dressed up in a costume that really turned heads.

I put in a pair of skimpy briefs and then put on clothes made entirely
out of clear plastic. It got a lot of laughs and comments, but what 
concerned me was that as I was walking to a party along a busy street (on the 
sidewalk) people in cars were also turning their heads and there were
a few near accidents (near misses). I got concerned and went back to
my apartment to put a coat over my outfit and resumed my  walk to 
the party.

If there was an accident, could I have been responsible as an attractive
nuisense? Do any of you know of any legal cases where something like
this happened?

Thanks!
Mark

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: executive orders
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:00:17 GMT

In <1993Jan24.071407.2582@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.060929.11298@athena.mit.edu> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:

>>	1. "ethics rules" for his advisors prohibiting them from lobbying
>>	for 5 years after leaving government.

>>When corporations try this, the courts don't allow it.  Does Clinton have
>>the authority to indefinitely restrict former employees from working in a
>>certain field?  (He said 5 years, but how is that legally different from 50
>>years, or forever?)  What's the punishment for violating this rule?

>I've been wondering about the legal enforceability of this, also.

>>	2. reversal of ban on abortion counseling at federally funded clinics

>>I thought this was a law, not a regulation?  Or is there a law that
>>authorizes but does not require such restrictions?  I know Congress tried to
>>reverse the ban but failed.

>Nope, it was a regulation, one authorized, but not required, by existing
>legislation.  Congress tried to rewrite the law so that it would no longer
>countenance the regulation, but couldn't get the two-thirds to override 
>Bush's veto.

Um, Ted, it was "authorized" only in the loosest definition of the word.
The law forbid using federal funds for abortions, and HHS reinterpreted
this to forbid even mentioning abortions in those clinics.

But this was a ridiculous twist of Congressional intent, as far as I can
tell.  And the fact that no one ever came up with this interpretation
until recently provides some evidence of this.  Not even the Reagan
administration tried this tactic.

>>	3. end to ban on gays in military

>>The reports on this issue that I heard last year said this would require an
>>act of Congress.  Would a Clinton order preventing enforcement of the
>>anti-gay regulations be illegal?

>Truman desegregated the military with an EO.  The President is Commander-
>in-Chief, constitutionally, which I would think gives him a great deal of
>discretion over the whole thing, but that's just an educated guess.

As I understand it, the UCMJ rule which forbids sodomy could only be
overturned by Congress, but the regulations against allowing gays in the
military at all can be overturned by an EO.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Making law (was: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:01:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.061044.6447@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Actually, I'm insisting on a semantic point becuase I'm opposed to 
>>activism: The distinction between interperting law (filling in the
>>details, defining vague phrases, etc...) and making law (that is,
>>things beyond the scope of existing law, altering the meaning of
>>existing law, etc...) helps to distinguish and highlight activist
>>rulings. If you mix these meanings (i.e. use "interpert" and
>>"make" interchangably) activism becomes less clear, and sounds
>>more reasonable.

>Except the very act of refusing to deal with issues beyond the scope
>of existing law "makes" law.

I'm afraid I don't see this at all: If there is no existing law,
then the judge has no authority to deal with the issue. If he
refuses to deal with it, what has changed? By his refusal, there is
no case law on the established, and the status quo, a lack of
law on the subject, remains unchanged.

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Status-based Law is Alive and Well
Summary: Proposed Maryland law will hold grandparents liable.
Keywords: Flesh and Blood
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:04:04 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

We have seen here in "misc.legal" the argument that Status-based law
is a relic of the Middle Ages, on its way out, an anachronism.  Well,
that's not so in Maryland.

Just today, Governor William Donald Schaefer proposed to the Maryland
General Assembly a bill that would hold parents of minor children
liable to pay child support for those children's children.  That is,
these grandparents would have to support their grandchildren solely
because they *were* their grandchildren.  That's an obligation based
on their Status as flesh-and-blood grandparents of their flesh-and-blood
grandchildren, not on any "contract" or "consent," or even upon their
having committed any "intentional" or "negligent" tort.

It's pure, Status-based law; it's as new as 1993; and it will have 
no trouble getting through the Assembly.  Reports of the imminent
demise of Status-based law are highly exaggerated.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus"
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Still Light On History????
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:03:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.191146.29958@doug.cae.wisc.edu> bodoh@cae.wisc.edu (Daniel Bohoh) writes:
>Many arguments made for pro-choice are utilitarian arguments.  One of
>the most emotiional is the picture of a woman being mutilated by a doctor
>performing an illegal abortion.  Abortion should remain legal so it remains
>safe for all women, say the pro-choice advocates.  However, utilitarian 
>arguments fail when considering such fundamental rights as the right to
>life and the right to personal liberty.  Turning this argument around,
>let's assume that abortion is a fundamental right.  Should the right
>to choose abortion be usurped if many pro-life activists are injured
>while chained to abortion doors?
This is not really a contradiction. The way I would phrase the argument
is: "Abortion is a fundamental right, but even if you don't believe
that abortion is a fundamental right, it should be legal for
the following reasons." It does not follow from believing that
abortion is not a fundamental right that the fetus has a fundamental
right to live. It is conceivable that neither is a fundamental right.

>The problem with utilitiarian arguments is that a fundamental right
>(be it choice or life) can never be usurped simply to benefit
>a large section of society.  That concept is at the crux of our
>Constitution.
Ratshit. Try reading Supreme Court decisions sometime.
A Fundamental Right can be removed when the State has a compelling
interest. Example: Clear and present danger.

-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
From: wesselak@suna0.cs.uiuc.edu (Erik Wesselak)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: faq?
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:30:05 GMT
Distribution: misc
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Is there an FAQ for this group?  If so, could some kind soul mail it to me?

In particular, I'm looking for anything involving copyrights.

Thanks,
Erik
-- 
| "'Who did YOU sleep with to reach   | "There's been some      __| /  |__    |
| the top of the food chain!?!'"      |  trouble in London"     __|<  /|__    |
|  --Leonard the Roach,               |                           | \/ |      |
| Beautiful Stories for Ugly Children |  Erik: wesselak@sparc0a.cs.uiuc.edu   |
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 19:02:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1993Jan22.011520.9966@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> ...You have been debating a
|> good example of this receintly: Justice Homes "Clear and Present
|> Danger" test for freedom of speach. When he first proposed
|> it, it appeared to adaquately protect free expression of ideas.

I still don't understand this.

It seems to me that the majority misapplied this test
in the very first case --- the Schenck case.  How did
the CPD test protect Schenck's free expression of ideas?

Can someone explain to me very slowly how the
CPD test, applied to the facts of the Schenck
case, yielded the decision that Holmes actually took?
That is, how was Schenck's activity a Clear and Present Danger?

I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar, but every time
I read about the history of these First Amendment
cases, it appears to me that there was nothing
wrong with the CPD test.  The Court simply misapplied
its own test in judging Schenck.  Later courts simply changed the
test rather than admit the original test was misapplied.

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Still Light On History????
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:21:50 GMT

bodoh@cae.wisc.edu (Daniel Bohoh) writes:
>
>As a side note, I doubt
>that there is any group that can claim complete consistency in
>their stand...
>
>You like this consistency argument, don't you?  Well, I've thought
>about the consistency of the pro-choice side.  I could show, for
>example, that the concept of abortion being a "fundamental" right
>is inconsistent with the utilitarian slogans and the coat hanger
>insignias used by the movement.

OK, I'll bite.  Me and drieux both want you to explain this, now.

As for consistency, I figure it like this.  If a position is internally
consistent, that doesn't mean it's right.  But if it's not, it's wrong.
If the pro-life movement rallies under the banner that All Life Is
Sacred, then they'd better mean it--if they don't, they mean something
else, and they're not pro-life, they're pro-something else.

Complete consistency is _easy_.  Mind you, I don't expect an entire
political movement to be self-consistent;  different factions will
accept or reject different principles and beliefs.

But each of us human beings should try to find systems of belief that,
at the very least, will support themselves.  Why should I ignore
internal contradictions in my belief system?  Any why shouldn't I spend
time actively trying to find them and resolve them?

Philip Dick wrote once that for every person, there is one sentence,
one series of words, that can break that person apart.  Think of the
contradiction-resolving process as becoming less vulnerable to your
magic sentence...
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "A degree in Computer Science from Berkeley didn't much qualify me to uphold
  the banner of Chaos against the forces of Order."              - R. Zelazny
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: The Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:01:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.012131.2766@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
># More interesting is to ask what is the difference between the following:
># 	1. Blocking streets and buildings to protest abortion.
># 	2. Blocking streets and buildings to protest a war.
># 	3. Blocking streets and buildings to protest a veto of a bill.
># 	4. Blocking streets and buildings to protest a jury verdict that
># 	you don't like.
>All of the above activities can fairly be grouped under the broad
>category of civil disobedience.  Non-violent civil disobedience has
>historically been an effective means of promoting change, and it has
>the added plus of keeping casualties low, usually.
>However, the activities brought to the attention of the Supreme Court
>in the Bray vs. Alexandria case (which spawned this accursed thread)
>go beyond simple civil disobedience in one arguably important way:
>Operation Rescue does not simply block streets and randomly selected
>buildings, it blockades women's health clinics that provide abortion
>services.

And anti-military protesters don't simply block random streets and buildings
either, they block companies that produce defense-related goods, trains that
bring defense-related materials, etc....
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: fornication
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:56:52 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <RJC.93Jan20224131@devo.unify.com> rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes:
>liberty, *or* happiness.  The U. S. Constitution, 1787, has force of
>law and only mentions life, liberty, and *property*.  This is probably

	Duh, yeah, that's what I meant.  My dick is my property and I've got
a right to the free and unhindered use of it.  So it _violates_ _my_
_Constitutional_ _rights_ for some legislature to tell me where to stick it.

									wr
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Making law (was: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:10:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.041940.1487@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <27ft02m733=201@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>>It sounds like what you're opposed to is "judicial activism," courts making 
>>law that is deemed betyond their proper scope (and the extent of that scope 
>>is subject of a great deal of debate).  You can't seriously object to courts 
>>making law, which is unavoidable.
>
>Actually, I'm insisting on a semantic point becuase I'm opposed to 
>activism: The distinction between interperting law (filling in the
>details, defining vague phrases, etc...) and making law (that is,
>things beyond the scope of existing law, altering the meaning of
>existing law, etc...) helps to distinguish and highlight activist
>rulings. If you mix these meanings (i.e. use "interpert" and
>"make" interchangably) activism becomes less clear, and sounds
>more reasonable.

Except the very act of refusing to deal with issues beyond the scope
of existing law "makes" law.  Are judges, when faced with such a case,
supposed to self-destruct like a Star Trek android told a paradox?  (Would
make oral argument much more interesting, to be sure.)  Remember -- you
can't dismiss the case, either, because that also makes law.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: hilary.miller@execnet.com (hilary miller)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: need help with lease
Date: 28 Jan 93 02:29:37 GMT
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Bob Glickstein, in a message to All on 01-25-93 at 10:28am, said:

BG>|Shortly thereafter, I was contacted by the owner who told me that his
   |agent had unintentionally misrepresented his wishes.  The owner had no
   |intention of releasing me from the lease.  By this time it was too late
   |for me to respect his wishes, however, as I was committed to my new lea
   |_______________________________________________________________________

          Under general principles of agency, a principal is bound by
          the acts of his agent, even if the agent is disloyal.  You
          have both the moral and legal high ground.  Assuming you can
          document the agent's statements to you (as, for example, his
          retention without objection of your confirmatory letter), as
          a practical matter, you will probably need to be in court to
          recover your security deposit.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
   s r
---
 ~ DeLuxe}/386 1.25 #11645 ~ There once was a [ ] from [ ] whose [ ] was
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: dg10+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Goldreich)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Insurance question
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:16:25 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


 
A friend of mine will be taking out auto insurance soon.  In the past
he has gotten a couple of speeding tickets.  He is planning on 
"forgetting" about the tickets when the insurance company asks.  
(I don't believe he has any points or any other easy way for the
insurance company to find out.)
 
Obviously there are ethical issues that must be addressed, but I
have a more basic question.
 
If he were to get into a serious accident and the insurance company
investigates and finds out he lied on the application, will the
insurance pay for the accident?  i.e. does lying on the application
mean your not insured, or does it mean that you are insured but are
cheating the company on the premium?
 
If he is not really insured (presumably in a major accident the insurance
company will investigate), then he is just cheating himself.
 
I have seen on a number of occassions where people live in one state, but
register their car in another state to save on insurance.  Same question.
(In particular, I knew someone in California - a grad student with a
family- whose car was registered in Iowa)
 
If the insurance is still valid, then I have another question.
 
Suppose someone takes out life insurance and "forgets" that he has
cancer or AIDS.  The insurance company can't be liable in such a case,
can it?
 
Again, there are ethical problems in all these cases.  I'm just asking
about the legal issues.
 
David
From: herb@sybase.com (Herb Lison)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Living Trusts
Date: 20 Jan 93 15:45:45 GMT
Organization: Sybase, Inc.

I've just learned about this group so excuse me if I'm bringing up
a FAQ from earlier on.

I'm interested in anybody's experience with setting up a living
trust.  I've read several books on the subject and except for the
expense, it seems like an excellent idea.  Does anyone have some
relevant experience they would like to share.  I'll post summaries
if folks want to mail to me directly.

Thanks,

Herb Lison
From: hilary.miller@execnet.com (hilary miller)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: refused store charge
Date: 28 Jan 93 02:29:38 GMT
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Ead, in a message to All on 01-25-93 at 7:03pm, said:

ED/3i wondered whether store charge card issuers also fell under this
   3rubric. i don't recall being asked for my ssn as part of the application
   3for my mervyn's card. is such a practice legal (especially in
   3conjunction with a 10% discount)?
   TMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM>

          Almost all issuers of credit cards require a social security
          number in connection with an application for the simple
          reason that those numbers are used as file numbers by all
          three major national credit bureaus.  It's legal.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
   s r
---
 ~ DeLuxe}/386 1.25 #11645 ~ Old bankers never die; they just lose interest.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show