HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: Fort Wayne: Landlords Must Evict Drug-Dealing Tenants
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 05:38:03 GMT

>18-58. EVICTION PROCEEDINGS AS A DEFENSE. No person shall be charged
>with the violation of this article if such person:
>a) Has instituted eviction proceedings within thirty (30) days of
>commencement of said proceedings.
>b) Has completed said eviction proceedings within thirty (30) days of
>commencement of said proceedings.

This is beginning to sound like a really bad joke.  Except it's not a joke.

What happens if I, as a landlord, institute eviction proceedings
*AND THEY FAIL*?  Do I have to keep doing it over and over again?

What happens if the eviction proceedings drag out for longer than 30
days?  Have eviction proceedings *EVER* been completed within 30 days,
ANYWHERE?

What happens when a competing landlord installs his mother in my
building as a tenant, and her job is to suspect and report any and
all tenants or prospective tenants except herself of dealing drugs,
so his building will be full and mine will be empty?

Not to mention such things as tenants "considered innocent until proven
guilty", "due process" and things like that.

					Gordon L. Burditt
					sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:37:58 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal

As quoted from <1992Aug25.161515.27726@Princeton.EDU> by egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges):

> In article <1992Aug25.135329.10526@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
> >
> >The market does not *invade* the sphere of ideas. As long as people
> >choose for themselves what concepts are to become part of their
> >thinking, the realm of ideas *is* a market, it is not "infected" or
> >corrupted by a market.
> 
> A market is where I make contracts for mutual advantage; I do not make a
> contract with the author of a book to believe his ideas.

You DO make an implied contract to RECEIVE his ideas in written form.  The
choice to believe them is strictly yours and is a free one.  Of course you 
could be so impressionable that you believe EVERYTHING you read and 
immediately fall under its spell.  If that's the case I highly recommend that
you run right out and buy "Without Marx or Jesus" and "How Democracies Perish"
by Jean Francois Revel.

> >Who besides you says that the said businessmen have to be equal, except
> >under the law? Some business people are more sucessful than others.
> 
> This is the connotation of the market metaphor.  As such, it deludes
> people without market power into believing that they have the market
> power of a New York Times or a Knight-Ridder.

In fact in many cases they WILL.  Or are you claiming that NYT publishes the
ideological material approved by the fundamentalist right...?

> Thank you for explaining that to me.  It's the usual libertarian
> shuffle.  Libertarianism purports to be a philosophy.  Upon inspection, it
> is always found to deal in pre-philosophical distinctions which are
> never unpacked and which have, in America, a racial and class-based
> foundation.  I suggest that many of your ideas are convenient
> rationalizations; prime among them is the comfortable view of a benign
> market mechanism which (surprise) rewards white males.

It seems to reward Alice Walker and Andrea Dworkin pretty well too.  An 
inconvenient fact I thought I throw in your face....



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Cal Penal Code 12401/Time constraints on law review types.
Date: 30 Aug 92 23:24:52 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Aug28.231711.15226@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
 
 
>>>>Use your brain first year! [racist stereotype of rap concert deleted]
>>> 
>>> [...](And I used my brain first year.  That's why I'm on law review.)
>>

Oh my.

>>OH! A law review person! One of those people who would rather stick to the
>>ivory tower instead of sulgging it out where the action takes place--the
>>courtroom. No wonder you can't apply a law, you are to busy debating how many
>>supreme court justices can dance on a fundimental right.

>You appear to have very little conception of how much law review helps
>you get to where the action takes place.  I'm almost surely going to
>be on a Federal Court of Appeals clerking two years from now, and my
>membership on law review gives me, with a little luck, an outside shot 
>at a Supreme Court clerkship and/or a spot in the Solicitor 
>General's office.  I can't imagine a better place for the action.  
>I also can breathe a little easier during job interviews.

Hey Ted, does the word "insufferable" have a familiar ring to you by
any chance?


-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Advice for first year law student?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Keywords: Mac vs. DOS
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 23:37:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.193954.25739@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs) writes:

>On the other hand, what does SoftPC cost?  Probably ~$400 ?

Only if you need to run Windows on your Mac. The standard version of
SoftPC costs less than $200. And that's if you actually need to run
DOS software on your Mac. Mere file compatibility is available for around
$60.

>It may be worth getting yourself a cheap DOS machine, either a $500
>desktop or a <$1000 laptop, which will give you similar performance.

This is a little expensive in comparison. Besides, when you run DOS apps
on your Mac, you can cut and paste between DOS and Mac applications. Hard
to do that when you have two machines.


--Mike


-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Advice for first year law student?
Organization: Clark University
Date: 1 SEP 92 17:20:00 GMT

In a previous article, ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) wrote:
>Speaking of Macintosh, what word processor should I use?  I used to use
>FullWrite Professional.  It served me well, seeing me through hundreds of
>pages of project proposals with no problems.  However, it is not being
>actively supported, as far as I can tell, so it's time to move on.


Personally, WordPerfect is my Mac Word Processor of choice.     However, I 
don't think you can go wrong with either it, or Word.  Those are the 2 
"industry standards", as far as I know.  Both are extremely compatible with 
their DOS counterparts, and Word Perfect can read and write Word documents
(I don't know if Word can or can't).

Definately, stick with one of those.


				Loren Finkelstein

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 05:36:27 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC
Keywords: Envy; Resentment

In article <12068@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <19120@smoke.brl.mil>, matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
># Cheryl Stewart was posting articles condemning stay-at-home wives
># as "parasites" long before soc.feminism came into existence.
>
>She also used to make statements like, "Men.  Strong and wrong.
>All of them."

	Cheryl Stewart was a crank, but she had style and a sense of
humor. You know, Clayton, if you or Ed Nilges could buy a sense of humor
somewhere, you might have fans, too. Cranks are alright when they're
entertaining, but even Ed's more entertaining than you.

	Not intentionally, though :-).

						Kayembee
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Tort Reform (was: Number of Lawyers)
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:03:41 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <65065@cup.portal.com> edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok) writes:

>>Good idea.  I'm in favor of it too.  === Al Sparks

>So, as long as no criminal statute forbid a certain behavior, one can inflict
>such behavior on another so long as one can afford the compensation.  Right?

Simple solution, make the offending activity illegal.  Then the offending
party can be fined out the wazoo.  It seems to me that punishment in
general properly belongs in the criminal law not civil law.

>Think about sexual harassment at work.

I believe in most states this is already illegal, under any number of
statutes

>Of course you can say society should require people to tolerate certain
>behavior, but is that fair?

We already do that in a fair number of cases.  The guy several cubes down
from me has just horrendous breath.  (He has been known to kill several
small plants. ;^))  Should I be allowed to sue him for pain and sufferring.
-- 
--Mark
From: shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Advice for first year law student?
Date: 21 Aug 1992 07:58:57 -0700
Organization: Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange
NNTP-Posting-Host: gw.home.vix.com

Mike,

Many reasonable people, I dare say with far more knowledge than either
of us about computer architecture, are able to disagree about which is
the better machine (IBM or Mac).  Personally I find them both
deficient, and prefer a UNIX platform.

I am aware of Macs being able to read/write DOS disks, but at least in
the last two firms in which I worked, folks with Macs were unable to
fully integrate their work functions (outlining/writing is not the
only thing one needs to be able to do on a computer as an attorney).

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?

Xref: sparky misc.legal:16430 misc.consumers:15665
From: parikh@sirocco.eng.hou.compaq.com (Vijay Parikh)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: Endorsing checks for deposit via ink stamp?
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:47:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.

In article <1992Aug26.003400.13033@cs.ucla.edu> wales@cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) writes:
>Is it permissible for an individual to endorse checks for deposit via
>an ink stamp with his name, bank name and account number, and the words
>"FOR DEPOSIT ONLY"?
>
>Businesses seem to do this all the time; but what about individuals?
>
>If individuals are in fact permitted to do this, why is it that banks
>always tell customers to =sign= checks when depositing them?
>
>--
>Rich Wales <wales@CS.UCLA.EDU> // UCLA Computer Science Department
>3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024-1596 // +1 (310) 825-5683

In conjunction to the previous query, I had wondered about this also.
If a party issues a personal check to another party with "For Deposit Only"
written on the back of the check, is it possible to cash the check by the
second party?

If it is, is it necessary to write the message in the first place?

BTW, I have cashed such check which was issued to me by a friend of mine.
The bank teller did notice the back of the check, however, she did pay
me the cash for the amount of the check.

Any food for thoughts???

thx,

Vijay Parikh
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: QUESTION: Granting Police More Power (legality)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 01:23:50 GMT

A relevant Supreme Court decision is probably in Terry v. Ohio,
392 U.S. 1 (1968).  The question involved the reasons a police
officer can use to stop and frisk an individual.  The test was
defined as:  It must reasonably appear that the suspect "may be
armed and presently dangerous."  The level of certainty required
is only that of substantial possibility, which is less than a
50% certainty such as would be enough to justify a full arrest.
A "Terry stop" does not allow a full search.  The officer must
limit herself to a pat down of the outer clothing.  If and only
if that pat down detects an object that may be a weapon, the
officer may conduct a more intrusive search beneath the surface
clothing.  If the SUNY Campus Police are members of the state
police, this is probably already the rule by which they are
governed, absent any special rules applying to SUNY.  In any
case, Terry stops by ordinary police are common, and presently
constitutional.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,rec.arts.movies
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Marx Brothers
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 22:12:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.174516.24763@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Aug29.083509.23522@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug28.233006.15783@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>
>>>>Hey Ted!  Who was Julius Marx?  Oh well, White Men Can't Proofread, huh?
>>>>Did ya mean to say Groucho?  Wanna post some C code for my collection?
>>>
>>>Given that Julius was "Groucho," I fail to see the proofreading error.

>  I submit that despite
>the high quality of the Marx Brothers, their real names are trivial with
>respect to the issues under discussion,

Funny how they were more important when you though Ted was wrong than
when he proved you were wrong.

> including Frank's love of racist
>vaudeville routines.

Racist?  Oh, sorry, I forgot.  Whether they were Irish, Italian,
German, or Jewish is irrelevant; they're white, therefore (according
to Nilgeanism) they're racist.

>  Again, you and he only reinforce my point re the
>fact that forty years of TV has resulted in a widespread inability to
>make distinctions, whether between Viktora and Martin Luther King, or
>Amos 'n Andy and Spike Lee.

It hasn't prevented people from being able to distinguish between
correct argument and Ed Nilges's drivel, so I guess that difference is
even greater.

>  It has, it is evident in folks like you and
>the Tedster, resulted in people who literally are unable to make value
>judgements, who see all things as residing at the same low level.

Funny, I notice them making value judgements all the time.  Charles
and Ted, what do you consider the accuracy level of Ed Nilges's
postings?  (That's a value judgement, Ed, unless you'd rather admit
that it's just a fact.)

>Fifth graders pride themselves on being able to one-up each other with
>trivialities that are irrevelant in the long run.

Again, I quote from earlier in this article:

>>>>Hey Ted!  Who was Julius Marx?  Oh well, White Men Can't Proofread, huh?
>>>>Did ya mean to say Groucho?  Wanna post some C code for my collection?

Any child psychologists out there want to estimate the grade level of
the preceding comment?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: kooiman@iat.holonet.net (JOHN KOOIMAN)
Subject: Fully Informed Jury - info wanted.
Organization: HoloNet (BBS: 510-704-1058)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 06:04:06 GMT

I've lost all my information on the "Fully Informed Jury Amendment" during
the last move, but some of my co-workers are interested in finding out
more about it.

Could someone please either post or E-mail a me good Introductory article and
the address/phone number of FIJA?

Thanks in advance.
John Kooiman - kooiman@orac.holonet.net

Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,misc.legal
From: heal@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren Heal)
Subject: Re: [misc.legal] Maryland Law Brief
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:04:13 GMT

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>[A repost - Carl]

>And of course, the Court of Appeals is right.  The first principle
>of government ought to be that the ordinary citizen going about his
>business and breaking no laws deserves to be let alone.  Stopping
>and searching people who *might* be drug dealers or couriers has no
>place in a free society.  Rather, the police ought *first* to offer
>to buy drugs from a suspected dealer, or to ship drugs with a suspected
>courier, and then if he takes them up on the deal, that gives rise 
>to a "reasonable and articulable suspicion" that he is a lawbreaker, 
>and then they can search him and seize his drugs and weapons.

And of course there are those of us who believe that drugs should be legal.
-- 
Loren E. Heal: leheal@uiuc.edu  {att,iuvax,uunet}!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!leheal
From: jeffg@loki.esd.sgi.com (Jeff C. Glover)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Summons about to be served; options?
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:43:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA

I was notified by my insurance company that I was likely to be served a
summons concerning an accident I a while ago.  I had thought this had
been settled, but apparently not.  I'm the "deep pockets" of the
parties involved in the accident, but the insurance company is probably
on the hook for the entire claim.  They're serving me because I'm a
witness, I guess.

They are having a hard time locating me since I've moved twice since
the accident.  According to the insurance agent, they have 60 days to
serve, and the statute of limitations where the accident occured
expires shortly (already expired?).

In any case, the agent has been in touch with the attorney in the other
state, and hasn't given out any information about my current location,
so it may just quietly go away (NOT!).

Any ideas of what my options are here?  The summons is likely to
involve significant travel, although I'm told a deposition would
probably do.

Jeff
jeffg@sgi.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 03:12:57 GMT

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:

>Punishment is a form of force,

So if I decide not to hire Ed Nilges because of the garbage he posts,
am I using force?  Refusing to hire someone qualifies as "punishment",
doesn't it?

> and we give government a monopoly of
>force.

No we don't.  We give government a monopoly of certain types of force.

>Deregulating punishment, for example in allowing small businessmen the
>right to fire "for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all"
>simply produces a call on the part of victims for better regulation.  In
>the case of job loss, it has created a litigation industry in which
>employees sue their ex-employers for unjust firing.  I've been present
>at unjust firings (for example, I was an innocent bystander when a woman
>was publically fired by a video store for being "too friendly with the
>customers") and I find the victims' reactions understandable; if you
>decry the litigation industry created by their real perception of
>injustice, then you should support legislation restricting unjust
>termination.

This is one of the more ridiculous things I've seen, even from Ed
Nilges.  If there is no legislation restricting unjust termination,
then there will be very little litigation over it.  If there is more
such legislation, there will be more litigation.

>Of course, none of this will make sense to the libertarian, normally an
>economically comfortable white male who sees advantage in the war of all
>against all.

In the United States, unsurprisingly, the majority of libertarians,
socialists, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, ... are
all white.  I don't know whether women are more or less likely to be
libertarian than men; does Ed, or is he just making up facts?

>  The fact that such people are profoundly deluded and need
>to spend a holiday in Bosnia/Herzegovina to see the results of their
>"liberty" only means that "nobody ever went broke overestimating the
>stupidity of the American people."

I was unaware that Bosnia/Herzegovina was ever a "libertarian
paradise".  Perhaps Ed is living in some alternate universe?

>>profits.  And that most people on the net have some deep-rooted
>>pshycological problem which only Ed can determine from miles away by
>>reading what we type.
>
>Perhaps this "telepathy" is nothing more than reading comprehension,
>hein?

I was the one who mentioned "telepathy", when Ed posted something
about libertarians' "secret wishes".  Now he's saying that he read
them on the net.

>but there ARE deeper ways of parsing text, including ways that tease out
>their hidden implications.

Such as making up meanings, which are then denied by the original poster.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Can someone be fired after they've resigned?
Date: Tue,  1 Sep 92 00:28:12 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Aug31.164808.1628@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil>

> Just curious:
> 
> Joe Blow walks into his Personnel office and hands in his resignation.  He
> gives a week's notice.
> 
> 2 days later his boss calls Joe into his office and says, "You're fired!".
> 
> Can this happen?  Or is the resignation considered legal and binding (or
> whatever terms you wish) and therefore no action can be taken during the
> notice period?
> 

Well, if resignation precludes subsequent firing, then I think I'll turn
in a resignation with a 25 year notice. :-)

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 11:19:49 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal

As quoted from <1992Aug28.152715.24814@Princeton.EDU> by egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges):

> 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!)
> 
> Sheheryar, a scan of names shows, unfortunately, that the net is
> composed of a preponderance of white, Northern European males.  This
> fact is innocuous in and of itself since it reflects the historical
> provenance of the net.

What fatuous racism.  I suppose now that you can determine race by name?  What
race am I?  You CAN tell by my name, CAN'T you?  You remind me of the Nazi
"racial specialists" who could supposedly tell a Jew by their physiognomy and
who had voluminous texts, charts, and photos to aid that purpose.

I knew you were a Stalinist, but you've outdone yourself here, having 
graduated to craven racism.  Of course Stalinism, anti-semitism and racism are
never very far away from each other are they?  Nihilges you seem to be the only
one here who's still taking on the "White man's burden".  It and you are an
embarrassing, paternalistic anachronism.

> European male who's ashamed of the behavior of my tribe.  The key to

Why don't you just concentrate on your own racism.  There's a lifetime of shame
and degradation in THAT.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16461 alt.politics.correct:5138 alt.censorship:7155