From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Subject: Re: Defense against the detractors...
Organization: University of Oregon
Lines: 93
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Apr2.021154.18039@colorado.edu>,
 ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes...
>In article <C4tDAB.A4o@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>In <1993Apr1.141455.16433@colorado.edu>, ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU sez:
>>>	(I would have thought you would have found better means
>>>of refuting or responding to the substantive points and information in
>>>the S.B. 

>>The S.B. needs no refutation by me.  The patent absurdity of your
>>beloved Great Book speaks for itself.

>	Your ignorance is clearly showing itself again, Mark.
>	Why don't you read the post and show us all where the
>	Silver Bulletin is wrong. It is an expose' of the
>	corruption and fraud in government. Or do you feel
>	that our wonderful state is just nifty and sweet?

Fine.  If you think it's an expose of corruption and fraud, 
please prevent a jury question.  Don't just reassert your 
opening statement.

>. . . 	
>>For those in the dark, I wrote to Teel's sysadmin noting that a) he
>>wastes bandwidth by posting identical messages (long ones) to several
>>newsgroups independently (instead of cross-posting), and b) he has
>>improperly used his posts to advertise goods for sale.  
>	A) I was requested to post to those groups
>	and they were getting deleted... By whom?
>	B) The "goods for sale" was a method of showing the
>	source and obtaining further info...
>	And the message in question was retrieved in its entirety
>	from the net. I simply reposted it from one year ago.

>	Would there be a complaint if I had posted an article from
>	"Newsweek" then posted the address and subscription price?
>	How about the subscription info for the American Law Review?
>	Bit of a double standard? Yeah... think so...

No indication that was what happened until now.  Editing down is 
always possible.

>. . .  
>>Readers more careful than A.J. will note that the complaint (appended
>>below) expressly disclaims any wish to suppress Teel's postings merely
>>because they are infantile, irrational, and tedious.
>	More name calling, Mark? Is that your best shot?
>	Oh, I see. The reason for your sending that letter
>	had nothing to do with your opinion of my information...
>	Right. Clearly your motivations were the best interest
>	of all of those poor users who could not speak for themselves.
>	If we weren't talking about attempted censorship(sp?), it
>	would be funny...

>	Further, your "perception" (for want of a better term) is not
>	the feedback that I have been getting via email and others.
>	 The "keep it up!"'s outnumber the "Go away!"'s at least 20 to 1.

It would be interesting to hear who the responding parties are.

>	I, for one, have no intention of being a slave. You may
>	be so if you like. Just remember where you heard that
>	on Tribute Day (April 15). I am not a 14th Amendment
>	taxpayer/slave/SSN holder/etc. Are you?

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY:

Don't let the IRS see this, Mr. Teel.

>. . . .
>	And by the way, the reference to UCC 1-207 is made
>	in pari materia with my Common-Law Rights. 1-207
>	is the recourse and 1-103 is the remedy.

And, as has been noted more times than we care to count, about as 
likely to stand up in court as the twenty-seven eight by ten 
color glossy pictures the Stockbridge, Mass., police, took for 
use as evidence against Arlo Guthrie.  (As anyone who knows 
Alice's Restaurant is aware, he pleaded guilty to littering, was 
fined $50, and told to pick up the garbage.)

						Daniel Reitman

HOW NOT TO WRITE A DEED

One case involved the construction of a conveyance to grantees "jointly, as 
tenants in common, with equal rights and interest in said land, and to the 
survivor thereof, in fee simple. . . . To Have and to Hold the same unto the 
said parties hereto, equally, jointly, as tenants in common, with equal rights 
and interest for the period or term of their lives, and to the survivor thereof 
at the death of the other."

The court held that the survivorship provision indicated an intent to create a 
joint tenancy.  Germain v. Delaine, 294 Ala. 443, 318 So.2d 681 (1975).
