I thought some might enjoy this:

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:36:29 -0500, the inscrutable Nova
spake:

I thought some might enjoy this:

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

O H M I G O D ! Scary schtuff, schweetheart.


================================================== ======
TANSTAAFL: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
http://diversify.com Gourmet Web Applications
==========================

Scary, you bet. And relevant. I signed on to teach a course in astronomy
through my town's recreation department. Before they'll approve the course I
am required to sign an authorization that allows them to query the Selective
Service, ANY law enforcement agency or jail officer, ANY place of business,
ANY court, ANY school or other educational institution.
And to top it off, they want me to sign away ANY rights I may have to
liability or damages of ANY kind.
After checking with the ACLU and my state government, I'm about to tell them
some very specific place where they can store their form. It may be legal,
but it ain't right.

Bob


"Nova" wrote in message
...
I thought some might enjoy this:

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

Remember to send a thank you note to your local trial lawyers for that.

todd

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...
Scary, you bet. And relevant. I signed on to teach a course in astronomy
through my town's recreation department. Before they'll approve the course
I
am required to sign an authorization that allows them to query the
Selective
Service, ANY law enforcement agency or jail officer, ANY place of
business,
ANY court, ANY school or other educational institution.
And to top it off, they want me to sign away ANY rights I may have to
liability or damages of ANY kind.
After checking with the ACLU and my state government, I'm about to tell
them
some very specific place where they can store their form. It may be legal,
but it ain't right.

Bob


"Nova" wrote in message
...
I thought some might enjoy this:

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

Bob Schmall wrote:

Scary, you bet. And relevant. I signed on to teach a course in astronomy
through my town's recreation department. Before they'll approve the course
I am required to sign an authorization that allows them to query the
Selective Service, ANY law enforcement agency or jail officer, ANY place
of business, ANY court, ANY school or other educational institution.

I'm a bit puzzled as to why they need "authorization" to do this. Seems to
me that all they need is the phone number of each of those entities and
they can "query" them to their hearts' content.

Now, among those entities, some will know nothing about you, so why do you
care if they query them? And others will know something about you, like
whether you're a draft dodger or wanted criminal or are in some other way
prohibited by law from participating in Federally funded programs, of which
their recreation department is no doubt one, or whether you have in fact
taken and passed an astronomy course or exhibited a useful knowledge of
astronomy or are in some other way qualified to teach astronomy, which
would be a useful thing for them to know before they set you in front of a
classroom, or whether the last place you worked you were a reasonable
employee or whether you cussed out the boss and ****ed off the customers,
which again it would be useful for them to know before they put you in
front of a room full of people who are expecting some sort of reasonably
effective interaction.

Sorry, but it doesn't seem to me that they've asked you for anything
unreasonable there. The "ANY" part is probably a lot easier on them than
listing all of the specific agencies that they will contact in _your_ case
based on your employment history and the like.

And to top it off, they want me to sign away ANY rights I may have to
liability or damages of ANY kind.

Which is standard for government agencies employing part time workers--some
kid spills his coffee on you you might shrug it off, but somebody else will
sue _them_ for running their coffee machines too hot or creating a hostile
work environment or some such instead of just accepting that **** happens
or going after the student for malicious clumsiness or whatever.

After checking with the ACLU and my state government, I'm about to tell
them some very specific place where they can store their form. It may be
legal, but it ain't right.

How many former prospective employers have you told where they could store
their form? Seems to me that if you're prone to tell people where to store
their forms you're going to be very unhappy dealing with the more
obstreperous sort of student.


Bob


"Nova" wrote in message
...
I thought some might enjoy this:

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)



--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:23:03 -0600, "Todd Fatheree"
wrote:
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...
Scary, you bet. And relevant. I signed on to teach a course in astronomy
through my town's recreation department. Before they'll approve the course
I
am required to sign an authorization that allows them to query the
Selective
Service, ANY law enforcement agency or jail officer, ANY place of
business,
ANY court, ANY school or other educational institution.
And to top it off, they want me to sign away ANY rights I may have to
liability or damages of ANY kind.

Seems kind of heavy-handed.

.... snip
"Nova" wrote in message
...
I thought some might enjoy this:

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf


Remember to send a thank you note to your local trial lawyers for that.


I thought it somewhat ironic that it was the aclu (a bunch of trial
lawyers in their own right) hosting the above parody. Although the parody
did leave out the dialog, "Oh, I see you are a member of the Church of ...,
all of our currently available cooks are athiests and your presence in our
restaurant would be offensive to their non-beliefs, therefore, I am going
to have to terminate this order and file a grievance against you for
harassing our employees for having beliefs they find offensive ..."





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Hi Bob.

I'm a municipal employee myself. It's more a legal and liability
issue for them. Just one example: Your going to be working around
kids. They have to exercise "due diligents" when it comes to
performing a background check on you. i.e. They have a
responsibility to protect the child attending one of their programs.
If they hire you, and fail to exercise diligents, and perform some
degree of background check, and you turn out to be a nasty person,
they can be held responsible for your actions. Although it may
be intrusive, that's just a fact of life now a days, when you work
with kids.


Pat




On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:22:41 GMT, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:

Scary, you bet. And relevant. I signed on to teach a course in astronomy
through my town's recreation department. Before they'll approve the course I
am required to sign an authorization that allows them to query the Selective
Service, ANY law enforcement agency or jail officer, ANY place of business,
ANY court, ANY school or other educational institution.
And to top it off, they want me to sign away ANY rights I may have to
liability or damages of ANY kind.
After checking with the ACLU and my state government, I'm about to tell them
some very specific place where they can store their form. It may be legal,
but it ain't right.

Bob


"Nova" wrote in message
...
I thought some might enjoy this:

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

I've heard of due diligence but what is "diligents"? Is that a
gentleman who likes dill pickles??? :)

toolguy wrote:

I've heard of due diligence but what is "diligents"? Is that a
gentleman who likes dill pickles??? :)

Diligents are gentlemen (and ladies) who exercise diligence.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:48:09 -0500, "SawDust (Pat)"
wrote:

Although it may
be intrusive, that's just a fact of life now a days, when you work
with kids.

The problems they're addressing were always a problem,
it's just that they were neatly swept under a rug somewhere,
say another parish. The difference is that these things are
now on the table, in plain view.

Not Bad....


On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:54:28 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

toolguy wrote:

I've heard of due diligence but what is "diligents"? Is that a
gentleman who likes dill pickles??? :)

Diligents are gentlemen (and ladies) who exercise diligence.

lid writes:
Bob Schmall wrote:
And to top it off, they want me to sign away ANY rights I may have to
liability or damages of ANY kind.

Which is standard for government agencies employing part time
workers--some
kid spills his coffee on you you might shrug it off, but somebody else
will
sue _them_ for running their coffee machines too hot or creating a hostile
work environment or some such instead of just accepting that **** happens
or going after the student for malicious clumsiness or whatever.

It might very well be that that signing away of any rights regarding
liability or damages of any kind also includes anything they might say to
someone else/another agency, be it based in fact or fiction. That's a
dangerous thing to do as it can ultimately destroy you or your ability to
earn a reasonable living. If we are concerned about identity theft and
the problems getting it all "fixed," we really need to worry about this
type of thing as there is no way of fixing it as you've signed away all of
your rights to fix it as it would entail contradicting their careless
comments to others which you've said, by signing the document, that you
acknowledge you have no right to do.

People that sign this type of document without concern are often the same
people who don't bother to read the printed documents they sign when
renting cars, obtaining credit cards, buying houses, leasing property,
etc., and often get themselves into trouble. The final story is the judge
looks at the signed document, usually the full page of fine print on the
back which you signed that you read under the larger print on the front,
and says you signed it and finds for the other guy.

It's better to be cautious than careless when signing away any rights.
There's a big difference between them investigating you as a potential
employee and them passing on information to whomever they wish with no
liability for what they say.

And, yes, I do base these comments on real life experience. During the
course of my working years, I've had first-hand contact with many who have
had horror stories to tell.

Glenna

Glenna Rose wrote:

lid writes:
Bob Schmall wrote:
And to top it off, they want me to sign away ANY rights I may have to
liability or damages of ANY kind.

Which is standard for government agencies employing part time
workers--some
kid spills his coffee on you you might shrug it off, but somebody else
will
sue _them_ for running their coffee machines too hot or creating a hostile
work environment or some such instead of just accepting that **** happens
or going after the student for malicious clumsiness or whatever.

It might very well be that that signing away of any rights regarding
liability or damages of any kind also includes anything they might say to
someone else/another agency, be it based in fact or fiction. That's a
dangerous thing to do as it can ultimately destroy you or your ability to
earn a reasonable living.

So let's, see, how many times has a government agency lied about someone and
then claimed that they had waived their right to sue for libel or slander?

If we are concerned about identity theft and
the problems getting it all "fixed," we really need to worry about this
type of thing as there is no way of fixing it as you've signed away all of
your rights to fix it as it would entail contradicting their careless
comments to others which you've said, by signing the document, that you
acknowledge you have no right to do.

People that sign this type of document without concern are often the same
people who don't bother to read the printed documents they sign when
renting cars, obtaining credit cards, buying houses, leasing property,
etc., and often get themselves into trouble. The final story is the judge
looks at the signed document, usually the full page of fine print on the
back which you signed that you read under the larger print on the front,
and says you signed it and finds for the other guy.

It's better to be cautious than careless when signing away any rights.
There's a big difference between them investigating you as a potential
employee and them passing on information to whomever they wish with no
liability for what they say.

And, yes, I do base these comments on real life experience. During the
course of my working years, I've had first-hand contact with many who have
had horror stories to tell.

So tell us a "horror story" in which someone signed a typical
municipal-government waiver of liability and then the municipal government
lied about them to a third party and defended itself using the waiver of
liability.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On 29 Jan 2005 13:24:14 -0800, the inscrutable "toolguy"
spake:

I've heard of due diligence but what is "diligents"? Is that a
gentleman who likes dill pickles??? :)

Another guy just said "should of" today. Oy vay.
Spreak Engrish, troops!


----------------------------------------------------
Thesaurus: Ancient reptile with excellent vocabulary
http://diversify.com Dynamic Website Applications
================================================== ==

lid writes:

So tell us a "horror story" in which someone signed a typical
municipal-government waiver of liability and then the municipal government
lied about them to a third party and defended itself using the waiver of
liability.

Hmmm. I don't recall saying *anything* in my writing about a municipal
government in any of my message.

My point was, in case you missed it since I didn't spell it out, that
people should *read* what they sign and try to understand what it *truly*
means, and *can* mean.

If a person is uncomfortable signing a legally binding document, then they
shouldn't do it. Period. It makes no difference who the originator of
that document might be. Of one thing you can be certain, if someone,
anyone, wants you to release them of liability, there *is* a reason they
have that desire; matters not to you if it is based on anything in your
own life. Whether it might adversely affect you at some future date is
your decision to make. But on the chance it happens, say ten years down
the line, don't bitch about it. This type of thing happens on rental
agreements (do *you* always read the rental agreement "hard stuff" printed
on the back of the rental form you sign when you rent equipment, a car,
etc.?) which can get the poor soul who was in a hurry and accepted the
presentor's "It's just the standard agreement" into trouble. There is no
such thing as standard.

Again, a person is prudent in being very careful what is signed,
especially in releasing liability of a third party which is exactly the
end result of some of those documents being discussed. If you are to sign
one of those discussed and I go to work for that agency, I can say
whatever I please about you and there's not a damn thing you can do about
it; the final test is that you signed releasing the agency and all of its
employees and agents from liability. Signing is easy, reading is not; we
should do more reading for comprehension.

Our local building maintenance code originally included a proposed
ordinance to allow "no holes on the property" with no definition of what a
hole is. That is one example of folks not paying attention. Yes, it was
corrected before it was enacted as was "no lumber stored on the property
without a current building permit" and "no vegetation over 18 inches in
height." The writers had a specific thing in mind but didn't look at what
they actually wrote!

Glenna

"Glenna Rose" wrote in message
news:fc.003d094101e2d1723b9aca002f56ee3a.1e2d1c4@p mug.org...
lid writes:

So tell us a "horror story" in which someone signed a typical
municipal-government waiver of liability and then the municipal government
lied about them to a third party and defended itself using the waiver of
liability.

Hmmm. I don't recall saying *anything* in my writing about a municipal
government in any of my message.

My point was, in case you missed it since I didn't spell it out, that
people should *read* what they sign and try to understand what it *truly*
means, and *can* mean.

If a person is uncomfortable signing a legally binding document, then they
shouldn't do it. Period. It makes no difference who the originator of
that document might be. Of one thing you can be certain, if someone,
anyone, wants you to release them of liability, there *is* a reason they
have that desire; matters not to you if it is based on anything in your
own life. Whether it might adversely affect you at some future date is
your decision to make. But on the chance it happens, say ten years down
the line, don't bitch about it. This type of thing happens on rental
agreements (do *you* always read the rental agreement "hard stuff" printed
on the back of the rental form you sign when you rent equipment, a car,
etc.?) which can get the poor soul who was in a hurry and accepted the
presentor's "It's just the standard agreement" into trouble. There is no
such thing as standard.

Again, a person is prudent in being very careful what is signed,
especially in releasing liability of a third party which is exactly the
end result of some of those documents being discussed. If you are to sign
one of those discussed and I go to work for that agency, I can say
whatever I please about you and there's not a damn thing you can do about
it; the final test is that you signed releasing the agency and all of its
employees and agents from liability. Signing is easy, reading is not; we
should do more reading for comprehension.

Our local building maintenance code originally included a proposed
ordinance to allow "no holes on the property" with no definition of what a
hole is. That is one example of folks not paying attention. Yes, it was
corrected before it was enacted as was "no lumber stored on the property
without a current building permit" and "no vegetation over 18 inches in
height." The writers had a specific thing in mind but didn't look at what
they actually wrote!

Glenna

Glenna:
Nice.

For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.

Bob

In article , Larry Jaques
wrote:

Spreak Engrish, troops!

"There's millions of them, on all three sides of us..."

djb

--
"I'm a man, but I can change... If I have to... I guess." -- Red Green

Naw, just two finger typing, and the left finger didn't know what the
right finger was doing. I'm just glad my middle fingers didn't get
involved...


On 29 Jan 2005 13:24:14 -0800, "toolguy" wrote:

I've heard of due diligence but what is "diligents"? Is that a
gentleman who likes dill pickles??? :)

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message news:0keLd.137937
Glenna:
Nice.

For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.

Bob

And again, you can thank the trial lawyers for making it necessary.

todd

Larry Jaques wrote:
On 29 Jan 2005 13:24:14 -0800, the inscrutable "toolguy"
spake:

I've heard of due diligence but what is "diligents"? Is that a
gentleman who likes dill pickles??? :)

Another guy just said "should of" today. Oy vay.
Spreak Engrish, troops!


----------------------------------------------------
Thesaurus: Ancient reptile with excellent vocabulary
http://diversify.com Dynamic Website Applications
================================================== ==

Um, I think "heard of" is correct, grammatically. I even talked to my
resident grammar expert and she said it was acceptable. Are we wrong?
Wait, don't answer that. Is it indeed incorrect to say, "I've heard of
that."? (Damn. Now a punctuation conundrum!)

-Phil Crow

Glenna Rose wrote:

lid writes:

So tell us a "horror story" in which someone signed a typical
municipal-government waiver of liability and then the municipal government
lied about them to a third party and defended itself using the waiver of
liability.

Hmmm. I don't recall saying *anything* in my writing about a municipal
government in any of my message.

Silly me, assuming that you intended your post to have some relevance to the
concerns raised in the post to which I was responding.

My point was, in case you missed it since I didn't spell it out, that
people should *read* what they sign and try to understand what it *truly*
means, and *can* mean.

While this is perfectly true, it does not mean that one should be as irate
as the poster to whom I responded when handed a typical government form.

remainder of diatribe snipped

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Todd Fatheree wrote:

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message news:0keLd.137937
Glenna:
Nice.

For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.

Bob

And again, you can thank the trial lawyers for making it necessary.

And the bottom line is, how bad does he want the job?


todd

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article .com,
wrote:

Um, I think "heard of" is correct, grammatically.

But "should of" instead of "should have" is not.

djb

--
"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B,
sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows

Aahhhh HAAA!

That's what I thunk. Thanks.

-Phil Crow

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message news:0keLd.137937
Glenna:
Nice.

For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.

Bob

And again, you can thank the trial lawyers for making it necessary.

todd

...along with all the sexual predators who employ them. And the Homeland
Security folks. And nervous town lawyers and officials. And their insurance
companies. And parents, lots of parents.
It just ain't so simple, is it?

Bob

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Todd Fatheree wrote:

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message news:0keLd.137937
Glenna:
Nice.

For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.

Bob

And again, you can thank the trial lawyers for making it necessary.

And the bottom line is, how bad does he want the job?


todd

That's easy--not that much. It's a 6-night evening course teaching
astronomy. Not the core of my personal or financial existence.

Bob

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Glenna Rose wrote:

lid writes:

So tell us a "horror story" in which someone signed a typical
municipal-government waiver of liability and then the municipal
government
lied about them to a third party and defended itself using the waiver of
liability.

Hmmm. I don't recall saying *anything* in my writing about a municipal
government in any of my message.

Silly me, assuming that you intended your post to have some relevance to
the
concerns raised in the post to which I was responding.

My point was, in case you missed it since I didn't spell it out, that
people should *read* what they sign and try to understand what it *truly*
means, and *can* mean.

While this is perfectly true, it does not mean that one should be as irate
as the poster to whom I responded when handed a typical government form.

I was hardly irate, so don't attribute that to me. My concern was not with
the community taking reasonable precautions to protect its citizens and its
corporate self. I feel that what information was sought was far beyond
anything necessary to determine my qualifications. In fact, I have been
asked to grant virtually unrestricted access to personal information, much
of it completely irrevelant to the job. I was also asked to waive my rights
seek redress if the information was mishandled. I doubt that the form is
"typical." If it is, we're just that much closer to a police state.

Bob Schmall

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:10:34 -0500, "J. Clarke" wrote:

And the bottom line is, how bad does he want the job?

For some weird reason that brings to my mind a comment by Benjamin Franklin,
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve
neither liberty or security".

(Not sure that's an exact quote, but perhaps it captures the essence of Ben's
statement.)


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

Bob Schmall wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Todd Fatheree wrote:

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message news:0keLd.137937
Glenna:
Nice.

For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.

Bob

And again, you can thank the trial lawyers for making it necessary.

And the bottom line is, how bad does he want the job?


todd

That's easy--not that much. It's a 6-night evening course teaching
astronomy. Not the core of my personal or financial existence.

Then why are you so irate about it?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message news:0keLd.137937
Glenna:
Nice.

For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.

Bob

And again, you can thank the trial lawyers for making it necessary.

todd

..along with all the sexual predators who employ them. And the Homeland
Security folks. And nervous town lawyers and officials. And their
insurance
companies. And parents, lots of parents.
It just ain't so simple, is it?

Bob

Oh, I forgot. The trial lawyers are just innocent bystanders. They don't
have a powerful lobby in Congress to keep laws written the way they like.

todd

Bob Schmall wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Glenna Rose wrote:

lid writes:

So tell us a "horror story" in which someone signed a typical
municipal-government waiver of liability and then the municipal
government
lied about them to a third party and defended itself using the waiver of
liability.

Hmmm. I don't recall saying *anything* in my writing about a municipal
government in any of my message.

Silly me, assuming that you intended your post to have some relevance to
the
concerns raised in the post to which I was responding.

My point was, in case you missed it since I didn't spell it out, that
people should *read* what they sign and try to understand what it
*truly* means, and *can* mean.

While this is perfectly true, it does not mean that one should be as
irate as the poster to whom I responded when handed a typical government
form.

I was hardly irate, so don't attribute that to me. My concern was not with
the community taking reasonable precautions to protect its citizens and
its corporate self. I feel that what information was sought was far beyond
anything necessary to determine my qualifications. In fact, I have been
asked to grant virtually unrestricted access to personal information, much
of it completely irrevelant to the job. I was also asked to waive my
rights seek redress if the information was mishandled. I doubt that the
form is "typical." If it is, we're just that much closer to a police
state.

Take that form, and ask yourself how you would have reworded it as a printed
generic form to address your concerns. If you can come up with better
wording that will pass their lawyers, they may thank you for it. It sounds
like a typical generic form to me. Perhaps you haven't done much work for
the government.


Bob Schmall

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Bob Schmall wrote:


"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message news:0keLd.137937
Glenna:
Nice.

For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.

Bob

And again, you can thank the trial lawyers for making it necessary.

todd

..along with all the sexual predators who employ them. And the Homeland
Security folks. And nervous town lawyers and officials. And their
insurance companies. And parents, lots of parents.
It just ain't so simple, is it?

I'm sorry, but that's not making any sense.

Bob

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:22:48 -0600, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:


.... snip
I was hardly irate, so don't attribute that to me. My concern was not with
the community taking reasonable precautions to protect its citizens and its
corporate self. I feel that what information was sought was far beyond
anything necessary to determine my qualifications. In fact, I have been
asked to grant virtually unrestricted access to personal information, much
of it completely irrevelant to the job. I was also asked to waive my rights
seek redress if the information was mishandled. I doubt that the form is
"typical." If it is, we're just that much closer to a police state.


Actually, if you think about it, that's not quite true. In something
close to a police state, they would simply be asking you (police state --
they would be demanding) for the information and not worrying about whether
you cared about how it was used or misused.


Bob Schmall




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Trial lawyers and the ACLU. The ACLU has no regard for values, they defend
child sexual preditors! While most trail lawyers are lower than whale **** at
the bottom of the ocean, at least they are in it for personal greed which puts
them one step above the ACLU.

Todd Fatheree wrote:

Remember to send a thank you note to your local trial lawyers for that.

todd

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...
Scary, you bet. And relevant. I signed on to teach a course in astronomy
through my town's recreation department. Before they'll approve the course
I
am required to sign an authorization that allows them to query the
Selective
Service, ANY law enforcement agency or jail officer, ANY place of
business,
ANY court, ANY school or other educational institution.
And to top it off, they want me to sign away ANY rights I may have to
liability or damages of ANY kind.
After checking with the ACLU and my state government, I'm about to tell
them
some very specific place where they can store their form. It may be legal,
but it ain't right.

Bob


"Nova" wrote in message
...
I thought some might enjoy this:

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

Phil wrote:

Trial lawyers and the ACLU. The ACLU has no regard for values, they
defend
child sexual preditors! While most trail lawyers are lower than whale
**** at the bottom of the ocean, at least they are in it for personal
greed which puts them one step above the ACLU.

While trail lawyers do engage in certain excesses at times, personally I'm
just as happy that someone is making sure that there are a few trails left
open to the public.


Todd Fatheree wrote:

Remember to send a thank you note to your local trial lawyers for that.

todd

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...
Scary, you bet. And relevant. I signed on to teach a course in
astronomy through my town's recreation department. Before they'll
approve the course
I
am required to sign an authorization that allows them to query the
Selective
Service, ANY law enforcement agency or jail officer, ANY place of
business,
ANY court, ANY school or other educational institution.
And to top it off, they want me to sign away ANY rights I may have to
liability or damages of ANY kind.
After checking with the ACLU and my state government, I'm about to tell
them
some very specific place where they can store their form. It may be
legal, but it ain't right.

Bob


"Nova" wrote in message
...
I thought some might enjoy this:

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)





--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Bob Schmall wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Todd Fatheree wrote:

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message news:0keLd.137937
Glenna:
Nice.

For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.

Bob

And again, you can thank the trial lawyers for making it necessary.

And the bottom line is, how bad does he want the job?


todd

That's easy--not that much. It's a 6-night evening course teaching
astronomy. Not the core of my personal or financial existence.

Then why are you so irate about it?

I'm not irate. I've had to make a value judgment about whether to surrender
some of my privacy in exchange for a temporary part-time job. I've decided
that it is not worth it. That's the personal level. Deeper than that, I've
been thinking about how much authority a citizen should cede to his
government. You know, the old Social Contract thing. Tom Veatch referred to
Ben Franklin's statment about giving up liberty for security and having
neither, and it fits the occasion perfectly.

Bob

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message news:0keLd.137937
Glenna:
Nice.

For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.

Bob

And again, you can thank the trial lawyers for making it necessary.

todd

..along with all the sexual predators who employ them. And the Homeland
Security folks. And nervous town lawyers and officials. And their
insurance
companies. And parents, lots of parents.
It just ain't so simple, is it?

Bob

Oh, I forgot. The trial lawyers are just innocent bystanders. They don't
have a powerful lobby in Congress to keep laws written the way they like.

todd

Didn't say that and didn't mean it. What I meant is that there are lots of
influences here, that things just ain't so simple that we can blame just one
set of people. George Will, a thoughtful conservative, said "The study of
history is the best way and, other than by bitter experience, perhaps the
only way to be inoculated against the terrible simplifiers, those people who
lead nations into trouble."
Another way to phrase it: there's a simple answer for everything, and it's
always wrong.

Bob

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:22:48 -0600, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:


... snip
I was hardly irate, so don't attribute that to me. My concern was not with
the community taking reasonable precautions to protect its citizens and
its
corporate self. I feel that what information was sought was far beyond
anything necessary to determine my qualifications. In fact, I have been
asked to grant virtually unrestricted access to personal information, much
of it completely irrevelant to the job. I was also asked to waive my
rights
seek redress if the information was mishandled. I doubt that the form is
"typical." If it is, we're just that much closer to a police state.


Actually, if you think about it, that's not quite true. In something
close to a police state, they would simply be asking you (police state --
they would be demanding) for the information and not worrying about
whether
you cared about how it was used or misused.

I did not say this was a police state. Taking your example, it IS something
close to a police state when the information is required in order to get the
job--that's coercion, however mild. Once again, I'll say that the
authorities are justified in conducting a background check for anyone in a
sensitive position. My concern is that they are asking for too much leeway
in seeking it and are asking me sign away my rights.

Bob

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Bob Schmall wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Glenna Rose wrote:

lid writes:

So tell us a "horror story" in which someone signed a typical
municipal-government waiver of liability and then the municipal
government
lied about them to a third party and defended itself using the waiver
of
liability.

Hmmm. I don't recall saying *anything* in my writing about a municipal
government in any of my message.

Silly me, assuming that you intended your post to have some relevance to
the
concerns raised in the post to which I was responding.

My point was, in case you missed it since I didn't spell it out, that
people should *read* what they sign and try to understand what it
*truly* means, and *can* mean.

While this is perfectly true, it does not mean that one should be as
irate as the poster to whom I responded when handed a typical government
form.

I was hardly irate, so don't attribute that to me. My concern was not
with
the community taking reasonable precautions to protect its citizens and
its corporate self. I feel that what information was sought was far
beyond
anything necessary to determine my qualifications. In fact, I have been
asked to grant virtually unrestricted access to personal information,
much
of it completely irrevelant to the job. I was also asked to waive my
rights seek redress if the information was mishandled. I doubt that the
form is "typical." If it is, we're just that much closer to a police
state.

Take that form, and ask yourself how you would have reworded it as a
printed
generic form to address your concerns. If you can come up with better
wording that will pass their lawyers, they may thank you for it. It
sounds
like a typical generic form to me. Perhaps you haven't done much work for
the government.

At this rate, I'm not likely to...

John I'll be glad to fax you a copy of the authorization. Please email the
number.

Bob

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:04:33 GMT, "Bob Schmall" wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:22:48 -0600, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:


... snip
I was hardly irate, so don't attribute that to me. My concern was not with
the community taking reasonable precautions to protect its citizens and
its
corporate self. I feel that what information was sought was far beyond
anything necessary to determine my qualifications. In fact, I have been
asked to grant virtually unrestricted access to personal information, much
of it completely irrevelant to the job. I was also asked to waive my
rights
seek redress if the information was mishandled. I doubt that the form is
"typical." If it is, we're just that much closer to a police state.


Actually, if you think about it, that's not quite true. In something
close to a police state, they would simply be asking you (police state --
they would be demanding) for the information and not worrying about
whether
you cared about how it was used or misused.

I did not say this was a police state. Taking your example, it IS something
close to a police state when the information is required in order to get the
job--that's coercion, however mild. Once again, I'll say that the
authorities are justified in conducting a background check for anyone in a
sensitive position. My concern is that they are asking for too much leeway
in seeking it and are asking me sign away my rights.


I didn't say you said it was a police state, thus my comment about "in
close to a police state they would just ask and not care ..." As far as
your conclusion, I certainly agree, it seems like a pretty heavy-handed
agreement (sort of a government equivalent of a EULA -- you give up all
your rights, they keep all theirs and more). ... and you are right, it is
coercion, particularly if everbody starts doing this. Certainly not part
of a trend heading in the right direction.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+