User:BD2412/Archive - Law (fourth 50)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have archived my law-related discussions here [edit] TalkIf you're gonna shoot, shoot - don't TALK! [edit] Um, I have a little problem...Never mind, I fixed it. I think the server just hiccuped while I was creating this page: Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local No. 391 v. Terry --Eastlaw 06:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC) [edit] AnswerNot yet. I'm assuming that you ask due to my recent edit of the fertile octogenarian article. If you are unhappy with my edits, feel free to revert them - I hadn't checked who had authored the article initially to discover that you are a practicing attorney. I tried to keep the structure of the article the same, and only edit it to be more precise in its wording. Of course, as we both know from dealing with over-edited documents that should have just been rewritten, sometimes a rewrite is the best way to effectuate a well-written piece. Thoughts? Ari 00:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] When you get back from WikibreakI'm just leaving you a note to let you know why I haven't been editing the Freedom of movement article lately. I have been blocked by SlimVirgin. She is calling me "one of Zephram's straw-man sock puppets." She is often wrong [1] in her accusations of sock-puppetry. In my case, she is derogating the name of a respected Washington D.C. lawyer. Her accusation toward me is absurd. –SR Bryant 15:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This one is mysterious logic to meHi! Didn't see any rationale for an email on this, but I just snooped onto this: User_talk:David_Shear#Cajal_photo_in_Scientist... which leaves me baffled about the logic. The scientist is dead, the picture is old, and how can one use of the picture be fair use of a historical picture, and another use not be?
Best regards, FrankB 07:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Puerto Rico and US Income taxCan anyone add PR income tax to the IRS or US income tax article? John wesley 15:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Puerto Rico is USA because native borns are citizens by birth and can Constitutionally assume the office of the president. John wesley 15:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] DreyfusI will certainly have a look, unfortunately my expertise is based on a school project many years ago! (I won a £5 book token...) Rich Farmbrough 16:15 3 May 2006 (UTC). [edit] Question on legal research...I'm still at the NJSC, and found out they were involved with Karen Ann Quinlan, but I can't for the life of me find out what the name of the case was! Is there any place you'd reccomend to find it out (I've tried Googling specific sites (FindLaw, the Courts' system) with that name, but nothing), or do you know it? Or was it a case with no name? (You can tell I'm not much of a lawyer) Thanx dude. 68.39.174.238 17:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC) [edit] Request for proofreadSince you're the first user on the members list of the Law WikiProject, I thought I'd ask you to proofread Forum (legal), which I just created, for legal accuracy and completeness. I'm confused as to the distinction between open forums and public forums. Thanks, TheJabberwʘck 03:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Trial and conviction of Alfred DreyfusI'm glad that Trial and conviction of Alfred Dreyfus has achieved some kind of "featured" status. I had a read through the article, to see if there was anything I could tweak, but the best I could manage was the creation of a little stub for the Cherche-Midi prison, where he was incarcerated for a time. However, every little helps. --Thewayforward 10:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC) [edit] Category:Cases involving Justice CardozoSorry it took me so long to get back to you on this, I was out of town today. Anyway, I had no idea that this would be so problematic, so delete the category if you must. I mainly created it to replace a previous empty category which existed (Category:Cardozo opinions for law school). If anyone on here wants to create such a linked list for Cardozo's cases, that's fine. I have been rather busy lately, so I haven't been able to contribute as much as I would like (I'm still attempting to rewrite the Saenz v. Roe article as well). --Eastlaw 02:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC) [edit] Tax protesters: Did someone stir up them up this month?Dear BD2412: I have been out of commission for a short while, but I think I'm back now. I notice that the tax protesters have been busy the past few days. I am presently watching the article on Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad and some other areas more closely. Just thought you'd like to know. It's a never ending battle to try to prevent POV and unverifiable statements from seeping into the tax articles. Yours, Famspear 20:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Dear BD2412: I am still fencing with Flytrapper on the Brushaber article. He/she has now re-inserted his/her edits, which I contend are erroneous. I just don't have time for this right now. My question is: Should I revert the edits now, or wait? Brushaber is a very complex decision, and it's obvious (to me) Flytrapper is confused, but I simply don't have time to give this the effort it deserves right now. Convincing Flytrapper he or she is wrong, if even possible, is going to take some extensive quoting directly from the Brushaber decision, which is (by today's standards) one of the most convoluted, poorly written tax law decisions around -- full of circumlocutory expressions and language that can be easily misunderstood. What should we do, if anything, with Flytrapper's edits at this point? How does the three revert rule apply here? I've already told Flytrapper I'm working on this, be he/she seems to insist that his/her edits remain in the article 'til we sort this out. Any suggestions? Famspear 19:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC) PS: Some of Flytrapper's latest edits appear to be shown under IP 68.230.194.50. He/she forgot to log in, I guess. Yours, Famspear 19:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC) [edit] Privileges and Immunities ClauseI started an article for the Article Four Privileges and Immunities Clause, as distinct from the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause. If you can add anything to this, please do--it is just a stub right now, with no references (yet). --Eastlaw 17:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC) [edit] Article requestFollowing the rather splendid job you did on Tariff (criminal law) at my request, I would now like to bother you (or your legal pals) for another article: Her Majesty's Pleasure. A slighty quirky term, it refers, I believe, to an otherwise undefined period, subject to official review - e.g. children and lunatics convicted of murder are sometimes detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure, Governor-Generals of Commonwealth Realms hold office during Her Majesty's Pleasure.... you get the idea. Just how much pleasure Her Majesty actually gets out of all this is uncertain. So waddya think? TheMadBaron 21:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright questionAny thoughts on whether it's copyright infringement to write an article "about" a fictional subject that has only itself been depicted in encyclopedia form, as in a fan reference? Someone posted a bunch of individual articles for creatures that do not exist outside of encyclopedia-format descriptions in The World of Kong, a book associated with the Peter Jackson remake. Considering how the original descriptions are themselves the fiction (there are no "facts" here), I don't see how we could get away with it. I've raised this issue on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights and in connection with a CSD proposal regarding fictional subject articles lacking any real world context. Your comments and analysis as an IP practitioner would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Postdlf 23:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC) [edit] Image Tagging for Image:CeciliaAltonaga.gifThanks for uploading Image:CeciliaAltonaga.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well. For more information on using images, see the following pages: This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] LAWThanks BD. I might just do that. I am working under a deadline now for a class action. Maybe in a couple weeks, I can contribute more.molly bloom 22:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC) [edit] Legal adviceBefore I do something that might put the foundation at risk, can you please review the ongoing discussion at Image talk:Hybridpolargrizzlybear.jpg? I believe that we have a very strong case for fair use in this instance, but would like a second opinion before replacing the image. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Italicizing case namesHaha, thank you. I was being lazy with my HTML. I generally write up my briefs by hand, where of course I underline all case names. Ryanluck 21:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC) [edit] SCOTUS per curiamsI've been playing with a format for summarizing the Court's per curiam decisions by term in single articles. Please take a look at User:Postdlf/pc1, and feel free to make any changes there you think might be constructive. I started doing it all in table form at User:Postdlf/pc, but decided it wasn't all that helpful. I'm also on the fence about whether to include decrees like Alaska v. United States. Let me know what you think! Postdlf 02:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC) [edit] Cooper v. Aaron articleI just finished writing the article on Cooper v. Aaron, and I would appreciate whatever comments or revisions you would care to make. Personally, I think it could use a little more background & history, so add anything you feel is relevant. --Eastlaw 04:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC) [edit] Requests for Legal/Tax Advice in Discussion PagesDear BD: I only know you from your comments on the Taxation in the US discussion page. I wanted to solicit some advice on how to address a request for tax advice as the anonymous user has done recently. My initial reaction is to respond as I did. However, I am thinking I should take the user's comments (three, now, one specifically directed to me), delete them, and create a section (in that same discussion page) titled "Tax Advice," which would address those seeking tax advice as this user has done. I'm not comfortable (as a budding tax acctg professional) dispensing anything but general advice to someone over the internet, and I reckon most legal or accounting professionals on Wikipedia will agree. Any yay or nay from an experienced Wikipedian? NathanPatterson 09:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Patent pirateI received the following request for comment, which I thought was more up your alley (I've never studied/worked with patent law):
In the meantime, enjoy your wikibreak! Postdlf 14:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [edit] SCOTUS case projectBD, at your encouragement, I've decided to revive the case project. Any advice in general you can offer is welcome, though I did have questions about some specifics (on its talk page). In my zealous revamping, I may have disrupted some longstanding conventions. I left a note at the top until we can work out the kinks with Postdlf and others who have been highly involved. Cheers and happy editing! --Kchase02 (T) 13:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Sorry about nonsensically forgetting the italics. Anyway, I won't bug you again until after your wikibreak. Enjoy it!--Kchase02 (T) 06:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC) [edit] Taxpayer standingCould you please review this article in light of DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno? I'm not familiar with the topic outside of that one case, so I don't know how best to reconcile what you've written with that decision. Cheers, Postdlf 18:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC) [edit] Possible error in List of notable United States Courts of Appeals casesHaving no legal US background I don't have the means to check myself, but it looks like Engblom v. Carey is incorrectly listed as Third Circuit (where it should be Second Circuit). Cheers --Thuenor 21:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fair useI don't know either. You'll have to take it up with the users who made such an issue out of it on the Carmen Electra page. Wahkeenah 06:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] DRV Mending Wall and User:RobertsteadmanDear Colleague (ahem), This user, who is from the UK (I think), is very steadfast in arguing that Wikipedia's perception of US copyright expiration dates (and mine, and, in general, everybody else's) is flawed. I tried my best, but IP isn't my bag; I referred him to Brad Patrick to get someone else to wiki-wifflebat him over the head, but if you could take a gander at the debate on DRV and his talk page and add another voice of reason, perhaps he'll listen more closely. You are a god around here! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 18:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] IP QHey BD, easy question I think, just making sure -- I have a booklet (Cheese Varieties and Descriptions or "Agriculture Handbook No. 54") put out by the Dairy Products Laboratory, Eastern Utilization Research and Development Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Issued December 1953 / Slightly revised September 1969. Is all the text in this booklet public domain? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Could you possibly take a look at this?You seem like the kind of guy who'd be willing to work with me on this kind of thing, AND you're a lawyer ( although I don't know what kind), so I figured I'd give it a shot. :) The article fan fiction needs SERIOUS help in regards especially to its "Legal issues" section. Fan fiction is normally defined as an unauthorized derivitive work, usually written by a fan of the original work, and nowadays usually published for free to the internet (meaning no profit is made), although there were apparently some notable sticky situations in the 18th (unauthorized sequels, such as to Robinson Crusoe), 20th (there was a lawsuit over the Gone With the Wind parody The Wind Done Gone), and I'm assuming 19th centuries regarding printed fan fiction. Now, a lot of companies and creators don't mind it nowadays in its online, fannish, free-to-read format (and in Japan, they don't even mind it being sold in print for a small profit in small runs), but some (Robin Hobb, Anne Rice, etc.) do and no matter what, either way, the ins-and-outs of copyright and even trademark law are essential to understanding the current status of fan fiction. What's more, the article is very likely to be accessed by people with very little knowledge of fan fiction - perhaps even people considering getting into writing it for the first time - so as such, a comprehensive legal section is a must. Sadly, almost none of the information in the Legal issues section is cited, even when it mentions court cases, and to boot, it's also very U.S.-centric, with only a tangential reference to the general Japanese stance on self-published fan fiction and an incredibly vague reference to Russian copyright law being "lax at best". Since you're a fellow Floridian, I wouldn't expect you to automatically be familiar with other countries' copyright law, but if you could help out at all with the U.S. copyright and/or trademark law stuff, well, I'd be an incredibly happy camper. I lack the proper resources to do anything more than liberally sprinkle [citation needed] throughout it to tag the bits most in need of citation, which is why I've come to you and a handful of other people I found through WikiProject Law. Again, any help at all that you could give would be wonderful! Regards, Runa27 05:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sixteenth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionDear BD2412: Over the past three days, a user called CFVertigo has repeatedly inserted, into the above referenced article, material apparently copied and pasted from Otto Skinner's tax protester web site at: http://www.ottoskinner.com/articles/Who_worded_16th.html Although the user has edited out some of the Otto Skinner verbiage, and aside from plagiarism concerns, is it a copyright violation (no Fair Use applicability) to copy and paste this much material from what appears to be a fairly short article by Skinner? Even assuming this material belongs in a Wikipedia article, shouldn't it at least be attributed to Otto Skinner, and put in quotations? (Just as an aside, note that Otto Skinner publishes tax protester related material that exposes many of the fallacies of OTHER tax protesters -- but he also apparently promulgates his own specious arguments.) CFVertigo inserted the materials on 24 June. I reverted. He again inserted on 25 June without explanation. I removed most if not all of the material with a message added to his or her talk page today. He/she has now re-inserted the material a third time. Yours, Famspear 23:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
He has now deleted his talk page a second time. I have restored it. Famspear 04:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re: MediaWiki:CopyrightwarningThe point was that the verifiable sources bit only applies to articles. How about Content must not violate any copyright and you agree to license all contributions under the GFDL. Article content must be based on verifiable sources? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stewart v. AbendFYI, someone recently slapped up the entire decision as an "article" under Stewart v. Abend. Then, without realizing the irony, a somewhat zealous 13-year-old Wikipedian slapped it with a "copyright violation" notice because he happened to find a verbatim copy (surprise!) on a university website that had a boilerplate copyright notice. What a mess. Cheers, 207.69.137.41 07:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] HelloHello, BD2412. I would like to get involved in the Law Project. Where would you suggest that I start. -- --BballJones 01:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Section 1 of the Internal Revenue CodeCooooool! And I've started adding some details to your article. Section 1 is actually fairly complicated, with a cost of living adjustment provision and some rate changes buried near the end of the text of the statute. All I can say is, you have a lot more energy than I do. You know, as of now I have yet to actually "create" a "new" Wikipedia article; I've been here for 7 or 8 months. So far I've been only noodling around the edges of other people's articles -- but what the heck. As I mentioned in my additions to the article, the rate schedule in the statute actually applies to the year 1993. Section 1 basically says that subsequent years' schedules are promulgated by the Secretary (which as you know means the IRS itself has to do the job), adjusted for inflation among other things. I can add a year 2006 schedule for head of household -- what do you think? It would make for a possible comparison with the 1993 schedule. Yours, Famspear 00:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject LawThat would depend on your experience - are you involved in the law? If you're a lawyer, the best place to start is looking at articles relating to year area of specialization. There are also missing legal terms and wanted law articles. Also, at Portal:Law, we are always looking for good suggestions for featured articles, biographies, cases, and images to rotate in. There are a number of other law-related lists on my user page that need filling out, so please have at them! bd2412 T 02:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Tax court.gifThanks for uploading Image:Tax court.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC) [edit] Deleted SitesThank you for sticking up for me and saying as well that the sites I have added are Informational and not advertising. They have decided to remove them again for some stupid reason. I do not believe they read the talk page before removing them. Thank you for trying anyway. LowtaxNetwork 14:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC) [edit] About Image:Tax court.gifIs it supposed to be obnoxiously animated like that? I can't seriously see a Federal court... having an animated seal... 68.39.174.238 01:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Class ActionsWould you mind taking a look at this again, please? I have added some information on international law, but wonder if it would be a project for the Wiki Law project. I am not happy with the few 'resources' I found on the internet. I would love to see some lawyers in other countries discuss this, or an expert on international law. By the way, I have seen your contributions to the talk page from awhile back, and believe you handled "LegalEagle" beautifully. Unfortunately, LegalEagle is all too typical on Wikipedia. There are many article on Wikipedia that have turned into rants about tort reform and/or lawyers. It is disheartening - whether you agree with various tort reform proposals, or not. For example, asbestos and the law was previously a long rant. I changed it to add regulatory information of various countries, and a section on some of the issues (including the ABA position). {[Medical malpractice}] had misstatements of law, and also was a long rant. Anyway, I wonder if the issue of lawyer bashing and articles that are severely slanted /disparaging of lawyers should be a topic on the Wiki Law page?jgwlaw 22:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Opinons by justice listI've been toying around with a format for lists of opinions by each SCOTUS justice per term but I can't settle on an article title scheme that I'm comfortable with. Is 2005 term opinions of Antonin Scalia enough, or does it need to list what court? 2005 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Antonin Scalia is rather cumbersome. But if it doesn't list what court, then how should transition years be dealt with? And do you know how the calendar year is divided up for lower federal courts, or where I can find that out? Cheers, Postdlf 18:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mitch ModeleskiDear BD2412: Please watch the above-referenced article which is about a well-known tax protester. An anon user is repeatedly blanking the article and replacing it with a resume. Yours, Famspear 14:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [edit] Tax trivia (the best kind of trivia)Duuuude. Are you on vacation? Only three edits so far today? Hey, I'm bored and I'm leaving early to go home. I'm so bored that a few minutes ago I posted a tax trivia question on my talk page -- basically, the question is: What Federal tax under the '86 Internal Revenue Code actually WAS ruled unconstitutional -- in an obscure (but unanimous) U.S. Supreme Court decision some time after January 1, 1998 (i.e., relatively recently, in the grand scheme of things). (Of course, it wasn't an INCOME tax.) Wait a second. Because of your expertise, I guess you should be disqualified from playing this trivia game, anyway. Also, there are no prizes for the winner. Seriously, it was interesting to watch the Mitch Modeleski controversy yesterday. It's amazing to see how efficiently the Wikipedia community can work together. Catch you later! Yours, Famspear 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] {{legaldisclaimer}}This template is up for deletion. I put in my argument for it. As I recall, you were ambivalent, but I think that NPOV requires some sort of warning when we link to websites that advocate frivolous legal theories. Maybe the wording should be made stronger, so the point and usefulness is clearer. Whatever you think, you may want to comment. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [edit] Torts templatesHi, In response to your post on my talk page, I do not feel particularly strongly about whether we divide the intentional torts or not. My main concern is that the template does not become overly long. If I reinstate the 'property torts' and 'Dignitary and economic torts' headings would it be OK for me to continue? Thanks Andeggs 15:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Splitting another CR hairPlease opine: Count Bassie Image (last of that date) [edit] Jim ShapiroJust thought I'd let you know that there is a seven section discussion about lawyer bashing biographies at WP:AN. I know the general topic may be of interest to you even if the specific lawyer is not. NoSeptember 08:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [edit] Cat for supreme court law clerksI am thinking of creating a Cat for supreme court law clerks which would anyone who was one once. Before I do, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You may want to check this out...I've tried to hack up an infobox for courts, to go along with the one for court cases. This is my attempt. Do you think it could be improved, or is it just total crap (Hopefully not that bad ;)). 68.39.174.238 10:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC) [edit] The patenting of legal research? The patenting of legal advice?Dear BD2412: I am trying to develop some interest in discussion on the talk page for Juris Doctor regarding a distinction I think editors have been making there between Ph.D.s doing research to generate "new knowledge" (whatever that means) and J.D.s doing research that somehow does not generate "new knowledge" -- possibly based on some misconceptions about what legal research is. I posed a legal hypothetical and asked fellow editors basically to explain how the question can be answered without creating "new knowledge" or discovering something "new." As part of that teaser, I pointed out that the Committee on Ways and Means of the U.S. House of Representatives held hearings in July of 2006 on the reported developing practice -- of the United States Patent Office -- of granting patents for tax reduction strategies inherently based on original legal research. Since IP is your area, just thought I'd point out that aspect of it to you, in case you hadn't heard about this or might be interested in following it (either in the talk page for Juris Doctor or in the news media generally). Yours, Famspear 21:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
|
