Talk:Legal abuse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

What is the source for any of this?

The article cobbles together a disparate variety of topics under the rubric, "legal abuse", that appears to have been invented out of whole cloth for the purpose of creating a Wikipedia article.

All of the sources cited here are books from vanity presses, and none of them can be used as sources per WP:SPS.

But, even they could be used as sources (which they can't), they provide no support whatsoever for 99 44/100% of the article

  • The Chance book is about corruption and abuses in the Texas Youth Commission system. The article makes no mention of that.
  • The Colombo book is a series of anecdotes and tirades complaining about various attorneys, judges and clerks in the author's divorce and related litigation.
  • The Huffer book, by a marriage counselor positing a "legal abuse syndrome", a diagnosis which has not, in the nearly 20 years since it was published, been recognized by anything or anyone that would pass muster under WP:MEDRS.

Unless this can be sourced to actual, reliable, secondary sources, it will go to AFD. Fladrif (talk)

This article is largely underpinned by the fact that it contains summaries of a number of other wiki articles which cover specific types of legal abuse.--Penbat (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Unless you can cite to reliable, secondary sources that gather together those topics into the category of "legal abuse" in the manner that you have done here, it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Fladrif (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Morgan James[edit]

Morgan James is not vanity press. They say: "Morgan James receives approximately 4,000 manuscript proposals each year, but only publishes an average of 130" http://publishing.morgan-james.com/get-published --Penbat (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. It is a "pay to play" publisher. We'll take it up atWP:RSNFladrif (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
It specifically says here no publishing fee charged: http://publishing.morgan-james.com/compare --Penbat (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Since we are unlikely to agree, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Colombo.2C_Rose.2C_Fight_Back_Legal_Abuse:_How_to_Protect_Yourself_From_Your_Own_Attorney Fladrif (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
As the consensus of uninvolved editors and adminstrators at RSN is unanimous that this is not a reliable source, I have removed it. The article is now unsourced. Fladrif (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Fundamental problem with this article[edit]

This article is, at base a list of topics. The fundamental problem with this article is that it amounts to improperoriginal research and synthesis. There is a well-defined legal concept and cause of action in common law and by statute in some instances, which has its own article: Abuse of process(that article has its own problems, but that is a job for another day). In a nutshell, abuse of process is use of legal process for an improper, ulterior purpose.

Outside of abuse of process, it is true that one can find the words "legal abuse" used in various contexts in a variety of sources, reliable and unreliable. How it is used varies widely by source, and by jurisdiction. What one will not find in any of the reliable sources, and most certainly not in scholarly publications, texts, treatises, statutes or court decisions, is a catalog of the disparate and unrelated concepts contained in this article, gathered together under the rubric "legal abuse". There have been numerous discussions at WP:AFD about lists indistinguishable from this one, created by editors with the best of intentions, but which are, at base, entirely the editor's own original research and synthesis. The salient question is whether the list is something that editors created at Wikipedia, or if the list reflects a comparable listing of its elements in reliable sources. See WP:LISTN

I'm convinced that this article cannot be sourced to reliable sources, and am inclined to take this to AFD, but thought that I would solicit comment here first. Fladrif (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

If if Fladrif is banned (as was asserted in an edit summary), his points are still good. Unless he had been banned at the time of the AfD, the results should stand. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, the AfD closed as "no consensus", but only 2 !votes at the AfD were for "Keep"; the rest being "delete" and "create a disambiguation page" (or both). You're welcome to recreate the article, but note that it is is against consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, while Fladrif's points can be good, Fladrif was unfortunately wikihounding Penbat, one of the main contributors to the page, on several articles related to abuse to the point where he was unable to do any significant edits. The relevant ANI thread about Fladrif's block is here, where he was blocked for personal attacks and chronic disruption, in addition to the issues with Fladrif and Penbat. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes I actually created this article. I was informed of the AFD but felt unable to contribute because of Fladrif's hounding. Looking at the AFD there were actually 3 Keeps plus mine which would have made 4. Against that there were 2 Deletes (including Fladrif) and 2 Disambigs. Also User:Arthur Rubins AFD contribution looked like a weak Keep which I havent included.--Penbat (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • As one of the delete voters, I should point out that I was very clear that I objected to the article as it stood - there was nothing worth keeping. I would have no objections whatsoever for someone following guidelines and turning it into a broad-concept article, as I have no doubt this would be notable enough for that situation. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I would propose moving this article to Abuse of the legal system (which currently redirects here), and which I feel is a more encyclopedic title. There are certainly many ways in which the legal system can be abused by various constituencies, and a good outline of these abuses would be an unambiguous topic. bd2412 T 19:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I was wrong in determining consensus (assuming the AfD wasn't edited after I viewed it, which is not impossible.) I agree with the proposed name change; "legal abuse" could refer to abuse by the legal system by those supporting changes, rather than abuse of the legal system. Regardless, all uses need to be checked to see which meaning is intended.
I also don't see how incompetence should be mentioned as "abuse". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Just to be argumentative, I would say that "the legal system" is an abstraction, and can not by itself abuse anything. People can use the legal system abusively, whether they are part of it (judges, police, or lawyers abusing the authority given to them under the law), or outside of it (litigants who file frivolous or fraudulent lawsuits). As for incompetent lawyers, that is an interesting question. I would say that a lawyer who is not competent to handle a matter and knows he is incompetent to handle that matter, but takes it on anyway, is abusing his legal right to represent clients. Furthermore, an attorney who does not conduct a competent investigation before filing a lawsuit that he would have discovered to be frivolous produces a result little better than one who does so intentionally. bd2412 T 01:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Go ahead and be argumentative. I'm used to it.... I see your point, but if the "legal system", working as intended, causes an "unjust" result, that doesn't make it something we should be discussing, but such things have been called "legal abuse". Perhaps abuse of legal process (different from abuse of process (legal term)) would be a better title. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions about sources[edit]

The first source RAPED by the STATE: Fractured Justice - Legal Abuse was published by AuthorHouse, a self-publishing concern "the leading provider of self publishing and book marketing services for authors" and the ISBN is invalid. It seems to focus on saving Texas youth from the criminal justice system.

The second source: "Thirty years in the works, “Fight Back Legal Abuse” is the story of one woman’s fight against a corrupt legal system" is just one first person story. It's not published by a traditional publisher [1] and requires the author "to commit to purchasing, during the life of the agreement, up to 2,500 copies at print cost plus $2".

The third source Legal Abuse Syndrome links to a web directory that includes this wikipedia article. Its publisher, Fulkort Press, doesn't come up on google.

The fourth source Overcoming the Devastation of Legal Abuse Syndrome links to http://www.child-abuses.com/?f which links to a lot of sponsored links. It also has Fulkort Press listed as the publisher. The writeup on Amazon says "The book offers an eight-step protocol that is effective is assisting litigants preparing for court, during court, and after the court experience. The condition, legal abuse syndrome, is a variant of post traumatic stress disorder and is covered by most insurances as well as qualifying under the Americans with Disabilities Act for accommodations when needed. It works well with Eye Movement Densitization and Reprocessing EMDR therapy." Is there a reliable source for this statement?

Are these reliable sources for a wikipedia article that pops up on the top of google? Farrajak (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)