Talk:Black's Law Dictionary

44th Most Popular Page, Needs EXPANSION

This page is the 44th most popular page in Wikipedia. It really needs more content. I however, am only in a position to complain, unfortunately. Aldie 13:23 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC) If justice is defined as the fair, impartial consideration of opposing interests,are law opposing interests, are law and justice the same thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.237.146 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Adding my voice to this: if there are Wikipedians out there with legal training, this article could really use some attention. I am going to try to do a little bit for it, but, as the cliché goes, I am not a lawyer, so I don't think I'm really the right person to step up and take leadership, since I would be amateurishly trying to figure out things in an area where I expect there are plenty of people with real expertise. (I am a big fan of dictionaries, though; at a minimum, I'll try to contribute the results of the research question that brought me here.) Really, though, given the significance of the book, I'm sure there's a whole lot more to be said about it than is in the article now. LiberalArtist (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

2nd Ed. Search

Can someone please find an online version of the 2nd edition? True 15:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

3.1, "Some online legal dictionaries"

Is section 3.1, "Some online legal dictionaries," appropriate content for the Black's Law Dictionary page? Wouldn't it be better suited for the generic Law Dictionary page?

Actually, that's rhetorical, I'm just going to move it. I will, however, add a "See Also" section. For now, only the "Law Dictionary" page will be included, but I would appreciate it if others would help expand it. 24.175.54.43 15:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Software

Black's Law Dictionary is now available in a software format. -- Toytoy 19:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hoax?

Shouldnt we put how it was founded as a hoax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.16.114 (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

According to this contemporaneous UseNet post, the hoax claim in 2003 is a hoax: http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/874d0f4dccfda18e —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.104.198 (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To Which Juristictions Does Black's Law Dictionary Apply?

Is BLD only relevant to the United States of America (the only country currently mentioned in the article) or do the definitions contained within also apply in other countries? Some idea of scope would put the dictionary's relevance around the world into better context as it is currently unclear. 79.87.202.89 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends if the other countries have adopted roman law... Roman Maxim; For he that would be decieved, let him. - So probs the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Some Lawyers and courts certainly in the UK. Anonymous 573462i (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

We really can't say it "applies" to any jurisdiction. It draws from many sources and simply defines legal-related terms. Examples: "abavus" is from civil law (Latin source) and means "A great-great-grandfather"; "abbess" comes from ecclesiastical law and means "A female spiritual superior of a convent." As BLD is an English language dictionary it is useful to all English language users. But trying to explain this in the article would be difficult. – S. Rich (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you looked at the terms for "EVIDENCE" and "RIGHT" in black's dictionary edition 2? The book is clearly a scam as others have pointed out... anything in capital letters is a contract also so would require an offer, acceptance and consideration to be lawfully applicable in a court. There are thousands of these around the place also, it doesn't take much time, like "ARTIFICIAL PERSON"... although out of amazement this was later adopted as "Corporation or CORPS"... this is still legal fiction which moral philosophers oppose and many people do not comply with... they're not really acceptable in law. It's like using "God" as a middle-man when making terms and saying that they have all the authority and represent one of the parties... whether you believe in a "God" or not it should be simple to most people that no one can know what that "God" wants directly and without explaination aswell as all sorts of factors which is a huge topic. Anonymous 573462i (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous 573462i: Anything in "capital letters" is a "contract"? You've been reading silly stuff on the internet.

Black's Law Dictionary is not a "scam." It's a legal dictionary. It is what we call secondary authority. It does not "apply" to any "jurisdiction" in particular. For individuals not trained in the law, it should be used with special care.

More to the point: This talk page is here to discuss ways to improve the article, not to post nonsense. Stay on task. Famspear (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

See U.C.C. 201 (10), Birth Certificates, Wills and Deeds are written in capital letters... BC's as so when making someone's name in a statement within reference to their BC, this is to make sure the statements don't get confused with the actual individual, Wills because when you write one, you're contracting with the state in trust to delivery what is in the Will to the people specified, and Deeds because they're a contractual document (you own it you own the house as a settlement)... there are many of faculties like this... another is tresspass warnings (in which, by reading the warning or having the opportunity to read you are agreeing to them being fully aware that you're on someone else's property at which no contract was made with the owner to do so). Black's Law Dictionary was without a doubt used as a scam upon people who did not know it specified contracts and there are so many loops for a judge to put an individual in cuffs and in jail before they could even make an alibi. The book itself was just a way to create an ultra vires proceeding. Anonymous 573462i (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Goodness, what a load of gibberish. No, neither UCC 201(10), nor wills, nor deeds, are written in capital letters -- unless you want to print them that way. Some computer-generated copies of birth certificates are, and others are not. No, when you write a will, you are not contracting with the state or anyone else. A deed is not a contractual document. A deed is a conveyance instrument. None of these things are "contracts." Further, whether something is written in all capital letters has nothing to do with whether it is a "contract." Anonymous 573462i, you need to leave the legal opinions to the lawyers. Again, the purpose of a talk page for an article is to discuss ways to improve the article. Famspear (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

PS: The citation you are trying to use is UCC section "1.201(10)", not UCC "201(10)". Famspear (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Shortly I shall then respond with; I was refering to the title's which there my claim stands true of CAPS... you can just google this and see pictures. conspicuous -> attracting notice or attention. <- Capital letters falls in this category. UCC 1.201(10) "Conspicuous", with reference to a term... these stand under a contract. We can agree to disagree if you disagree.Anonymous 573462i (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)