User:BD2412/Archive - Law (second 50)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
By topic (prior to June 1, 2009):

Dated (beginning June 1, 2009):

I have separately archived law-related discussions here.

Federalist Papers[edit]

Hey BD, despite you being on a break I thought I'd let you know that I've placed Federalist No. 10 on WP:FAC; I be much obliged if you were to take a look here. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for your comments. I am reading the judgement text in its entirety and hopefully will be able to fill some gaping holes. --PamriTalk 06:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You're really on top of things tonight[edit]

I literally just wrote the Vosburg v. Putney article and there you are cleaning it up! Cheers! Mmmbeer 02:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks - oddly enough, the article was on my watchlist - guess I'd listed it in anticipation! Cheers!  BD2412 talk 12:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


Alright, since you're the only lawyer I know on the Wiki, I was wondering if you knew anything about copyright law specifically:

Does the following, from the article seem a bit to close to excerpts from this article (link removed), highlights of this have been put in bold.

Of greater impact than the atrocities testimony was the revelation of the U.S. invasion of Laos in February, 1969 -- code-named Operation Dewey Canyon I. While the Pentagon was publicly issuing denials, declaring "We have never had ground troops in Laos," veterans were describing their excursions into this neutral country. Several of the veterans, in the course of giving their testimony, raised for the first time this lesser known aspect of American foreign policy, often referred to as the U.S. "shadow government" in subsequent investigations.
The veterans alleged an entire regiment of the Third Marines had penetrated several miles into neutral countries such as Laos and Cambodia and engaged in fierce fighting. They also described efforts by the military to avoid discovery of these operations, such as stripping the soldiers of all American-related identification, arming them with the Russian-made weapons of the enemy, instructing them to never reveal their true identity and refusing to use air lifts to evacuate the wounded and dead, lest the press find out. As this news began to make the front pages of local newspapers, the Marine Corps dispatched a spokesman to the event who was quoted as saying, "We can say of a certainty that no platoons or any large number of marines ever crossed the border." Follow-up investigations by the Detroit Free Press would uncover other veterans throughout the country who confirmed taking part in the operations. Additional investigations by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Boston Globe uncovered a 16-month period during which the United States had transported troops into Laos, in violation of international law and the Cooper-Church amendment. Some of the witnesses in these investigations included helicopter pilots from the 101st Airborne who had participated in the top-secret program, code-named Prairie Fire, coordinated by Command and Control North in Da Nang.

Now from the article (link removed)

Five veterans described their role in the invasion, claiming that an entire regiment of the Third Marines had penetrated several miles into that neutral nation, conducting combat maneuvers along Highway 922 and beyond, and "suffering dozens of casualties in fierce fighting." They further charged that the U.S. military had refused to medevac out (evacuate by air) the wounded and dead, to prevent press discovery. Their expose made front-page headlines in Detroit and Chicago, and a follow-up investigation by the Detroit Free Press uncovered other veterans throughout the country who testified to having taken part in the operation.
The testimony was explosive because the Pentagon had issued a blanket denial only days before, declaring:
"We have never had ground troops in Laos."
The revelation of Operation Dewey Canyon was followed for days and months by other news stories in which American military personnel testified to systematic fighting in Laos. In late 1972, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Boston Globe ran credible stories asserting that the United States had regularly transported combat troops into Laos over a sixteen-month period that extended to the very end of 1971.
The witnesses were helicopter pilots from the 101st Airborne who had participated in the top-secret program code-named Command and Control North. Although the missions, consisting usually of mercenaries commanded by Army Special Forces, were primarily intended to gather intelligence, these troops had been involved in combat and several had been killed. Such missions were in violation of the Cooper-Church amendment, passed in 1970, which prohibited the use of American ground troops in Cambodia and Laos. But even before Cooper-Church was passed, it would have been a violation of international law for the United States to launch combat troops against a neutral nation. And even as these missions were occurring, the Pentagon was issuing statements denying that American combat forces were operating in Laos, and asserting that all Special Forces had already been withdrawn from Vietnam.

One user then proceded to delete the entire article because he felt that the text constituted a "derivative work" of the original article. I am not too sure about the validity of that argument and was wondering if you can help me understand whether it constitutes a copyvio or not. Sasquatcht|c 05:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks =) Have fun on your cases (if fun is the right word)! Sasquatcht|c 00:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


Hi, Do you know what the blindfolded lady holding a balance, depicted in courts (atleast in India) is called? Thanks. --PamriTalk 14:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

  • The blindfolded lady holding the scales is simply referred to as "Lady Justice" or the "Goddess of Justice" (although it is based on the ancient Greek Themis). Cheers!  BD2412 talk 14:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a ton. I found her image here. I was looking for it to replace the Indian emblem at K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra. Since I can't find the seal of the Supreme Court of India, this seems to be the closest. --PamriTalk 14:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court[edit]

Adding Category:Withdrawn nominees to the United States Supreme Court as a subcategory to Category:Failed Nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court sounds like a great idea. Thanks! --Kralizec! 15:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you shed some light on to the legal term "fair comment"?[edit]

First my mea culpa. I did it. I made the first version of the article as a way to circumvent some stonewalling editors on another article. While this worked in a sense this is also the cause for the now existing version. I believe that the last paragraph of the existing version (U.S not Canada) shows logical errors but since I am accused of beeing a POV warrior any edit I may want to do will be understood as an attempt to further an aganda...

However this is actually about the quality of this article (and maybe I am a little bit annoyed that I was accused of mischarecterising the meaning of "fair comment" - but I waited a long time hoping that the problem would solve itself...)

Concerning the logical errors please check under my Headline

1.6 "Following this sentance by sentance analysis I make these observations" and there observation number 3.

So thank you in advance for your help

--Zirkon 10:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

ussc template[edit]

I'm not sure I like the footnote method -- unless there was a good way to automate it. In fact, I'd argue that this will only lead to lots and lots of consistency problems down the road. There's already a ton of SCOTUS opinions on WP. Also, I'm not sure how helpful things like "court citation" are to the average reader. What might be helpful is something like 1 U.S. 1 (2005)help. Or something of the sort. The "citation" then "footnote" to another citation with a link to another site seems convoluted. mmmbeerT / C / ? 01:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Also... will you look at Baker v. Selden[edit]

I was going through adding the court citation redirects for SCOTUS opinions and realized that Baker v. Selden was in horibble shape. Do you want to check out the rewrite? I basically rewrote everything. mmmbeerT / C / ? 02:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

UK law - where?[edit]

I see, does the law WikiProject not deal with UK law? Am I in the wrong place? Izehar 19:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


I think there's a fair question as to the disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality of these administrations on abortion. While both talked a lot about it, neither particularly did anything about it that went beyond mere symbolism. I've been working on a fairly extensive critique of the politics of abortions, and my research thus far suggests that both political parties prefer to wrangle about the issue than to take any tangible steps to address the problem at its core. BD2412 T 02:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, but the fact remains the Reagan and Bush administrations were against Roe: they filed numerous briefs seeking to have Roe overturned, they made many public statements against Roe, etc. I think you need very, very compelling evidence to convince anyone that in spite of all of this in their heart of hearts they didn't care.

Criminal Law (Image in template)[edit]

The image that's being used on the criminal law template (Image:Justice12.jpg) doesnt have any source or copyright information. The uploader hasnt responded to requests for some, and so the image is now at a state where it can be speedily deleted, but rather than do that, would somone who is looking after the template perhaps have a look? Cheers... Agnte 17:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment posted in law archive.[edit]

The following post was moved here after having been errantly posted in my law archive by (see [1]).

b/c you acquiesce that rove sucks and i am a budding ip law student i will stop posting the obvious about mr. douchebag

Public domain[edit]

Could you maybe help fact check User:Lupo/Public domain? Or just give your opinion on it? It's an attempt at developing a Wikipedia-namespace page that explains some subtleties of the public domain, especially concerning foreign works, works published after 1923, and unpublished works. It's intended to be correct, but not necessarily complete: there may be fringe situations that are just too complex to explain or too hard to verify under which something might be in the public domain that are just not mentioned. One reason to develop this page is to combat the fallacious "if a work is PD in its home country, it's PD anywhere" that seems to be spreading with the proliferation of country-specific PD-tags for images. (And to which, I must admit, I have also occasionally succumbed when I didn't pay attention.) Thanks. Lupo 10:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

United States federal judge[edit]

Wouldn't federal judge (United States) make more sense as an article title? Federal judges are what it's about, and that's the first thing many people who think of typing while searching. Michael Hardy 00:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

If Federal judge (United States) is how people are likely to search, it can be accomplished with a redirect, yes? Cheers! BD2412 T 00:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the term federal judge is suggestive of the topic. Michael Hardy 00:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright on Lists[edit]

Some time ago we had a disagreement over whether or not the lists of high schools ranked by algorithm constituted a copyright violation. I still think it makes a poor case for fair use, but after spending some time reviewing the guidance of the US Copyright Office (i.e. Compendium II), I have changed my mind and come to the conclusion that such a list is unlikely to sustain a copyright claim. In particular, they take the position that lists generated through an algorithmic process are not copyrightable. Specifically, from section 202.02(e):

... To be an original work of authorship, the work must not be a mere computation based upon a concept or formula, or be the mere extrapolation or application of an idea or system, which would always produce substantially the same result whenever done correctly by anyone. ...

To be honest, I dislike this position, in part because I have authored algorithmically generated lists of rankings in the past, and I dislike the notion that even though the algorithm is complex and secret, I might have no control over how the list is used once it is published.

Anyway, feel free to restore your previous work, if you are so inclined. Dragons flight 23:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Lawyer needed[edit]

WP:ANI#Bulk vending and 1.800.Vending Legal threats. My 12 year-old law degree is very rusty, but this could do with a lawyer's eye. I wonderedif you would like to comment? --Doc ask? 23:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The 100[edit]

BDA, could you comment at Talk:The 100#Copyrights? Thanks. Dragons flight 01:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

RE: Recent change to Negligence[edit]

Thank you for the recent change to my "contribution" to Negligence article. I was HIGHLY skeptical of Wikipedia as a legitimate source of correct information, and I experimented a little this afternoon to test the vigilance and the expertise of the volunteers. And thus far, you guys have passed the tests satisfactorily, but I'm still HIGHLY doubtful whether Wikipedia can evolve into a bona fide source of information, especially for specialized subjects like the law. The error you corrected, btw, was part of the test to see if there were people like yourself who would catch on to the mistake, guised in semi-technical language, and would actually bother to correct it.

I am very intrigued by the Wikipedia project. On one hand, the potential is great. The motives are noble. But will the project ever gain any credible legitimacy? Do you not think that the questionable volunteer pool (for anyone can claim to be an expert in any area), the work without compensation (I am skeptical about people's willingness or ability to monitor Wikipedia and to contribute unscrupulous research to the database. I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter, so please write back.

BTW, I'm a law student myself.  :)

    • EDITED**

I'm currently in 2nd year, and I'm Canadian. I've added myself to Category:Law student Wikipedians, but it seems I am the only person on the list thus far? Also, I would like to haer ur thoughts on some of my concerns about the longterm viability of Wikipedia project.

2 things....[edit]

Hi - a couple of things which I thought might be worthy of your attention:

1) I was editing the page on Harold Shipman (British serial killer), and found that it links to a disambiguation page - Tariff (disambiguation). Tariff is about customs duty, but I think there should be a page about Tariffs in the sense of "a recommendation, under British law, for the length of a prison sentence to be served before the prisoner is eligible for parole." I wouldn't know where to start, or even what to call it. I know you're not British, but you are the legal eagle and a master of getting pages started....

2) I'm now doing some disambiguation link repair for execution, and it occurred to me that Execution (legal) would benefit from anything you might want to do to it - it just seems like there's so much more that could be said....

Cheers, TheMadBaron 17:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Tariff (criminal law)[edit]

Excellent work! Thanks. TheMadBaron 20:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Case law articles input request[edit]

Hi. I was wondering if you would take a look at two articles:

The first is the original court case, the second is the appeal case. How should these articles be titled? The latter strikes me as slightly inelegant. Thanks in advance. Jkelly 06:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Land Registration Act 2002[edit]

You probably know, but you seem to be the most supported candidate for adminship in history ;-)

I don't know if you have time for this, but could you please check the article on the Land Registration Act 2002 (it's one of my favorite statutes). I've been working on it for quite some time (I haven't finished it yet), and I don't know if I've taken it too far. What do you think? Izehar 15:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments - I'll have to look do a bit of research before finding a definite answer. Adverse possession has always been unpopular and regarded as unfair (except by the squatter of course) over here. The numerical list is of no significance, the citation, which is stated in the Act itself, is only what's used – the numerical list is the order in which they were passed. I'm suffering from anxiety now as the edit counter isn't working. Sufferers of acute chronic editcountitis such as myself need our "fix" every now and then, or we go mad. Izehar 20:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I'm glad your RfA is going so well - good luck in being an admin. Izehar 20:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

SCOTUS Project[edit]

I thought the project was dead... Miranda v. Arizona hadn't been touched in some time - and the note about the (infobox is it?) was posted in August.... DavidDouthitt 16:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I've been trying to make things consistent - first I started using the Court Citation link; then I switched to using Template:ussc - only recently did I realize that consistency is in the eye of the beholder - that is, anyone can make a template, etc. You can see some of my attempts at Berman v. Parker and McBoyle v. United States.

PS: How do you use the user_en tag/category whatever..? I put it in - and it works - but I have a basic knowledge of a few other languages, and have seen some other language templates (or is it a tag - category - or...?) DavidDouthitt 18:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Tax avoidance/evasion and the infamous Mr. Cheek[edit]

Dear Counsellor (or Counselor if you're in Texas): I just added some more clarification on the Cheek case in the "Tax avoidance/evasion" article, including an extended quote from the case that hits pretty hard. However, maybe it's more appropriate to put this in the article I believe you have created on the Cheek case itself. I'm not sure; I'm pretty new to Wikipedia. Stare 22:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

James v. United States[edit]

Hey, the article looks good to me. I briefed James years ago in connection with something I worked on and (of course) I can't find my brief on it right now. As I assume you have easily discerned, I'm also an attorney. I also happen to be a certified public accountant, and I've been in a tax practice as a CPA for the past 15 years (total over 20 years of legal and CPA practice). I worked as a CPA for about 5 years, went to law school, practiced law and then went back to accounting practice. I've studied a gazillion tax protester cases (well, maybe not quite that many) and I love procedural tax law and criminal tax law. Say, how is it that you, an IP attorney, are so much "into" tax law as well? (In my opinion a strong interest in tax law is an indication of fine character!) Stare 21:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to butt into your conversation but my strong interest in tax law is motivated entirely by selfishness and fear. Evidence that my character is fine I rely on elsewhere! Paul Beardsell 04:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


Regarding your idea to make a separate criminal procedure template, it seems to make as much sense to do the Criminal Law template thus:

     Criminal Law
        Substantive Criminal Law
        Criminal Procedure

I always thought "Criminal Law" encompassed substantive criminal law and criminal procedure. Criminal procedure doesn't seem to deserve a template all its own, but can hardly be left out completely. Either way. Just so long as it's not forgotten. Mrees1997 23:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Miranda Warning is exclusively United States. I thought Right to Silence was a better link. Mrees1997 23:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair use[edit]

Not that it matters so much... but, maybe you shouldn't have fair use images on your user page (when they likely aren't fairly used there)... you know... good example and all ::embarassed face:: Congrats on making admin (inevitable) --gren グレン 08:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You make a good argument :) Your uses may very well be legit but I'm thinking of "In any event, the possibility of litigation is zero." The problem with that we could get away with most images being used here. The thing is, the who no source thing is meant to protect an endemic problem and give us some legitimacy... because right now... we violate so many copyrights and plagiarize so much it's not even funny. gren グレン 14:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Income tax in the United States[edit]

Well, I'm no longer eligible to block the user since I've gotten invlolved, but it seems their actions are egregious enough to warrant dispute resolution such as an RfC, etc. Have you tried that in the past? What do you think? - Taxman Talk 18:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

BD, I saw the activity today on these articles (he already reverted one of my changes today) and was just reading your comments at Taxman's pages before I got your message. I have been thinking the same thing. -- DS1953 19:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I've created the RFC, so please add your comments/certifications there. Thanks - Taxman Talk 20:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and feel free to rework anything on that page that you think will make it clearer. I just did it hastily to minimize wasted time on an obvious issue. - Taxman Talk 22:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

A question of law[edit]

I wanted to swing a question by you regarding telecommunications law. I know this isn't your area of expertise, but I thought you might be able to advise as to resources or other users here at Wikipedia who might know more. My question in particular is in regards to the #Wikipedia IRC channel. There is ample law covering the rights of individuals in private conversations through electronic means. This is usually covered under wiretap laws at both federal and state levels. However, I'm curious if such laws would apply since #Wikipedia is a publicly available channel and frequently has dozens or even hundreds of active users logged in. I'm thinking the applicable USC law is covered in Title 18, part I, chapter 119 ([2], must have cookies enabled). But, not being a lawyer I'm quite uncertain how to interpret much of this. In particular, in 2(g)(i) it says "(It shall not be unlawful) intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public". I think #Wikipedia qualifies as readily accessible to the general public. The bottom section of (link removed) at has a link to an article regarding a person who was arrested based on conversations he had online with an undercover police officer. But, if those conversations were made on a channel where only the individual and the police officer could view the conversation, that I think would qualify as a private communication. So, I don't think that case applies to #Wikipedia. In particular, I am wondering if privately logging #Wikipedia is legal. Further, if such logs were made public would that be illegal? --Durin 17:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC) Note to other people who might be reading this; I am not suggesting that I would make such logs public. I am simply looking for guidance as to whether my private logging is legal and whether User:Fennec's logging (see link removed) is legal.

  • My inclination is to say that, if text is posted someplace where any person with an internet connection can see it, even if they have to sign up for an account or the like, then there is no expectation of privacy such that it would be inadmissible in a criminal action. Bear in mind that only the government is prohibited from acquiring evidence through a violation of the subject's right to privacy. In civil suits between private parties, there would be no bar to the admission of such evidence. In terms of making such conversations public, that would not be illegal, but might give rise to a cause of action for invasion of privacy if (again) the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy. I'll have to work on this question some more, tho. BD2412 T 17:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Willful blindness[edit]

Perhaps we could merge the almost completely English recklessness (criminal) with your U.S. material? Congratulations on your admission to the ranks of the management here, by the way. I hope it does not kill your interest. David91 10:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes. But using the objective limb of the hybrid test, English law converts wilful blindness into recklessness or in manslaughter cases, treats wilful blindness as gross negligence and therefore sufficient mens rea for a conviction. But if you say they do not match, I respect that judgment. Unfortunately that means you are into U.S. law on your own. I hardly pretend to know any modern English law let alone trespassing into your domain. Perhaps I had better modify the wording of the recklessness page to exclude the U.S. interpretation and to link to your page. David91 12:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Political correctness and juries[edit]

First off, congratulations on all of the support you recieved at your rfa. Someday that could be me ; ) I wanted to tell you not to think that the outpouring of support you recieved was solely based on your edit count, though. Even I (a relative neophyte) have seen your work and it has been a great addition to WP. You deserved all of those votes even if you had made one tenth of the edits you have.

One page that I am proud of is the Rice/Poindexter Case, which describes the case of a pair of former black panther party members currently serving life sentenses in jail in Nebraska. Recently an anon editor made a series of edits to the rarely touched page, mostly copy-edits (I love wikipedia, I have an excuse not to use spell check, and others will clean up my messes). However the anon also removed references to the racial make-up of the jury (see line 26). The user has made similar PC type edits to pages before [3], most of which were reverted. I am not sure if I should change the information back (probably after making a note on the article's talk page and/or on the anon's talk page). What do you think? Is the racial make-up of the jury important in an article like this? I appreciate your advice. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I certainly think that the race of the jury members - and the pressure felt by the lone black juror - are relevant pieces of information for the article. After all, why remove an accurate piece of verifiable information from the piece? BD2412 T 06:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the vote of confidence. As you are a lawyer-Wikipedian-administrator, I hope you don't mind my asking you what you think is relevant in this case. I suppose it isn't exactly your field though, eh. Smmurphy(Talk) 07:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet Another Legal Question For You[edit]

How does it feel to be the a known landshark on Wikipedia? =)

I know you're not involved with criminal law, but I'm hoping you can shed some light on a question that's come up on an article involving an executed death row inmate. The full question on the talk page is here. The short version is: When is it proper or improper to use the word "alleged" in conjunction with a crime? My assertion is that once a verdict has been rendered, "alleged" is no longer properly used in a public context (such as a newspaper article or, more relevantly, an encyclopedia).

Thanks for your time.
Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Alleged is always proper before a conviction; after someone has been convicted, the substance of the conviction is generally deemed fact, but not every fact raised in court is part of that substance. For example, if the state says X stole money from his wife, then argued with her, then stabbed her, and X is convicted of the murder, that does not "prove" the theft or the argument, only the murder itself. Those supporting facts remain allegations. However, where the conviction itself has been questioned in some reasonable way, media outlets will often avoid referring to the crime itself as a fact - the discussion of the murders attributed to Stanley "Tookie" Williams, for example, notes that those are the events "according to the conviction" - which leaves some wiggle room. BD2412 T 15:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


Is that true that it is v.? Its just that with R v Murdoch it had no . Is that different from Australia to USA? I know that there are small differences between laws in different countries, but I thought it was a bit odd for a dot to be the difference. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you a legal practitioner? I studied law, but never actively practised. I had a problem with ethics.  :). Never stopped my interest though. Maybe we should chat sometime. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


It's been enquired of me whether there is a copyright claim in a photo of both sides of an ancient Macedonian coin, such as this. What's your thinking on such things?

I know the current tag is no good; the email underlying it doesn't give anything like the permission the tag implies. If there is a copyright claim, would we have a reasonable FU claim in an article such as the one it currently appears in? Thanks. -Splashtalk 17:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It's impossible to copyright works in the public domain without adding some original spin on them (the base case for this is Hearn v. Meyer, 664 F.Supp. 832 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) - an author made engraved color images copied from the original 1900 publication of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz; another author copied those engravings into a children's book without permission. The Court found that the second author was not liable for copyright infringement because the first author had made "slavish copies" of the original illustrations, which were in the public domain. Nothing original has been added to these coins, so there can be no copyright in them, ever, period. BD2412 T 17:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Great, thanks. So which PD tag fits best? {{PD-ineligible}}, or...? -Splashtalk 17:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
      • That or {{PD-old}} - they're equally correct here. BD2412 T 17:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Thank you. I have passed the info on. -Splashtalk 17:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Talk:Sex and the City could use your input. android79 18:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

McCleskey v. Kemp[edit]

Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G 20:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Unclean Hands[edit]

Hey BD, I just want to point out that Unclean hands can be used as a defense of almost any equitable cause of action, not just in contracts. I think that it's often taught there, but it certainly arises in cases of fraud, trademark infringement, etc. I'm not sure that the contract template is entirely appropriate. Perhaps an "equity" template would be better--eg. a section of equitable defenses. mmmbeerT / C / ? 18:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Well there is this category, Category:Equitable_defenses that I tried to put that together awhile ago. mmmbeerT / C / ? 22:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Tax cites[edit]

Nice work. Good response to BB69's nonsense. --Macrakis 22:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Privacy laws[edit]

(link removed) has personal information on wikipedia editors who may or may not have released this information themselves, if they did not what is the legal status of such a posting? I assume its legal, but what requirements must be met? What if one of the posted users is a minor? Thanks,

Prodego talk 20:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The question is not what requirements must be met for this to be legal, but what requirements must be met for it to be illegal. Things are generally permitted unless there is a specific prohibition against them, either in the criminal law or in tort, and what this person is doing falls under no prohibition of which I am aware. He is, after all, most likely getting his information from sources that are available to the general public. I don't know that this would change for a minor, either. BD2412 T 20:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, just wondering, so there is no legal basis to remove a wikipedia article on your self either then(more rules though, since it's nonprofit?)
      • The page itself? Not unless you're non-notable. BD2412 T 21:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Of course, but the non-notable rule is a wikipedia rule, not a legal one.
          • Actually, the notability requirement somewhat mirrors the "public person" rule in invasion of privacy cases - there is a much higher bar to show invasion of privacy for a public figure in whom people are likely to have a legitimate general interest. BD2412 T 22:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Then are those wikipedia editors non-notable? It doesnt matter if its public information right? but if it isn't, i.e. if the info came as an anonymous tip it does matter?

Doctrine of equivalents and Prosecution history estoppel[edit]

My reply is here. Cheers. --Edcolins 21:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Warez/Legality help[edit]

Hey BD, the article on Warez has a section on Legality that is pathetic... The entire section is:


Copyright infringement is sometimes a civil wrong or a crime, depending on the country and jurisdiction. However, there are exceptions and loopholes in some countries.

PLEASE, PLEEEEEEAAAASE help put something better here, IANAL, and have no real access to material other than webcontent re:Copyright/International Copyright... as you seem to be a specialist in said fields I would greatly appreciate your expertise here.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


Yes, I've realized this. These were also chucked out when I knew about fair use. I don't have much time to spare right now, but next time I get on I'll take care of them (and no, I strongly doubt there'd be a PD image). Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 07:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Legislation links[edit]

Just trying to make sure I understand what you're asking for and a bit of why... You are wanting me to add the four to the list you mentioned. I'm guessing that this is in an attempt to give them a bit more visibility, so that we can have articles made for them at some point down the road, correct? - TexasAndroid 19:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Exactly - every major piece of legislation will have an article (eventually). BD2412 T 19:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Eventualist! Eventualist! Just kiddin', I'm one myself. ;) Flag of Europe and Austria.svg ナイトスタリオン 20:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, everyone will be. Eventually. BD2412 T 21:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


I bow to your superior judgment, although I do find it distracting to find irrelevant text nesting in any page. I suppose that, at some point, the subsumed material is built up into a sufficient volume to justify its own page. For example, I am going to do pages on monism (law) and dualism (law) in the next day or so and propose to disambiguate those words ab initio.

Do you think it appropriate to refer "Theft in English law" for deletion? It adds nothing to the material in Theft Act 1968 and Theft. David91 04:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
First, check what links there, and fix those links or redirect them somewhere better. Then, I'd say just redirect "Theft in English law" to Theft Act 1968. BD2412 T 04:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I have redirected both "Theft in English law" and "Robbery in English law". I hope you do not mind, but I have formally appointed you my guru. Should finish upgrading the criminal law during the next few days and will move on to the PIL. David91 10:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

GFDL question[edit]

Pinging everyone's favorite IP attorney: would you consider removing a vandal's entries from a page history (such as GWB) be in violation of the GFDL? The GFDL requires all authors to be listed, but is a vandal an author? Is there any relevant precendent for that? That's being talked about at Semi-protection policy, with the infamous IANAL acronym being thrown around, so it'd be better to get the opinion of an actual lawyer... (P.S: have you considered joining the juriwiki?) Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 20:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

SCOTUS category[edit]

Thanks - that was actually what I had in mind almost a month ago, but I couldn't work out how to write it, but I eventually just copied the FRCP template. :P Simon Dodd 15:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • You're right; touché. ;) I was just reading your user page; is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law an open party? Simon Dodd 16:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Re Court demographics, I'm not suggesting the page be removed, I just feel that something should be added. In addition, it should be noted that the majority of the Justices attended Harvard, but since they run the gamut from Scalia to Roberts to Breyer, while one could refer to the "HLS majority," there is no real "HLS voting bloc." This might also be useful info to include? Simon Dodd 18:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The geographical distribution was fairly intimately tied to circuit-riding, as described in Rehnquist's book, if you're interested; when circuit riding stopped, it effectively ended sectional divisions on the court. Simon Dodd 19:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

A question about case citations[edit]

I noticed you wanted to add case citations, etc. to court cases... (starting with Supreme Court of United States cases). Is there a repository of cases that are missing citations? Is the Wikiproject Law confined to U.S. law? Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • There is no single place where cases lacking citations are listed, because case articles are just as often started by new contributors who don't know of Wikipedia naming and style conventions. The project is not confined to U.S. law at all, and has in fact seen the introduction of cases from the U.K., Australia, and India as well. BD2412 T 19:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • So basically, if I want to help add citations, I have to manually search through all the cases looking for missing ones? That stinks. If only there was a way to develop a Casebot to find cases lacking citations. Oh well... thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • If it helps, there are plenty of uncited or improperly cited cases to be found just in Category:United States Supreme Court cases. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I think all cases in Wikipedia should be given in the style I used in Originalism, which is to say, for example, Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988). Alternatively, the citation should be given in a footnote, but I really think it has to go directly back to the text, sharpish. I've seen other citation styles, but I would humbly submit that this one has the virtue of not only being correct as a matter of citation (and indeed, encouraging the inclusion of the citation) and neatly links to both the Wikipedia article and the text of the decision. Simon Dodd 19:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I vehemently disagree, and stand by my format as employed in cases like Muskrat v. United States, which has the virtue of not taking users entirely out of Wikipedia in the very first link. BD2412 T 19:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
          • The reason I'm enthusiastic about actual citations, and direct links to the text, is that I think there's an unfortunate tendancy to regard decisions as symbols, rather than actual texts. I'd be willing to bet that you'd find more people willing to throw themselves under a bus to save/overturn Roe have never read it. Ditto Bush v. Gore, and any other important, headline case - the verdict becomes disassociated with their actual reasoning, which I think is unhealthy, and maintinging a link directly to the text, IMHO, helps reduce that tendancy (as much as anything can in an encyclopaedia). I'm not too troubled if the user gets taken out of Wikipedia for that purpose, and I'm unsure why that would be a problem? Simon Dodd 21:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, a) they might not expect to be taken out; b) we should be able to explain concisely what is going on in the case, and c) the average user can't make sense of a Supreme Court opinion anyway, with all of its talk about procedure and writs and citations to obscure doctrines. Would it help if I put a note atop Case citation instructing visitors that, if they have coming looking for the text of the case, it is to be found in an external link at the bottom of the article for that case? BD2412 T 21:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
              • I'd say keep them in Wikipedia, but make sure each case has the link to the actaul text. I agree with BD here. Most people won't understand the actual text, and many people will have no idea what a case citation even is, so it would be good to explain what those silly little numbers and letters mean. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
                • This probably means that we would need to exercise considerably more ownership over case articles; for example, in Originalism, I link to United States v. Fordice, and its appropriate citation. Of course, there is yet to be a Wikipedia entry, which would suggest that we would need to avoid creating a reference to a case without also ensuring the appropriate article is present and robust. Which isn't to say this can't be done; I created Sheldon v. Sill for this precise reason, having linked to it from SCOTUS. It just seems to tend towards an exponential amount of work. Perhaps we should have a WIKI version of the Lawyer's Ed. of the US Reports as a wikimedia project. :p Simon Dodd 22:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
                  • Don't be surprised - someday you may see the Wiki Citation alongside the rest in cases! ;-) BD2412 T 22:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
                  • Are you proposing along with Wikipedia, Wikibooks, etc. we need a Wikilaw? That might be interesting. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

statute of frauds[edit]

The statute of frauds page needs a lot of work First, the U.C.C. applies only to the sale of goods and it has its own statute of frauds. The common law also has its own statute of frauds. The page mixes the two. Two pages should be created; one for the common law statute of frauds and one for the U.C.C. statute of frauds. But I don't have time to do this right now.

Presumption: a step too far?[edit]

I would value your review of Criminal jurisdiction. I have tried to clarify the earlier draft and have presumed to write about the U.S. system. Thanks in advance. David91 02:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine work - I added some details here and there. BD2412 T 02:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)