Talk:A.G.R. v. D.R.H

Removed of excessive commentary and blog links - September 2010

This article was written by a sockpuppet banned for spamming links and information related to Jacob M. Appel. As I can find no independent verification in reliable sources that Appel has any kind of recognized expertise or relationship with this subject other than this "vehicle" article, I've removed his views and arguments all sourced to his blog posting on the Huffington Post and added the link to the External links section. The mainstream reporting surrounding the case should be adequate to provide the references or quotes by Appel needed for this article. Flowanda | Talk 07:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Appel has written multiple articles on surrogacy, certainly as many as Turley. Check google QuiggBy (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing Google searches still show no indication Appel has any documented, independently verified expertise in this subject, much less how his blog posts, contributed columns or comparison to any other person constitute a legitimate argument for the repeated readdition of large blocks of content devoted to his views or the assertion that his opinions quoted nowhere else other than his own blog constitutes "significant" meaning. Flowanda | Talk 09:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the major difference between Appel and others here is that appeal has written about this case and others have not. Needless to say, you seem to be on a crusade about this subject, so I imagine you will eventually carry the day, but I stand behind my observations above QuiggBy (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Impact of decision

This is a Superior Court decision, so it is only mandatory authority in a portion of New Jersey, and pursuasive authority elsewhere. This is not a decision by New Jersey's highest court, hence, it is not applicable in the "entire state of New Jersey." Racepacket (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)