Talk:Black's Law Dictionary

yada,yada

objection. a reason in support of the contention that the matter or proceeding is improper. Talk page - discussion of encyclopedia entry. In this case, Black's Law Dictionary. Expansion of 44th most popular page, good call, 2nd edition search, also good call, note response link, some online legal dictionaries, good call to move, Software, good call, the rest of this page, garbage. As a research tool, the entry should be positive and informative. Suijur (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

supreme court cases needs citation tag removed, citation of PATTERSON v WALGREEN CO. added. Suijur (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

how to win against the department of child safety WPTTR (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

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)

https://www.freelawdictionary.org/ Suijur (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2019 (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 them 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)

This editor seems to have a Freemen on the land pov. They have an obsession with capital letters and their significance. Doug Weller (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Doug Weller: Yes, the "capital letters" nonsense, the irrelevant references to provisions of the UCC (the Uniform Commercial Code), and the references to things that aren't "contracts" as somehow being "contracts" are the kinds of things found in the writings of people who espouse tax protester, "freemen on the land," and sovereign citizen nonsense.

Dear Anonymous 573462i: No, your "claim" does not stand true. And, I don't need to google anything. You're referring to the UCC provision you mentioned earlier. That provision is a definition of the word "conspicuous" as that term is used in the UCC, and the definition mentions the use of capital letters. Printing with capital letters is one way of making something in a document covered by the UCC to be considered "conspicuous." However, you don't seem to understand what you are reading. Under the UCC, merely writing something in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS LIKE THIS -- whether in a deed, a birth certificate -- does not make the document a "contract."

Not only that, but the UCC does not govern wills, or deeds, or birth certificates. Again, leave the legal analysis to the lawyers. Famspear (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

And if anyone here knows anything about the Constitution of the United Kingdom could they please check my recent reversion of this editor? Doug Weller (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

No Doug weller I don't have a freeman pov, it's called an open mind to all pov's you should try it... it's about time someone said it, the deal here is that you're philosophically straw-manning me... then you're pre-empting to pull a confirmation bias... it's the same as witch hunting and/or red scare. Even if someone were that's an ad hominem attack so catch-22... damned if I do point that out, damned if I don't.. you obviously have a personal problem with people who can agree with protesters on some level.

Other goals of the UCC were to modernize contract law and to allow for exceptions from the common law in contracts between merchants. - I just copied this from wiki's own U.C.C. You can get your will's, deed's and birth certificates changed... it's trust law (contract)... See English trust law; e.g. transfers of land, shares, for wills... I'm sorry Famspear but you seem to be lacking in this department of law. I copied that from the wiki entry... Search those words from e.g. Birth Certificates are not on there, perhaps I'm wrong about that one but it still operates similarly since we don't own our birth cerficiates which are entrusted with the state which we are able to have the names changed. -.- This is why I said agree to disagree but it seems I've touched a judgemental nerve with Doug he's going on a harass scheme calling me a freeman for a while. I really gave up on the conversation ages ago. I'll be at Criticisms of Wikipedia pages for my own sanity on this... perhaps I'll be listing the ones relivent to Doug directly to him, who knows. Anonymous 573462i (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I've missunderstood you, I was careful to say "seem" however. Are you saying that you aren't sympathetic to their viewpoint AND that you didn't pick up the bit about capital letters from them or sovereign citizens? And please note Famspear's comment below about concentrating on the article when posting to talk pages, not the subject of the article. Doug Weller (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

But yeah, maybe I don't have english trust law completely understood... as far as I see it, it acts like contract law; the difference being that deeds, wills and birth certificates can change; say for a house or plot of land; in trust there is an inalienable contract marking that land; you can opt in or out at any time as the individual; but the states records it as existing for the time being whether someone lives there or not; birth certificates can change in a similar manner, not all people have one... and as for wills not everyone creates one. It doesn't matter on the exactness of the details... these things are still entrusted with the state. Anonymous 573462i (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

As for adding Christophers slades judgement I'm not sure how to word it perfect within context to the whole paragraph... it's reasonably difficult... I believed the edit was fine and can't see where you're unhappy with it... it's a matter of subsidiarity, if you solely presume the national level of government has full power over the local level... then the local can't operate in conjuction to it's citizen's... hence he stated a convention of sorts. It's just as bad if all power goes to the bottom level... but this web seems to be filled with peeps make-believing the national supreme yet that court case rectifies a convention. Rather than ostracizing me Doug try and help me where it's difficult instead please. Anonymous 573462i (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous 573462i: No, I don't seem to be lacking in any department of law. Further, the rest of us don't need any lessons in the law, and you're in no position to provide lessons on the law. Leave the lawyering to the lawyers. Focus on ways to improve the article, and look for reliable, previously published third party sources. Famspear (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you're a qualified philosopher to be making those decisions, and since I rebuted your claims I'll decide for myself. Thanks... I'm not replying anymore to this thread so at ease with what you want to say. Anonymous 573462i (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous 573462I: I haven't made any "claims," and no you haven't rebutted anything.

And, what you personally "think" about whether I am a qualified philosopher to be making "those decisions" (whatever that means) is not important. Further, whatever you "decide for yourself" is unimportant.

Since you yourself brought up this subject, I'll point out that in the United States, I am in fact designated as a qualified philosopher on the subject of law -- which is essential to the subject at hand. And, my designation actually counts in the real world. I have a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree, and I am licensed as an attorney and counselor at law. In this context, the term Doctor means teacher. The term Jurisprudence means the Philosophy of Law. The term Doctor of Jurisprudence means teacher of the philosophy of law.

Leave the lawyering to the lawyers, and focus on the purpose of this talk page -- to discuss ways to improve the article. Famspear (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There exists some unstated criteria which requires a person to have reached a certain age in order to access any online instance of a version of Black's Law Dictionary, which has passed into the public domain?

In § 'Availability', the sentence below seems to state that some unnamed rule or criteria precludes access, by individuals younger than some unspecified age, to digitized versions, hosted online, of editions of Black's Law Dictionary, which have passed into the public domain. This is expressed in the final, independent clause, where 'one' is the subject which must reach a certain age. The dependent, infinitive clause, which precedes the independent clause in the same sentence, provides a description of what the mandate in the independent clause ('reach a certain age') permits, i.e., acquiring the ability to use an online version of editions in the public domain. 'One' is acting as a pronoun, and its only conceivable antecedent is the implied subject in the infinitive clause, which generates the interpretation I suggested.

"The second edition of Black's Law Dictionary (1910) is now in the public domain and could be read online for free (see External Links below). However, to be able to use this online, one must reach a certain age"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitzws (talk • contribs)

I agree; that part stood out to me as well. At least one of the links (thelawdictionary.org) has no sign of any such requirement, not even the often-unenforced terms-of-use boilerplate you see on a lot of sites. I've gone ahead and removed that part. flarn2006 [u t c] time: 21:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)