User talk:ChicSpandex

Welcome!
Requiring the true year of our Lord rather than the common law (i.e. New Style, not Gregorian for most US jurisdictions) is not 'fringe.' The US military uses simple deceit ("to cause another to believe as true that which is false") rather than criminal deceit (i.e. fraud defined in Blacks Law Dictionary as "an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact for the purpose of causing another to act to their detriment.")  See, for example, U.S. v. Juillerat, ACM 34205. Under that definition, using the common law year of our Lord as true can be a crime (I admit, I think it ridiculous, but I am only reporting what the military held is their law). Using a common law name is also a crime, but has less weight, since the number of years since Jesus birth is a natural fact whereas a common law name is technically false only by arbitrary legal definition (it is linguistically true, since it identifies the person--civilian courts have held such names are usable as true under civilian law even though they are technically false). Since military law applies to a significant population, I do not believe it is acceptable to call it a "fringe" theory. I did add that it cites as precedent a case that has nothing to do with common law names and actually corrupts the finding of that case.

Avoid pushing fringe legal theories
Your claim "note that this case is not yet final because the clerk dated it with the common law Year of the Lord, not the 'real' Year of the Lord (Jesus was not born in a.d.1) as required by the FRCP" in this edit makes me believe you are pushing fringe legal theories. Please do not do this. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I should not have stated it as a definite. I have edited the post to correctly reflect the ambiguity the case created.ChicSpandex (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)ChicSpandex


 * Where does the claim "note that although this case appears to have been decided in 2006, it may not yet be final because the clerk did not date it with the real Year of the Lord, as the decision appears to require, but with the traditional Year of the Lord" come from? Is the case under appeal? Has the period for appeal expired? What exactly did the clerk write and who questions it.


 * If you, rather than a reliable source, raised this question, it has no place in the article because the original ideas of Wikipedia are not acceptable as article content (see WP:NOR.) Without verification, this bizarre claim calls all your contributions into question. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

ChicSpandex, I have removed the questionable edit. I have also added some very useful links to the top of your talk page, which helps explain Wikipedia policy. Essentially, your claim that the validity of court case is called into question if it does not say "Year of our Lord", is highly dubious. It must be verfied by reliable secondary sources. Othewise, it will be considered original research. Also, this type of claim may fall under the fringe theory guidelines of Wikipedia. I hope that helps. Singularity42 (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Anno domini. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)