04 Feb 2021 23:48:11
I can't find a way to link this to the thread, sorry Ed.
The problem I have, regardless of my knowledge, is that people are quoting things that aren't there. Which is never a good thing to bring to a debate.
why would one definition be in a certain edition of a law dictionary, but not the next?
This is not arguing with you. Just my thought process.
Appreciate your insight. ( and links and previous info)
{Ed033's Note - Ok, i'll let you in on a little secret :); in Legalese, any word can mean anything. So that means there is nothing special about any Black's Law Dictionary or any other Legal Dictionary.
When i write a document, i'm supposed to define each word used in the document myself and create a dictionary within the document and i'm supposed to number the pages and bind the document together somehow such as with super glue, rivets etc.
i could be lazy and write that each word is defined by Black's Law 7th Edition Dictionary, but i might find that it doesn't define a word like i want it to.
If you think about it, when they're writing International Treaties, they don't want any single word being misconstrued by another party, so they're going to have to define each word used in a bespoke dictionary.
However, i'm sure you've read legal documents and there's no dictionary with it or any indiction of which dictionary is to be used. So we read them in English, but are we interpreting it correctly if we read them in English? Should we ask the sender of the document which dictionary should be used to interpret the Legal form/document? The answer is only qualified legal people can interpret legal documents.
People who are not legally trained and have been to court [in a public court House] multiple times realise that the less they say the better. In fact, what they come to realise is that the Administrator [who likes to think they are the Judge even though they aren't sworn in as a judge], is interpreting any spoken word you say as Legalese so the spoken words can mean whatever the Adinistrator decides they mean, which weakens your case. So in the end people realise all they can repeat to the Administrator is something like, i refer you to my paperwork.
Every legal dictionary has attempted to give a generalised meaning to Legal words, but there is no actual definitive definition of any Legal word.
When i write a document, i'm supposed to define each word used in the document myself and create a dictionary within the document and i'm supposed to number the pages and bind the document together somehow such as with super glue, rivets etc.
i could be lazy and write that each word is defined by Black's Law 7th Edition Dictionary, but i might find that it doesn't define a word like i want it to.
If you think about it, when they're writing International Treaties, they don't want any single word being misconstrued by another party, so they're going to have to define each word used in a bespoke dictionary.
However, i'm sure you've read legal documents and there's no dictionary with it or any indiction of which dictionary is to be used. So we read them in English, but are we interpreting it correctly if we read them in English? Should we ask the sender of the document which dictionary should be used to interpret the Legal form/document? The answer is only qualified legal people can interpret legal documents.
People who are not legally trained and have been to court [in a public court House] multiple times realise that the less they say the better. In fact, what they come to realise is that the Administrator [who likes to think they are the Judge even though they aren't sworn in as a judge], is interpreting any spoken word you say as Legalese so the spoken words can mean whatever the Adinistrator decides they mean, which weakens your case. So in the end people realise all they can repeat to the Administrator is something like, i refer you to my paperwork.
Every legal dictionary has attempted to give a generalised meaning to Legal words, but there is no actual definitive definition of any Legal word.
