User talk:24.225.137.164

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

25 October 2007 (UTC) [edit] YOU ARE OFFENSIVE AND YOUR EMOTIONALLY CHARGED COMMENTS HAVE BEEN PRINTED AND SAVED. IT IS SUGGGESTED THAT YOU CHECK THE LAWS ON SLANDER AND LIBEL AND THE ARTICLE REFERRED TO ABOVE. NO EDITOR ON WIKIPEDIA IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT. YOUR BEHAVIOUR IS VINDICTIVE. INTERNET LAW IS EMERGING TRUTH AND ETHICS HOWEVER DO PREVAIL. AND IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT IT IS DISCRIMINATORY TO BLOCK SOMEONE FROM USING THIS SITE SINCE IT IS CONTRARY TO POLICY TO BLOCK ADDITION OF INFORMATION --Sagbliss 04:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You continue to change the section on Brett v Brett. Please read the case. It has nothing to do with the usuages of the Jews which singles out the Jewish people and the way it is written is offensive. To user 24.225.137.164--You have no right to automatically sign my name.The vandalism of this article has been reported to the senior executive staff of Wikimedia. Let's see what they say.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

To user 24.225.137.164 I don't know why you insist on changing the article so that it is factually incorrect. Legally, a get is a Jewish bill of divorcement. And when one writes a legal article, the issue should be stated upfront. In this case, the issue is the civil remedies to remove religious barriers of remarriage.Not only do Jewish people have the get but the Muslims have barriers to remarriage.osgoode.yorku.ca/media2.nsf/83303ffe5af03ed585256ae6005379c9/In each and every country, the religious barriers to remarriage are for all faiths.

And as for a factual recounting of the Canadian case and the issues, go to Greenberg's analysis of the case which is factually correct. http://www.lawyers.com/hendygreenberg/newsletter.jsp. You continually vandalize the get article with slanderous remarks about the woman. You have also removed relevant law and cites to the CCLA website which are a service to the public. These remarks have nothing to do with the case and once if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the woman, the Court of Appeals remarks will be totally moot. Further, I don't know who wrote about the Brett case in England but it is a case about specific performance. They way this portion is written about the "usage of the Jews" is offensive and wrong. Since I am sure you don't have any legal training, you should look up the case and read it better to understand the substantive issues of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagbliss (talk • contribs) 01:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

STOP EDITING THE GET ARTICLE AND WAIT UNTIL IT IS FINISHED!!

To User 198.23.5.73 I am Sagbliss and am involved in the Supreme Court of Canada case. I see you are a recent university graduate and think you know everything. But the one thing you are not is an attorney and do not know the facts of the case in Canada, Stephanie Bruker v Jason Marcovitz. For some reason, you think you have the authority to slander Ms. Bruker and to write salacious things which have absolutely no relevance to the get case which is before the Supreme Court of Canada. Further, if you do live in Israel, you should understand what lashon hora is. You have stated that the Court of Appeals documents state certain things. The Court of Appeals documents and decision are under appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada. That you quote the court documents word for word does not mean that it has relevance to the issue or to the article which it does not. If you want to see the issues, it is suggested that you go to the http://www.ccla.org/pos/legal/CCLA%20(Bruker)%20Factum%20-%20Nov%202006.DOC which is the canadian civil liberties union in Canada. The fact that Ms. Bruker could not have more children is relevant to the time period that she was held in limbo without a get. It has been left on the site. The issue in the Supreme Court is the justiciability of a contract with religious overtones.Also read www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=356 - 42k - If Ms. Bruker is successful in the Supreme Court case, the Court of Appeals case will be overturned and become be moot.


The Wikimedia staff are working with me to get this article legally correct. Please do not touch it while it is a work in progress and if you continue to change it and continue to put things on the site which are not relevant to the issue of specific performance, you are changing what can be a good legally based article to inform the world on the plight of the agunah. Do be advised that Wikimedia is aware of your continued interference in this merging article.