Talk:Hub-and-spoke conspiracy

United States courts and judges Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.

Reverts to introduction

I reverted the changes of an unregistered user because they do not have a NPOV, in that they are biased to limit the concept of hub and spokes conspiracy to that of certain defendants' antitrust lawyers. deprecating the general criminal law concept of the term. The reverted edits are also incorrect in some details. I will try to make an intermediate version of the introduction, using some of the reverted material if I can. The material also relies excessively on the opinions of Professor Orbach, which tend to mischaracterize the history from the 1930-1940 period and ignore the non-antitrust cases. PraeceptorIP (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]