Talk:Reggie Walton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reggie Walton article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Contents

[edit] Creation of article

Started this article about a U.S. judge in the news due to CIA leak criminal investigation.--FloNight 20:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Shocking! A left-wing political judge from WCL.... it wasn't evident at his graduation speech when I finally got out of that school....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.121.51 (talk • contribs) 17:18, July 5, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral point of view

Section on Edmond's case dismissal makes it sound like it was Walton's sole decision when in fact DoJ used a The State Secrets Act to quash the suit. WJBean see below Meanwhile, on July 22, 2002, Edmonds filed suit against the Department of Justice, the FBI, and several high-level officials, alleging that she was wrongfully terminated from the FBI in retaliation for reporting criminal activities committed by government officials and employees. On October 18, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the State Secrets Privilege in order to prevent disclosure of the nature of Edmonds' work on the grounds that it would endanger national security, and asked that the suit be dismissed.

On August 15, 2002, a separate suit, Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Dev. Corp., was filed by families of 600 victims of the September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks against Saudi banks, charity organizations, and companies. Edmonds was to file a deposition in this case regarding her claim that FBI had foreknowledge of al-Qaeda's attacks against the World Trade Center.

On December 11, 2003, Attorney General Ashcroft, again invoking the State Secrets Privilege, filed a motion calling for Edmonds' deposition to be suppressed and for the entire case to be dismissed. The judge, seeking more information, ordered the government to produce any unclassified material relating to the case. In response, Ashcroft submitted further statements to justify the use of the State Secrets Privilege, and on May 13, 2004, took the unprecedented step of retroactively classifying as Top Secret all of the material and statements that had been provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2002 relating to Edmonds' own lawsuit, as well as the letters that had been sent by the Senators and republished by POGO.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjbean (talk • contribs) 20:49, June 14, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libby case

The article says that Scooter Libby won on just one of the counts against him:

"Libby was found guilty on four of the five counts with which he was charged: two counts of perjury, one of obstruction of justice, and one of making false statements to federal investigators."

But Christopher Hitchens' article on Slate says that Libby won on two counts:

"In the other two 'counts' in the case, both involving conversations with reporters (Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time), Judge Reggie Walton threw out the Miller count while the jury found for Libby on the Cooper count."

Obviously one or the other statement is incorrect. Does anyone know which? NCdave 07:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

See "The Counts" in "The Verdict" in the NYTimes index of articles on Libby; it is one of the references in the cross-linked articles on the case. --NYScholar 20:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I just added the source citation to this article. FYI: It is: Diary of the Leak Trial, The New York Times, updated periodically, accessed June 23, 2007. --NYScholar 20:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that means they are both correct, sort of. The article isn't counting the Miller charge, which Walton threw out. Is that right? NCdave 10:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mitch Modeleski, a/k/a Paul Andrew Mitchell, "Private Attorney General"

The "external links" section includes a link to a short document on the supremelaw.org web site, which is apparently run by a tax protester named Mitch Modeleski. In the document he uses the pen name "Paul Andrew Mitchell," and gives his title as "Private Attorney General" (whatever that means). The link was added March 7, 2007, by Zosimog, which seems to be a defunct ID. Perhaps Zosimog was actually Modeleski, himself?

I'm not a lawyer, but it looks decidedly goofy to me. I was tempted to just delete it, but took the conservative approach and just added an attribution so that readers will know what it is. If someone else wants to delete it entirely, that's fine with me. NCdave 08:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, color me surprised. There actually is such a thing as a Private Attorney General. I had no idea. NCdave 08:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] talk page corrections

Could not follow this talk page (directed here by the tag for neutrality. Added unsigned templates and refactored somewhat w/ a couple of headings to make clearer who posted what about which subjects and when. Please use four tildes and add comments at bottom of page. Thanks. (Added talkpage header template as well.) --NYScholar 20:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)