Talk:Theresa Obermeyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

[edit] Edit of 2006-08-29

This material is written in a rather non-encyclopedic, even inflammatory style, and is clearly not NPOV. This person certainly sounds worthy of more then the stub one-liner that was here before your contribution, but I think the content needs a lot of work. It's missing some basic facts, and full of opinions expressed as fact. Some examples:

  • Basic biographical facts—when and where was she born, etc
  • widely viewed in Alaska—references, please.
  • her husband who has flunked the Alaska Bar exam on dozens of occasions—c'mon, "dozens"? That sounds unbelievable, if it's really dozens, document the exact number.
  • a fact Ms. Obermeyer sees as an unfair tragedy rife with sinister conspiratorial implications—We don't know what she sees: provide evidence in erms of her utterances and actions.
  • It was inappropriate behavior—what behavior, exactly?
  • Later she served a jail term—when, exactly? How long?

Please read WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE, and try to fix the material. —johndburger 13:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Author's Response

Yes sir, it is amazing and if I get the time, I can do that, but it is all true and forms the basis for her noteriety. I contacted 60 Minutes about doing a piece on her but they declined. I think Tom Obermeyer has failed the Alaska Bar approximately 40 times. The archives of the Anchorage Daily News [[1]] would be a good place to start, facts corroborated by Theresa's own website [[2]] I can't provide a link to the following story so I purchased it and it is as follows below. There are other articles related to the end of her career on the School Board as a result of her using her position, board time and stationery to advocate for her husband's admission to the Bar. The Alaska Bar's position is as follows: While Alaska does have reciprocity with Missouri, a further Bar rule prohibits anyone from being admitted who has taken and failed the Bar which is a blind anonymous test like the SAT so there is no issue of personal favoritism and has a pass rate for first time takers that averages between 55-70%. The Obermeyers, however, will hear nothing of it. They have gone so far as to seek a private bill from the Legislature to have him admitted. Ms. Obermeyer obtained the Democratic Party nomination to run against Ted Stevens for U.S Senate, in 2000 I think, because no one wanted to run against Stevens. She used that campaign and her television appearance to crusade for her husband's admission to the Bar which she sees Stevens as a part of a conspiracy to prevent from occuring. As a result the Green Party came in ahead of the Democrats in that race. As far as I know Obermeyer has taken the Bar every time it has been offered since the article below was printed ten years ago. Thus I believe my contribution was fair and accurate. Again, it is these events that were reported in tne newspapers, radio and TV over a period of years that Ms. Obermeyer is most known for, that define her as a public figure. If someone would presume to be my editor or censor, that person should at least have some familiarity with this issue and the community it emanates from.Tom Cod 23:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________

Anchorage Daily News June 12, 1996

JUDGE JAILS OBERMEYER FOR 30 DAYS EX-SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER'S PROBATION REVOKED FOR COURTHOUSE ALTERCATIONS Liz Ruskin, Daily News Reporter

A federal court judge, making good on a promise he issued nearly two years ago, revoked Theresa Obermeyer's probation Tuesday and sent the former Anchorage School Board member to jail for causing two disturbances at the federal building. I fairly warned you, District Court Judge William Enright told Obermeyer at the conclusion of her probation revocation hearing. He sentenced her to 30 days in jail, the maximum allowed for disorderly conduct.

Obermeyer, now a candidate for U.S. Senate, has crusaded for more than a decade against what she sees as a plot to unfairly deny her husband the right to practice law in Alaska. Tom Obermeyer has taken and failed the Alaska Bar exam 21 times. She constantly champions his cause to important people at public events and faxes stacks of documents to judges, legislators and others on his behalf.

At a trial in September 1994, Enright found Obermeyer guilty of disorderly conduct for a disturbance the previous June, when she attended a public meeting in the chambers of U.S. District Court Judge James Singleton. She'd launched into a tirade about her husband at the meeting, witnesses said, and shoved a secretary. Obermeyer was arrested after a scuffle that brought her to the floor.

After Enright convicted her, he fined Obermeyer $50, vowing he would put her in jail for the full 30 days if she committed new crimes or violated conditions of her probation. She held the keys to her own jail cell, he said, and if she were taken away from her husband and four children, she'd have no one to blame but herself.

He left Obermeyer free to attend meetings in the federal building, which is what she was doing in the building last Aug. 16, when the second disturbance occurred. As Obermeyer was heading down a corridor toward a public meeting featuring U.S. Sens. Ted Stevens of Alaska and Kit Bond of Missouri, an armed security guard rushed to block her path.

The guard, Jerry Clopp, testified Monday that he asked Obermeyer to wait because his supervisor wanted to speak to her. Obermeyer, he said, starting shouting that she had every right to be there. Her veins were sticking out, said Clopp, an employee of a private security firm that provides guards for the federal building. She was bright red in the face and hollering.

She only got louder when the supervisor showed up and put a hand on Obermeyer's elbow, he said. As Obermeyer put a hand out to push the supervisor, Clopp said, he slapped a handcuff on it. Obermeyer went limp and fell to the ground, taking the female supervisor with her. Obermeyer gave a slightly different version of the Aug. 16 incident when she testified on Monday. She said she'd notified the head U.S. marshal in the federal building of her plans to attend the meeting. She assumed everything was fine until she exited the elevator on the second floor. As she was headed down the corridor, she testified, Clopp came running at her and told her she wasn't going to the meeting.

She asked him to call the marshal, she said, but a woman appeared, clenched two hands around her wrist and began incessantly whispering her name. Then, she said, Clopp handcuffed her and she dropped to the floor.

Her lawyer, federal public defender Mary Geddes, argued that Obermeyer was doing nothing wrong when she was detained by an inexperienced rent-a-cop. Because of who she is, Geddes argued to Judge Enright, she's singled out for treatment that is unfair and, I would say, against the law.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Bottini said the security response was reasonable, given Obermeyer's track record in the building. All they wanted to do was talk to her and make sure there wasn't going to be a problem, he said. She, however, refused to calm down and listen, he said. She violated the disorderly conduct law and the posted signs by speaking loudly and obstructing the elevators, he said.

Enright agreed. She is an intelligent, conscientious woman, he said, but her uncontrollable obsession with her husband's situation has blighted her life. I had hoped that you would get professional help, or at least see the need for it, Enright said.

Geddes, however, said Obermeyer's family physician finds no evidence of mental illness, and Obermeyer flatly stated that her problems are not psychiatric. I am unwilling to do any kind of psychiatric evaluation, Obermeyer said.

Enright did not order one. Obermeyer, smiling, handed her jewelry to her lawyer as they waited in the courtroom for officers to take her away. In a telephone call from Hiland Mountain Correctional Center, Obermeyer blamed a political vendetta by Stevens, whom she is running against, for her incarceration.

Geddes said her client will appeal. Obermeyer, she said, epitomizes the First Amendment in action. She can be irritating in her voice and manner, Geddes said after the proceeding was over. But if we only extend First Amendment rights to those people whose views we agree with and whose manner we find soothing and pleasant, the First Amendment has no meaning.

-via Tom Cod

[edit] Censor?

Tom writes: If someone would presume to be my editor or censor, that person should at least have some familiarity with this issue and the community it emanates from. Uh, so only Alaskans can edit your material? That's not how Wikipedia works (or editing in general, for that matter). And censor is the kind of overwrought language that your subject seems to like to use. Your material has been "censored" by at least four different editors—I'd pay attention to that, as well as the warning at the top of this Talk page. Biographies (that's what this is) of living people have to be written very carefully, here and elsewhere.

But anyway, the newspaper article you've provided is a beginning—I've added it as a reference, and changed some of the material to match the facts as stated there. It's not hard to do things properly. —johndburger 12:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but those who would edit anothers' work for substance should be familiar with the subject matter at issue. For example, one who would censor, and that's what it is, by restraining the publication of another, say an article on Monica Lewinsky, should at least be familiar with her connection with Clinton's impeachment. Similarly with the story of Ms. Obermeyer, with whom you are apparently completely unfamiliar, unlike the reading public in Anchorage. For example, if you KNOW certain facts are wrong that's one thing that may justify editing/deletion of substance. But to just presume, for example that the story is outrageous, when it may actually be an outrageous story, is incorrect absent some knowledge or inquiry, as a person could well reasonably assume, without any knowledge of this issue, that the Lewinsky/Clinton scandal is outrageous (which is was) and therefore obviously specious etc. (A President impeached for that?? C'mon!) However, if one knows something about the story and is in a position to make informed criticism, that is entirely different.Tom Cod 20:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about—your material was reverted (by multiple editors) due to it's style, lack of references, etc., not because it was "outrageous". Perhaps you're referring to my comment of "unbelievable" concerning failing the bar dozens of times? If you read that carefully, you'll see that I simply asked for a better, substantiated number. Not unreasonable, I think, for any Wikipedia article, but especially important for living persons' biographies. (Please read WP:BLP.) Wikipedia is global, it's largely irrelevant what "the reading public in Anchorage" is familiar with. —johndburger 21:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's relevant in terms of whether a critic is informed or not about his or her subject matter before engaging in radical surgery on the substance of articles on the basis of haute rules of style and citation. Wikipedia may be global, but perhaps local people know more about their local issues than self appointed "global" editors.Tom Cod 10:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Do local people know more about libel? If you won't read WP:BLP, at least read the warning at the top of this very page. If you disagree with the policy, then as a lawyer, it'd be great if you could refine it. 'Til then, I'll follow the rules. —johndburger 10:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you're not a lawyer or you wouldn't make such a statement. Absolutely I know something about libel, which makes me wonder, as I did initially, whether you are acting on behalf of someone in the Obermeyer family as she is an extremely litigous person. For something to be libel it must be false, and as my post from the Anchorage Daily News demonstrates, this is clearly the truth. Moreover, as the Supreme Court elucidated in New York Times v. Sullivan, for libel to be actionable against a public figure, the publisher of the ostensible libel must be acting with "actual malice," that is that he or she knows what is being said is false or is acting with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Thus SINCE YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS STORY YOU HAVE NO BASIS FOR HAVING AN INFORMED OPINION AS TO WHETHER IT IS LIBELOUS OR NOT. Therefore your critique appears misguided. It is incumbent upon you to show where and how what I posted was libelous, something you cannot even begin to do without knowing something about the subject. Thus it is entirely inappropriate for you to be reviewing this or similar articles for substance. I suggest this matter be mediated by a higher authority as it is unacceptable for those ignorant of certain subject matter to be excising it.Tom Cod 15:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
"It is incumbent upon you to show where and how what I posted was libelous". No, on Wikipedia everything is backwards. It is incumbent upon you to show what you posted is true. In other words: WP:V: "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, please assume good faith. In other words, I assure you that I'm not "acting on behalf of someone in the Obermeyer family" and I assume (and can all-but-guarantee) that johndburger is not "acting on behalf of someone in the Obermeyer family". Many editors (not just us two) have been editing the article. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, but given that someone, not myself, has incorporated much of this material into the article, isn't this a moot issue and isn't the libel disclaimer inappropriate unless you think the Anchorage Daily News was engaging in the same.Tom Cod 17:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It's moot if you think it is. I thought you were arguing that the material should be added back in. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the substance of it largely has been if you look at the article page. Previously, it kept getting reverted back to the first two sentences. Thanks very much. Tom Cod 14:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What Arichnad said. :) —johndburger 01:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)