Talk:David O. Carter

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/David O. Carter was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Law clerk is under attack

Seeing this: [1] I have decided to delete the entire chapter. There are dangerous people up there, with guns. We do not want any people threatened or killed. Please discuss if you think otherwise.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think deleting easily available information from wikipedia is a good response to fears that some birther might go nuts. Some people are already pointing to this deletion as evidence of a conspiracy to cover things up. [2] No reason to add fuel to the fire. Leuchars (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"fears that some birther might go nuts". They do not need much incitement to go nuts. And I suppose that since Orly's demand to start discovery got the Bastogne answer from the DOJ, they probably do not like the word "nuts". I do not really understand why clerks' names should be put on the page of a judge who is dealing with a very controversial case (I mean the maffia one, not the Orly Taitz case which is not controversial at all) and of course with the Orly Taitz circus. Of course, any edit to this page is controversial among birthers, that is the very essence of a conspiracy theory. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Pieniezny, you are delusional. Deleting a major section of this article because a news story came out is idiotic. Deleting the list of law clerks doesn't protect anyone because the info is still here, and it is still public record. And as far as I know there has never been a case of "birther" assaulting anyone over this silly stuff. And even if there were, the U.S. Marshalls are perfectly capable of doing their job. Time to revert. Cadwallader (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the names of the clerks doesn't below in Wikipedia, regardless of any threats. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not like we expect these people to get their own articles, so recentism is also involved. I see that there has already been an anonymous IP putting in "interesting" comment on the guy here. We already have quite a number of Obama related articles on "special Obama patrol" on Wikipedia. Do we need to add Judge Carter to that list? It is nice to see that the other anonymous IP, who put this name (and the others, I presume) in, reverted. But there is a little problem. The IP of the person who put the name in, was also used by a sock puppet (see the talk page for that IP) and I really do not like the idea that Whois tells me this is an IP from "Admin OFC US Courts SPRINT-D01BCA (NET-208-27-202-0-1)". There seems to be a conflict of interest here: the one who put this info in, should not even have been the one to do it. And there is the question of notability. Do we do this with other judges? Has an RS in the media mentioned this name? If no, I do not really see why the name should stay here. And I do not see where the delusion is. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I am an attorney. It is outrageous that this law clerk's name has been re-inserted into the article despite the clear and plain warning provided to Wikipedia of serious security issues. Frankly, in my opinion, this creates a legal liability issue for Wikipedia and any editors responsible for publishing his name despite the warnings, should any harm come to him or other members of the court's staff. Not only has a security issue been created, but the law clerk's names are unsourced and uncited, in violation of Wikipedia's own standards. The identity of the court's internal staff is not an appropriate matter for public discussion. This section must be removed immediately. Disregard my warning and others' at your own risk. Cbreitel (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Not looking to get into an argument about this, but it's patently absurd to claim that wikipedia would be opening itself to liability simply by listing the name of the law clerks. Wiki already has a comprehensive list of everyone who has clerked for a Supreme Court Justice[3]. The question of whether it's notable for a District Court Judge is entirely separate. Leuchars (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Patently absurd? What is your basis for that conclusion? It is not difficult at all for any plaintiff's lawyer to name Wikipedia, any corporate entities associated with Wikipedia, and any persons who edit Wikipedia as defendants in a lawsuit should any injury occur. The theory of liability would be simple tort, which I presume you are familiar with since you've assessed its "absurdity." When a party is put on written notice of a potential danger to another party, a duty arises to take reasonable care to reduce the chances of injury. That's an uncontroversial proposition of law. Cbreitel (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Even articles on notable judges, such as Richard Posner and Jed Rakoff, for example, do not contain lists of law clerks, and only mention particularly notable law clerks, such as Lawrence Lessig in Richard Posner's article. In other words, people who are themselves notable and, generally, have their own articles. There is no reason to think that the people on this list are going to have articles themselves. Furthermore, the list does not cite any reliable sources, and appears to be original research by a sockpuppet account with a conflict of interest, inserted into this article for mischievous purposes. Finally, it does not add anything substantive to the article. Muldrake (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, because when I decided to NOT delete the entire chapter, I imagined what a normal encyclopedia would have on a notable judge - and yes, I thought, it may include the way the judge chose and collaborated with his law clerks, and would mention the otherwise notable law clerks. The law clerk this whole story is about is too young and new to be notable. Recentism. It does not really matter that his name was on so many blogs, because blogs are not RS. I am a bit reticent to revert, but both other participants in the discusion were told, and except for one editor there is concensus here: OR. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fair. The only suggestion I would make at this point is to delete the "Law Clerk" section altogether, as it simply recites how nearly every federal district judge hires clerks. It seems superfluous without more information. Leuchars (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

@Paul Pieniezny, removing the clerks list due to relevancy is completely reasonable - there are no clerks lists on the pages of other federal judges I've checked. However, that wasn't the reason you gave. The reason you gave was ridiculous. I checked the page you linked to and there are no threats whatsoever.

@Cbreitel. Maybe you're an attorney, maybe you're not. Regardless, no credible threat has been reported here, and it wouldn't matter if there was a credible threat. Changing a Wikipedia entry does not protect anyone from any threats. The people of the United States, if not the world, have every right to know who the employees of their government are, period. If you don't want to be public, then stay out of the public sector, right? The law clerk list originally came from an editor at a computer at the US District Court's office. However, it was being updated prior to Siddharth Velamoor beginning his term, and was probably put there by one of the clerks of court. [4]

Ironically, Pieniezny, you've made Siddharth Velamoor twice as newsworthy and notable by redacting the list when it hit the news. I'm inclined to give him his own Wikipedia page and mention the case on this page. What do you think?Cadwallader (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done my part; the rest is not my problem. As I said in my original comment, proceed at your own risk. I note that your username is clearly identifiable. It would take 1 and at the most 2 subpoenas to uncover your actual identity to involve you in litigation. This is done on a fairly regular basis in courts around the country. Good luck. Cbreitel (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Should Barnett v. Obama Dismissal Be Noted?

I see that someone noted Barnett v. Obama was dismissed by this judge, and then someone removed it, and Paul Pieniezny made reference to a "special Obama patrol" in Wikipedia? How does that work? Is the "special Obama patrol" a self-appointed group of partisan editors, or is it an official Wikipedia policy of some kind? It just sounds non-NPOV to me.

I am skeptical of editors who go out of their way to marginalize positions they don't agree with.

Anyone who manages to get their name into the newspaper or a court filing has become noteworthy, particularly if it generated a controversy that was publicly discussed. Judge Carter's dismissal of Barnett v. Obama is significant because it was one of the last outstanding challenges to President Obama's eligibility. That is news, and that is now history. I think it belongs in this article.Cadwallader (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you had had a look at the talk page of any Obama related article (like the one I linked to in the Barnett v Obama part) you would have known that I was not referring to a group of editors, but to this: [5]. This is not the first article where editors are trying to "balance" the article by including the birthers' view. There are clear reasons NOT to always do that, because there are also rules such as WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Cut the Slang

While the LA Times did call them "birthers", it is more "encyclopedic" not to use slang, so I removed the phrase 'by so-called "birthers" '.Cadwallader (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)===

A court of law has also referred to them as "birthers," along with every major national media outlet in the country. Cbreitel (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is not accurate. President Obama was represented by the Department of Justice in the lawsuit, not by the private law firm of Perkins Coie. See the news article discussing DOJ attorneys Roger West and David DeJute representing President Obama. [6]. Goldie38 —Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for that info, and for the correction, Goldie. Perkins Coie does currently represent the President, don't they? It is still very unusual for a federal judge to hire a clerk from a firm that is currently representing the defendant on a case that is active in his court.Cadwallader (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, Carter asks or invites these people a year in advance, and Perkins is a huge firm - so it is not as simple as you are putting it. What was Carter to have done in connection with this appointment in January 2009? And this would imply not only that it was easy to find a replacement for "that guy", but also that it would have been easy to keep track of everybody who was filing a case or who had a case against them before his court. The Barnett case was not even restricted to Obama, but included his wife and Hillary Clinton. So, anybody from a firm who is currently representing one of the co-defendants is out? What about all the plaintiffs - it is not even clear how many there were, since Taitz amended her filing twice to add more and more of them. There are at present probably tens of court suits against Obama, many if not most by people either committed or incarcerated. In one of these suits, Brittney Spears appears as a co-defendant. So, Carter should not hire any lawyer from a firm representing Brittney Spears?--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul, that info is totally relevant. So let's put it out there. It makes far more sense to tell the story, than to delete the story. If the story is that Carter chose Velamoor before Obama was even elected, then that instantly quashes rumor and speculation. Need a source for it though.Cadwallader (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Disposition of Delegates to the Republican National Convention case

Under the Notable Cases header one of the items concerns delegates to the Republican convention suing the Republican National Committee.

This is notable of course.

But the two sentences there seem to date from 2012.

Surely either the case was tried, or settled, or dismissed, or disposed of some other way and Carter is no longer "set to preside over the lawsuit" --- unless it really has been tied up for 5 years. (That also would be interesting.)

So it would be great if somebody could bring this up to date.

Son of eugene (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"Judge carter" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Judge carter and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 19#Judge carter until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)