Talk:Michael Lissack

2008 post

Michael is a well known public figure in the financial markets. He made a huge impact on the way Wall Street deals with state and local governments. Numerous NY Times, WSJ, and Bloomberg News articles reference him.MuniWatcher (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

2011 dispute

Since someone keeps re-editting just what it was that I did plead guilty to I now quote the relevant paragraph from one of the sources: "By pleading guilty to second-degree harassment, Lissack was able to walk out of state court without a jail sentence or fine."

I then cite the actual law 209.203.10.194 (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Michael Lissack

As then requested by another editor I have further provided a cite to illustrate that violations under NY law are CIVIL not CRIMMINAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.203.10.194 (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As requested by several editors I now have created an account so that I can be tracked by my name. Many thanks for the exchanges I believe the article now fairly depicits events without defaming me. Michaellissack (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)michaellissack

As there seems to be no ongoing factual dispute on this talk page, I've removed the tag from the article. If anyone feels there is still a problem, please feel free to retag it and discuss the dispute here. Sperril (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no further issues in dispute. 209.203.10.194 (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no issues in dispute. Michaellissack (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the tag again. As far as I can tell, there is nothing left in dispute here, at WP:BLPN, or at WP:ANI. If La Goutte feels the tag is still needed, please comment here why.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

References

July 2011 Yield Burning Updates

JPMorgan Chase just agreed to pay more than $200 million in a municipal yield burning case. If one bothers to read the refences in this article it is clear that all of the municipal reinvestment, derivatives, and yield burning cases started with Lissack. To remove this material is to deny the reader an up to date picture of yield burning and of Lissack's role in uncovering the mess.

The material was removed before the settlement was made public. But the settlement is public now (and on the front page of the WSJ) .... the material should stay. 108.7.60.23 (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC) another whistle blower from municipal finance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.60.23 (talk)

This is the material the above IP wants to add to the article:

Lissack's accusations and the resulting Federal investigations did little, however, to end yield burning and other related transgressions in the municipal bond market. By 2005, regulators became concerned that the yield burning scandal was having a redux. Some of the concern stemmed from a ruling in Lissack's qui tam case which held yield burning to be a tax issue and thus exempt from the provisions of the Federal False Claims Act. Yield burning was, however, directly covered by the IRS tax whistleblower provisions which took effect in 2007. Several major firms ultimately reached a settlememt with the SEC and IRS regarding a replay of practices which had been originally exposed by Lissack's qui tam suit. More lawsuits and investigations continue to the present day. In July 2011, JPMorgan Chase became the third major institution (after Bank America and UBS) to settle with regulators.

The problem is that, first, this is mostly about yield burning, not about Lissack, and the tie-in to Lissack is mostly WP:OR. We should add a See also, though, for the Yield burning article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The sources that mention Lissack are not really relevant. One is from 2001 (and it's just a brief abstract). Another is from 2007. And the last is a reference to the 2004 qui tam case. Nothing supports the notion that the IP wants to shoe in about this "started with Lissack". It's just an interpretation by the IP and doesn't belong in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If one reads United States of America ex rel Michael R Lissack v Sakura see http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1380058.html the ties between the present cases and Lissack are obvious. The man blew the whistle on an on-going scandal (in fact that is the ONLY reason he is in Wikipedia in the first place). The reader should be allowed to see the full picture. JMHO. 108.7.60.23 (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC) another muni bond whistleblower

As "another muni bond whistleblower", (1) you have a conflict and (2) you apparently have a wish to interpret the primary source (the case) and extrapolate as to what it means. This is not permissible in an article. Now, if you can get reliable secondary sources that support your theory about Lissack being the start of it all, great. Otherwise, this is original research and can't be included.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OK try these: http://www.phillipsandcohen.com/Fraud-in-the-Financial-Industry/Yield-Burning.shtml http://www.bondbuyer.com/news/-141894-1.html http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aN2xzV6HmR7I&refer=columnist_mysak http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/377/145/545533/ as well as most of the references already cited in the article

the editor who is NOT doing any research at all (or reading) is the one removing the references. 108.7.60.23 (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You're not saying anything new. The first source in your string is to the law firm that represented Lissack, hardly a reliable source. The others are mostly the same sources you already tried to add and which I addressed above, with the exception of a cite to the actual 2004 case. None of it helps your cause.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

obviously we disagree as to the relevance of sources you seem to doubt bloomberg (journalist doing the interpreting) and the bond buyer (the same) even though they are exactly who one would hope would do the intepreting. One does not need to interpret however just read the first few paragraphs of the primary source (which was the court decision so the authors are the judges) it says plainly what Lissack alleged. Those are the very same allegations which JPMorgan just settled for $200 million plus. 108.7.60.23 (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Try http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aN2xzV6HmR7I&refer=columnist_mysak 108.7.60.23 (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

November 2011 rehash of June 2011 arguments

Is there some reason to rerun the June 2011 events again? Either leave in that there was no jail time and no fine or state that the agreed to plea was for a civil violation or both. But to remove the two alternatives is to create the FALSE impression that a crime was committed. A crime was charged and a civil violation was pled to. It is neither fair to Lissack nor to the reader to keep having this debate over and over again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.148.130 (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In June it was agreed to leave in that there was no jail time or fine. Either leave in one or the other. What is it you have against Lissack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.148.130 (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0240.26_240.26.html

I recall the discussion, but I don't recall any "agreement". However, I have no objection to including the fact that Lissack was not sentenced to jail or paid a fine as that is supported by the source, so I've edited the article accordingly. Try in the future to keep your comments civil.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Lissack's Books

Bbb23 seems to have an issue with anything positive going on Lissack's page. Lissack is the author of two books. The information is relevant to his present career as an academic. Bbb23 has no valid reason for removing the sentences and the sources. Rewrite if you do not like the style but this is not a reason to remove the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.148.130 (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any particular reason to remove the books, but they are not really sourced - the links are to advertisements. At best, they should be kept at the bottom as they are now. The other part that Bbb23 removed, that ML is now a visiting prof at GW, certainly does need a source. Smallbones (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I commented at the BLP/N discussion started on this. I'll add a mention of the books cited to him in a moment. I second what Smallbones said about ML being a visiting prof, I'd want an independent source. The claim's a little too vague and potentially means a few things. Ideally we need detail on what he did, which could be anything from appearing as one of the guest lecturers at a seminar one day or teaching a class for a semester. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree about citing to his website and will comment at BLPN. Also, that link simply doesn't work for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Lissack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130203221856/http://technorati.com/people/lissack to http://technorati.com/people/lissack

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Twitter Harassment section

Whatever, but calling a section "Twitter Harassment" based on one click-bait article from "Daily Dot" seems rather partial. You could just call it "Twitter Dispute" or "Google AI" or a lot of things but the current version suggests Wikipedia thinks he committed harassment, and that sounds like a crime, and I don't think this Daily Dot article justifies Wikipedia in taking that position. 2601:603:4800:2737:F553:69ED:56DC:595E (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Stochastic Parrots

Why is that section called "stochastic parrots"? I am sure there's a reason but it is not described in the section or sources currently in the article . Kenosha Forever (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Goodpoint have actioned -----Snowded ^TALK 16:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! that was quick. Kenosha Forever (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)