Talk:Thomas Mesereau

Untitled

Just to start discussion on this article as it's getting long and unwieldy, mostly because I am a legal writer ; it's what we do. :) I am thinking of further dividing into sections of Background, Michael Jackson Trial (content to come), Robert Blake trial, and Pro Bono work.

I also want to explain to other readers and editors that while many of you are British, with all due respect, I've changed the spellings and legal jargon to American English as Mesereau is an American attorney, working in the American legal system. Further, as I work in the Los Angeles legal world, I am splitting hairs about the meanings of California and U.S. legal concepts and terms to keep them valid, and my changes and amendments should never be taken personally. I might add legal commentary as a footnote once I figure out how to create them.

I am going to do the same with other legal articles that I create and edit. Los Angeles attorney Mark Geragos will be my next major edit. Coolshoes 14:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dead links

A lot of the external links are dead. --84.149.216.184 23:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

"His celebrity criminal defense work is balanced by his personal and professional commitment to seeking justice for the legally underserved and "railroaded" victims of overzealous criminal prosecution offices."

Sounds pretty POV to me...

I concur. Some PR firm had their way with this article and no one's caught on. ~ Rollo44 23:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a PR piece, unsubstantiated and inaccurate.Legalknowledge (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh. My. God.

Someone who worships Mesereau as a god must have written this. Unsourced, yes, but soooo much more: "Many consider him to be the best trial lawyer in the United States.", "He devotes his time and money to pro bono legal services to the African-American communities of Los Angeles and the American South.", "For approximately the last 13 years, Mesereau has handled at least one death penalty case in the Deep South free of charge. None of his clients have been sentenced to death.", etc.

Probably not Mesereau, who has been to law school, though: "Mesereau also acquitted a physician who was charged with healthcare fraud before a Los Angeles jury."

"Following Mesereau's impassioned argument at the end of the preliminary hearing, the trial judge shocked the legal community by granting bail for Blake. This had never happened previously in a murder with special circumstance case in California over prosecution's objection." (Bonus points for a link to Never to emphasize the word.)

And so on and so on and so on.

I don't doubt that there are probably reliable sources about this guy. This article, though, sucks. No, really, it sucks. I'm going to strip out all of the crap about how Mesereau is clearly god's gift to anyone who needs a lawyer. All the crap about how he gives and gives and gives and gives of himself. All the crap about how he "acquitted" various people who clearly would have been drawn and quartered without Mesereau's skilled counsel, unusual strategies, etc.

Along the way, a user with an account or two and several IPs are either going to get a lot of warnings and blocks or will start playing by our rules. Then, we'll rebuild this into a neutral, well-sourced article. Maybe Mesereau is universally worshiped and loved. I doubt it. The sourced article we end up with will undoubtedly contain a few things that haven't been hanging around in this article recently. - 01:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Due to the on-going puffery/peacockery in this article and People v. Jackson from a number of single purpose accounts, I have opened a sock case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rk2011. Feel free to add any additional accounts you stumble across. We'll likely end up protecting the page as well. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So, we're under way. Several accounts have been blocked for sockpuppetry and/or edit warring and both articles are now semi-protected. Back to stripping out the crap. If anyone has anything sourced to add, feel free. If you need help with how to format references, as here or on my talk page or read WP:CITE. Otherwise, I'll continue on my way. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, here we go again. An IP registered to "Mesereau & Yu" is trying to load the article with every possible scrap of positive info available. Asked to discuss edits on the talk page before making them (see WP:COI), the edits are restored by another conflicted editor. We can discuss the article and rely on objective facts. Alternately, the conflicted editors can go at it some more, be blocked as socks, we can lock the article and strip out all of the happy, glowing crap. Take your pick, guys. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, I am asking 71.149.186.90/Soyoungangie to explain a few things:

1) Are you one-and-the-same?

2) Do you admit you have a serious conflict of interest?

3) If so, why do you feel it is appropriate for you to continually force your biased POV into this article? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear SummerPhD: I am a college student who works part-time at Mesereau&Yu. I am considering attending law school. I have examined various newspapers and book sources regarding Mr. Mesereau. In examining this Wikipedia chapter on Mr. Mesereau, I noticed that there were few sources cited. I, therefore, decided to put extensive source materials to substantiate the reported facts. At no time, have I interjected my personal opinions on Mr. Mesereau. You appear to have a strong bias against Mr. Mesereau. While this is certainly your right and privilege, I don't understand why you interject this into Wikipedia. If Mr. Mesereau obtained a favorable result in a case that is of public interest, why do you object to reporting it if the reporting is done in an objective, professional way? I have tried to be professional and objective in everything I have done. I always cite sources. You are making me wonder what the purpose of Wikipedia is? Am I to be penalized because I have a part-time job at Mesereau&Yu? I don't think I have done anything wrong. For example, someone put the words "Mike Tyson" on Wikipedia. You have asked for further information. I have that information. It comes from legitimate sources. In 2001, Mr. Tyson, who had already been convicted of rape and was the former world heavy weight boxing champion, was accused of rape by another woman. He hired Mr. Mesereau to represent him. Mr. Tyson was not charged. I have the sources to support this. Should I include it or will you stop me? I don't understand what to do. I believe I am operating professionally and with integrity. On the other hand, you seem to have a bias against reporting legitimate facts and the accomplishments of Mr. Mesereau. If they are true and of public interest, why not report it? I suspect you have had problems with others who interjected glowing opinions about Mr. Mesereau. Mr. Mesereau has millions of fans around the world who support his representations of Michael Jackson. He also has many supporters in the African-American community where he does much pro bono work for the poor. Should Wikipedia penalize him for this? I am very confused. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soyoungangie (talk • contribs) 17:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You have not specifically answered any of the questions. From your answer, I assume you are copping to #1. Correct?

#2 deserves considerable attention: Do you see that you have a conflict of interest?

#3 is an attempt to address the fact that you do not seem to be following the recommendations spelled out at WP:COI.

These are not to "penalize" you. This is to protect the independence of Wikipedia. If you are here to help create an encyclopedia, I would recommend that you start with something you are interested in but not so invested in. (I, as a rule, will not edit articles that are directly tied to my work. Check my edits. See if you can guess my specialty.) Aside from three tiny edits to Movie Stars (TV series) you have edited Thomas Mesereau, Trial of Michael Jackson and Template:People v. Jackson. All of your edits to those articles present Mesereau in the best possible light. If you are here for any reason other than building an unbiased encyclopedia (such as to record all of the great things you feel Mesereau has done), Wikipedia is not for you.

If you see a "bias" against those editing in favor of Mesereau, please note that these articles have been worked over by numerous "editors" who turned out to be sockpuppets of each other, all editing from Mesereau & Yu. (Heck, I'm willing to bet it's you.) Wikipedia has a strong bias against opinionated editors. If you do not see your opinions reflected in the selectivity and wording of your edits, you need a bit of perspective.

Try this: With all of the information you have at your disposal, you certainly have information that reflects badly on Mesereau. Add some of that. If you don't want to or, for any reason, cannot, you should not be editing these articles. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have opened another sock case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mesereauyu. Interested editors are invited to comment. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)