Talk:Ronnie Earle

I've reorganized the page. Please help me fill in the sections.

Solidmelts2air 02:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

We'll need some more content here.

Also, I'm pretty sure that we might need to create pages for a few of the people that Earle has investigated.

--RobbieFal 21:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Accusations of un-ethical behaviour

I've heard claims this evening that Earle dropped charges against four corporations after they agreed to pay money into some sort of advocacy group based around the principle that business is harmful to democracy. I also understand that when he prosecuted Sen. Hutchinson on the first go of the trial, after delaying (no pun intended) for a year, he refused to lay out his argument against her, she was acquitted and he then invited members of the media to his hotel room to show them the evidence for the trial that did not take place. There's a lot of really interesting accusations of conflicts of interest and even extortion by this prosecutor out there, it would be nice if we could get some of them investigated and included from NPOV if any of them pans out as true. There was also apparently some sort of speech he gave three weeks ago to a DNC group where he referred to DeLay as a "bully" who must be taken out.

See: http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/york/york200506200910.asp

• Above comment by 69.212.2.169 ^{(user's 4th and 5th edits, respectively)}. Please sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Also, please note that it is not Wikipedia's place to 'get things investigated'; we merely report what can be verified by reliable sources, not merely claims that someone may have heard or 'interesting accusations'. Cheers! -- BDAbramson ^talk 04:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• By investigated, I meant if there could be any other source found to corroborate the one article I posted a link two, which I found within about one second of performing a Google search. I first posted that in the Talk page because I figured that the one article I linked to had some ammount of bias, although I would say the National Review is relatively reputable. I really don't think asking if anyone else could find anything to corroborate a linked-article is that investigative. The "interesting accusations" were coming from attorneys who reside in Texas. Furthermore, when there are serious concerns as to the personal bias and of the person in this article, based on years of court filings, who he prosecuted, how he prosecuted them, etc., I think to not include a mention of that is failing to present an accurate portrait of reality. Tom DeLay mentioned a whole laundry list of serious charges/claims against Earle yesterday, and I do not believe it is academic nor logical to merely dismiss those outright on the basis of some sort of ad hominem appeal. 207.112.205.210 17:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean. If you can find an unbiased source that presents firsthand evidence of bias or corruption on the part of the subject, then that would certainly be appropriate to include in the article. -- BDAbramson ^talk 19:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

organization

I don't see any reason why this article should be littered with quotations from other politicians and editorial pages every few paragraphs. For that reason, I have created a section called "what others have said about Earle." If there is a good reason why this is a bad idea, please let me know on the talk page. Thanks. Solidmelts2air 21:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Cheerleader source:

The Dallas Morning News 10-24-1996 "Facing opposition, Travis DA defends record: Earle denies abuse of power, partisanship" Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

Can we balance this with a few positive quotes? 70.112.45.238 23:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Be bold. Put some in. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added some. A few more are needed. Solidmelts2air 00:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance "The remedy" for imbalance in sources "is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." Both pro and anti-Earle quotes should be included. I added an introductory paragraph that summarizes some of the views both in favor of and against him. More quotes is good, but deleting the quotes entirely as somebody did runs counter to the WP guideline linked to above. Rangerdude 04:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Still, is there a precedent for having quotes of this nature in this sort of article? Ronnie Earle is an entire person, and adding a dozen quotes all at once based solely around this one news event seems short-sighted. Argyrios 05:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It appears to me that many of the quotes are about other news events - not just the DeLay incident. For example, the assessments of Earle by Mattox, Hutchison, and Bullock are from events that predate DeLay by years. Rangerdude 05:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, many of the quotes are from people who were being investigated/prosecuted by Earle at the time - not necessarily the most unbiased group. Bush never said anything about Earle when Bush was governor? They had to have known each other... -- BDAbramson ^talk 06:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There's certainly room to research and add more sources, but please be mindful of [[Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance - "The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." Rangerdude 06:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Quotes really belong in Wikiquote. -Willmcw 06:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Quotes that are germane to an article on a specific subject and complement the presentation of encyclopedic material about that subject are fine for that article. Wikiquote is intended to be a quotation reference dictionary for statements in general - not a repository for dumping quotes that are removed from article text for POV reasons. Rangerdude 06:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Please keep in mind this is an encyclopedia, and articles are more useful if they are concise. A billion quotes about the guy obviously detracts from the article. You are taking the quote from Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance out of context - that was in reference to a short, obviously POV article. Tempshill 22:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Self prosecution

It was not a self prosecution, that would be a major major ethical breach. It was reporting himself to a judge, different thing entirely. I looked at the rest of the article and could not find mention of it. If it is important enough to mention in the opening paragraph it should not be resolved through a 'see below' to an additional info section. I expanded the explanation so that the see below was not needed--Gorgonzilla 00:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This self-whatever nonsense is POV bullsh-t and everyone knows it. It is an attempt to show what a grandly walking-on-water type of person Earle is, whereas, in fact, all it amounted to was a library-like fine of $212. It was a late fee. It is intentional propoganda and does not belong in the header at all, but I've pointed out the realities of all this in lieu of deleting it (so far). If that doesn't sit well with some, we can just delete this nonsense entirely.

And liberals wonder why the media is hated so much...?? And Wikipedia is definitely media. This is just one small example of the pack of "un-truths" that have been told about Earle. Not to mention the fact that it "ischt verboten" to not point out the blatant truth that Earle has attacked any number of his "political enemies" (shhh...we can't say that here!) via trumped up charges and over-enforced jaywalking-style violations of the law.

--66.69.219.9 22:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I would suspect that if you can provide information on those "trumped up charges and over-enforced jaywalking-style violations of the law" from nuetral soruces, they would be welcomed by everyone. While he did merely pay a "late fee", he at least paid it instead of whatever the alternative way of handling it is. I hesitate to compare him to others who confessed and took punishment before being accused, since that would equate him to them, but it is a nice thing to see in a politician, regardless of his leanings. I do think we need to use another term, as "self-prosecution" doesn't sound like the legal way to describe it at least (and sounds very POV also). --Habap 16:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Conservative Democrat?

The article implies that Earle had a bias against conservative Democrats (stating "He failed to mention, however, that all the Democrats he had gone after were conservatives"), but was he a conservative Democrat himself? He was in the Texas legislature in the 70s, when the Democrats at the state level were as conservative (or more so) than the Republicans. It would be most interesting to see how he voted on issues like the death penalty, abortion, obscenity, etc. -- BDAbramson ^talk 05:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

OTOH, Earle was/is elected out of Travis County, which has been a liberal hotbed for decades. Travis County was more liberal than other "Democratic" counties in the 1970's and it's more liberal than almost all other Texas counties today. If Earle reflects the people who elect him, it would not be surprising if he was as liberal in the 70's as he is today. Rangerdude 06:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

How do we know he's liberal today? Indicting a conservative doesn't automatically mean he's liberal, although the few political statements I've seen attributed to him make him seem strongly against corporate influence on elections, but I think that's the general American sentiment. -- BDAbramson ^talk 13:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Just look at several of the groups he gives speeches to. You can also look at the politics of the constituency he represents and the other candidates that he has donated money to. In each case they are significantly to the left of the center in Texas politics. There's nothing inherently good or bad about him being liberal compared to the rest of the state's politics, but these word games that are aimed at deflecting attention from a fact that is well recognized throughout Texas politics are just plain silly. Nor is it far fetched to say that many of Earle's high profile enemies within the Democratic party came from that party's conservative wing. Bob Bullock - one of Earle's biggest adversaries when he was alive - was a well known conservative Democrat who even supported George Bush for President. Rangerdude 17:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Rangerdude for daring to speak the truth. All the PC nonsense in this and related articles is just laughable to a Texan. Of course Ronnie Earle is a left-wing idealogue who engages in battles with conservative Democrats & Republicans. Of course Ronnie Earle has largely indicted his political enemies. But the completely truth-ignorant Wiki police won't let you tell those truths. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so blatantly ignorant and evil. --66.69.219.9 22:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Please enlighten me to the truth, then, by providing some evidence - legislative voting record? Criticism to that effect written before the DeLay indictment? Statements by Earle to that effect? Saying "of course he is" is rhetoric, not evidence. Cheers! -- BDAbramson ^talk 22:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Here you go: visual voting record. Happy trails from AUSTIN. --66.69.219.9 22:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Legislative voting record - how did Earle vote on the issues, not who voted for Earle. Nice map, tho. -- BDAbramson ^talk 22:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I would think -- in this case -- it were rather Earle's indictment record that would speak with greater clarity...and for itself.--66.69.219.9 22:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, not if the people who were indicted were, in fact, guilty of the crimes charged (unless you can show that Earle ignored evidence of liberals engaged in the same kind of activity). -- BDAbramson ^talk 22:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

How do we know that the dozen Democrats he prosecuted were conservative? -Willmcw 06:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't. Others do...and quite well. It's really pretty simple, as Rangerdude points out above. Look at this picture of Texas voting results from the last presidential election. See that little blue spot in the middle of all that red? That is Travis County. It is liberal, it has been liberal, it will always be liberal if for no other reason than the fact that there are some 50,000 young & immature UT college students there. THE REST OF THE STATE IS CONSERVATIVE. That goes for 70's-era Democrats from red counties as well. P.S. In the graphic, the little blue spots along the Mexico border are relatively unpopulated areas.--66.69.219.9 22:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, Democrat-hating aside, that doesn't quite answer the question. If others do indeed know how conservative these Democrats were (quite well), then let's see some proof. I remain unconvinced, despite the DeLay media blitz. TIMBO (T A L K) 03:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't take "to-do's" from Wikipedia Talk pages. My life is busy enough. Sounds like a fine homework project for someone.--66.69.219.9 03:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not a to-do. You start off your neocon BS rant by saying that "You don't [know that the Democrats Earle prosecuted were conservative]. Others do...and quite well." If you're going to spew such arrogance, wrapped as it was in a bouquet of mind-numbingly infantile hatred for Democrats, then you have to put up or shut up. Otherwise nobody will listen to you ... which I suppose is already taking place. TIMBO (T A L K) 14:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well sorry I don't take anonymous posters who introduce POV spin from politicians into articles as fact. If you want the claims to remain be prepared to justify them. --Gorgonzilla 00:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to concur with the Limehead. If you wish to make an assertion that all those prosecuted were conservative democrats, then the burden of proof rests with you. If everyone knows that they all are, it shouldn't be too hard to find quotes or articles confirming that. --Habap 16:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Critics agree that more Democrats than Republicans have been indicted in Earle's 27-year career, but point out that this is largely due to the history of Texas political offices being near-exclusively Democrat prior to 10 years ago.

Can we please have the sources where critics show agreement on this matter? Thanks, -Willmcw 00:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The film

I removed the section on the Texas bar rules governing prosecutions from the discussion of the film. There is absolutely no information that indicates what Earle has said to the film makers. The speculation about possible ethical breaches is utterly unfounded and point of view. It has not be raised by any cited mainstream comentator. This may be how they do things on Fox News, it is not how they are done here. We do not even know if the film will be released before the trial date. --Gorgonzilla 04:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Before you go deleting legal materials in an article about a lawyer, you might want to gain a greater understanding of their implications. I have put the citation to comments to the media back. The point is that if the communication is one that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated in the public media and that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding, the statement by the lawyer is prohibited as is the lawyer's assistance to another to make such a statement. See Texas Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.07. This information is contextual background to Mr. Earle's permitting a documentary film crew to follow him closely through the run up to the indictments against Mr. DeLay. It is strange indeed to say that a reasonable person would not expect the film to be distributed in the public media...the film when shown is by definition public media, and it has already been shown at the Dallas Film Festival. As to the likelihood of the film substantially prejudicing the proceedings in Mr. DeLay's case, that is for the reader to conclude. You have shown your own point of view by deleting background information helpful to a clear understanding of the DeLay-Earle controversey.

Unique Powers

So, I saw that the Texas Constitution is cited as authorizing "unique powers" to the Travis County DA. While the online version of the Texas Constitution does indeed list the TC DA's unique power, it concerns the Texas Mobility Fund, not whether he can prosecute politicians. I'm confused. Does he have special, unique powers or is it just that a national figure is being prosecuted for a crime that was alleged committed in Travis County? Or is it just like the Dukes County DA? (Think "Kennedy" and "bridge") --Habap 19:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I know it's only a day, but I am really curious what special prosecutorial powers are identified in the Texas Consitution. I just can't find it and I think we look silly if we assert that it's in there and it isn't. --Habap 14:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

POV insertion

The same old POV insertion attack is taking place here. Large amounts of copy were added into the article that repeat defense assertions as fact.

• On the issue of the film, identify the specific statements in the film that breach prosecutorial code.
• The issue of whether Texas law did not ban the financial dealings until 2002 is disputed. The law was revised to add a specific reference to electoral contributions in 2002 but there was no exclusion in the earlier text.
• The statements about what is prosecutorial misconduct are POV personal research.

We will find out what the law is on these matters soon enough.--Gorgonzilla 03:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla - It's fine to dispute the neutrality of the text, but please do not mass-delete multiple paragraphs of text by dismissing them all as POV. Per wikipedia's style guides, the solution is to add to the text and clean up its language - not wipe it clean. Rangerdude 18:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Again you attempt to deal with legal issues that you do not understand. Nothing is illegal under statutes unless it is specifically criminalized. That an earlier version of a criminal statute did not exclude conduct means nothing. The question in criminal statutes is always whether an act or omission to act was specifically prohibited. Or do you mean that your POV is that the general prohibition of the statute could be read to include the specific alleged conduct? If that is so, please say so. Your profile indicates that you are a computer person. I am a board certified lawyer specializing in Texas criminal law. Perhaps if I were to simply cite myself instead of statutes you might consider my additions to the Ronnie Earle article properly sourced. Or if I were to note that I personally observed many of the things I write about...practicing in the same courts as Roy Minton and against Terry Keel, both men I personally know. However, since you have undertaken to write about legal issues without a legal education and without an understanding of the law, and since this is a public doucment, I suppose we will simply have to accept the innacuracies that you bring to the table as outlined above. If you were knowledgeable about criminal law, you would understand that any time a lawyer comments to the media regarding a criminal case, ethical issues come to the forefront. Sometimes the statements are a violation and sometimes they are not, but the area of comments to the media is an area of great concern to most practitioners. Most particularly, a prosecutor's willingness or refusal to comment to the media is seen in the profession as one of the measures of his ethical standards. As to your request that the specific comments in the film that amount to ethical violations be pointed out, my last comment addresses that. It is for the reader to draw their own conclusions whether Mr. Earle was behaving ethically, but to criminal lawyers, prosecutors and defense lawyers alike, the issue is one of importance.