Jump to content

Talk:Loretta Preska

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bot-created subpage

[edit]

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Loretta A. Preska 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) 18:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected the subpage to the main article. All the info there was already in the existing article.--agr (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New notable case

[edit]

I believe this will qualify as a 'notable case' for her, should someone wish to write about it - http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/judge-orders-microsoft-to-turn-over-data-held-overseas/2014/07/31/b07c4952-18d4-11e4-9e3b-7f2f110c6265_story.html

72.223.6.166 (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Loretta A. Preska. 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:

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) 18:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Loretta A. Preska. 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:

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) 00:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Loretta A. Preska. 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:

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) 07:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be updated, BIG TIME!

[edit]

News articles combined with related interest (via google 'also searched-for' sliders) suggest that many people think the 2000 page Jeffrey Epstein file she is holding implicates the politically-powerful especially among NY Republicans... article (nat'l post Canada)--John Bessa (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Loretta Preska/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 11:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It's a very well-written and interesting article. After reading it once, I could not find any prose issues, and it is perfectly understandable for someone not trained in law (me). I've noticed that law is one of the areas that Wikipedia does not cover very much at all, so it's good to have articles such as this one.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    For further expansion of the article, I would recommend mining Google Scholar[1] and HeinOnline, which you can get through WP:TWL. However, the article adequately covers the major issues, since she does not seem to be known for academic legal commentary. (t · c) buidhe 11:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

(t · c) buidhe 11:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Neutrality (talk). Self-nominated at 17:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Copied from Steven Donziger's page

[edit]

I have copied the following text from Steven Donziger's page:

Preska was chosen by U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan to preside over Steven Donziger's trial for criminal contempt. This was unusual as judge's are usually selected randomly. In August 2019, Preska sentenced Donziger to home detention while awaiting trial and ordered the seizure of his passport. He was required to wear a GPS-equipped ankle bracelet. Preska ordered Donziger to post a bail bond of $800,000, which is a record for a misdemeanour case in the US. In May 2020, Preska ruled that Donziger's case would not be heard by a jury, which Donziger had requested. In August 2020, after two other attorney's were unable to appear in the trial, Preska ordered Andrew Frisch, Donziger's former lead defence attorney, to represent him. Martin Garbus, who also represents Donziger but was unable to attend the trial, said a trial with Frisch would not be "a constitutionally protected case" and that "Donziger is being forced to go to trial with a lawyer who doesn't want to be in the case, who doesn't get along with Donziger, and claims that before Donziger goes ahead with the trial he should pay him additional moneys". Donziger's contempt charge and house arrest have been harshly condemned by legal advocates. Lawyer's Rights Watch Canada points out that Donziger has been under house arrest for longer than the six month maximum sentence that contempt of court carries.

Burrobert (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donziger/Hammond content

[edit]

I recently copied some text over from the Steven Donziger page as mentioned above. This text related to action taken by Preska in the Donziger/Chevron case. The edits were immediately rewritten and replaced with information about the case that had nothing to do with Preska. The new text documents Donziger's, Chevron's and Kaplan's actions but completely omits any actions taken by Preska. I have removed the parts of the new text that do not relate to the subject of this bio but that doesnt leave much. Here are the points related to Preska, including assessments of her decisions, that should be included in her bio:

  • Preska was chosen by U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan to preside over Steven Donziger's trial for criminal contempt. This was unusual as judge's are usually selected randomly.
  • In August 2019, Preska sentenced Donziger to home detention while awaiting trial and ordered the seizure of his passport. He was required to wear a GPS-equipped ankle bracelet. Preska ordered Donziger to post a bail bond of $800,000, which is a record for a misdemeanour case in the US.
  • In May 2020, Preska ruled that Donziger's case would not be heard by a jury, which Donziger had requested.
  • In August 2020, after two other attorney's were unable to appear in the trial, Preska ordered Andrew Frisch, Donziger's former lead defence attorney, to represent him. Martin Garbus, who also represents Donziger but was unable to attend the trial, said a trial with Frisch would not be "a constitutionally protected case" and that "Donziger is being forced to go to trial with a lawyer who doesn't want to be in the case, who doesn't get along with Donziger, and claims that before Donziger goes ahead with the trial he should pay him additional moneys".
  • Donziger's contempt charge and house arrest have been harshly condemned by legal advocates. Lawyer's Rights Watch Canada points out that Donziger has been under house arrest for longer than the six month maximum sentence that contempt of court carries.

Burrobert (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Like I said in my edit summary, part of this was badly sourced, and the other part was undue weight (quotes from a defense attorney, some random Canadian NGO, routine details). Giving up a passport is common for defendants awaiting trial. Incidentally, in addition to being replete with misspellings and grammatical errors, your edit is also inaccurate: bail conditions are not "sentences." Neutralitytalk 19:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "part of this was badly sourced":
The sources used were The Intercept, Reuters, Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, and the legal news services CourtHouse News and Thomson Reuters. Where is the problem?
  • "the other part was undue weight":
This appears to be referring to the quote from Donziger’s lawyer, Martin Garbus, and the statement by Lawyer's Rights Watch. Both seem relevant to the case.
  • "Giving up a passport is common for defendants awaiting trial".
Perhaps so, but why not mention it when describing Preska’s decisions.
  • "being replete with misspellings and grammatical errors":
No examples were given so it is hard to comment. Generally when editors see such examples they correct them rather than removing the content.
  • "your edit is also inaccurate: bail conditions are not 'sentences' ":
The only mention of "bail" is in the sentence "Preska ordered Donziger to post a bail bond of $800,000, which is a record for a misdemeanour case in the US". What is the problem?
Burrobert (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's undue weight because it's about random pre-trial proceedings in a case that has not even come to trial. Preska has been a judge for 30 years, so giving all this prominence to a single case (complete with random quotes from defense lawyers) is out of scope. If this merits any mention in the article at all in this point, it's the single sentence that is currently in the article. As to some other points: (1) Yes, "scheerpost.com" is not a good source. Neither is a statement by a random Canadian NGO, which is the only source for "record for a misdemeanor" claim. (2) You added "Preska sentenced Donziger to home detention while awaiting trial." That's flatly wrong, as a bail condition is not a sentence. Neutralitytalk 16:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It's undue weight because it's about random pre-trial proceedings in a case that has not even come to trial". What does "random" mean here? What is the relevance of this?
  • "Preska has been a judge for 30 years, so giving all this prominence to a single case (complete with random quotes from defense lawyers) is out of scope". What does “random” and “out of scope” mean? I am sure you are aware, given you are responsible for almost 80% of the content of this page, that many other “single cases” have been described in a paragraph here. Why do you think that this case merits one sentence when other cases have been given a paragraph? Earlier you accepted that the case deserved a full paragraph. You rewrote the content, which I had added, to given this case a paragraph using biographical details of people other than Preska.
  • "scheerpost.com" is not a good source. Neither is a statement by a random Canadian NGO, which is the only source for "record for a misdemeanor" claim". There are multiple sources that mention the $800,000 bail bond. The part about it being a "record" can be omitted until a suitable source is found.
  • "You added "Preska sentenced Donziger to home detention while awaiting trial." That's flatly wrong, as a bail condition is not a sentence". Generally, if an editor considers that an incorrect term has been used, the editor replaces that term with an appropriate one rather than removes the content.
  • Regarding sources, it appears that you are fine with The Intercept, Reuters, and the legal news services CourtHouse News and Thomson Reuters.
  • In order to fix the "misspellings and grammatical errors", I need to know where they are.
  • Let’s leave out the quote from Donziger’s lawyer, Martin Garbus. I think it is reasonable to include relevant commentary on Preska’s decision, however, it is simpler to leave that discussion for another time.
  • The point about Donziger being under house arrest for longer than the six month maximum sentence that contempt of court carries has been mentioned in a number of sources.[1][2][3][4]

Burrobert (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lerner, Sharon (20 May 2020). "Judge Rules That Attorney Steven Donziger Must Remain Under House Arrest Until September". The Intercept. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  2. ^ "Steven Donziger, After Winning $9B Judgment Against Chevron, Has Been Under House Arrest for 500 Days Awaiting a Misdemeanor Trial". Law & Crime. 19 December 2020. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  3. ^ "Open Letter" (PDF). International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  4. ^ "USA: Allegations of judicial harassment and arbitrary detention of lawyer Steven Donziger | Briefing Note". Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada. 29 July 2020. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  • I've already made my views clear on both the Hammond and the Donziger points (i.e., that your proposed changes are undue weight), so I'm not going to get drawn into a repetitive discussion. You must leave your proposed changes out absent consensus, which you lack. Neutralitytalk 15:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have left so many questions unanswered that your views have become quite opaque. A quick count shows that roughly half of the editors on this page share the view that both the Hammond recusal request and the Donziger rulings should be mentioned in some form. Of course, this may not necessarily be in the form that I initially submitted. It is important that we are patient and work co-operatively because "[t]he quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view". I'll look at ways to get more editors involved. Burrobert (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* By "half," you mean "only you," I assume. Note WP:ONUS and WP:BLPUNDEL ("the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material"). If you intend to "look at ways to get more editors involved" you should also keep in mind WP:CANVASS. Neutralitytalk 16:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in the Jeremy Hammond case

[edit]

I recently added some information related to Preska’s involvement in the Jeremy Hammond case. Hammond released documents related to Preska’s husband which gave rise to a perception of a conflict of interest. Preska was asked to recuse herself from the trial but refused. I used an article by renowned journalist Chris Hedges as the source. For some reason this was considered insufficient. The story has also appeared in the Village Voice[1] and InfoSecurity Magazine[2] and presumably elsewhere. Some mention of this episode is reasonable.

  • "Hammond … was in court today for a hearing on whether Chief District Judge Loretta Preska should recuse herself from hearing his case. Preska is married to Thomas Kavaler, a lawyer and former client of Stratfor, whose email and encrypted password were leaked in the Stratfor hack of which Hammond is accused. Kavaler is a partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindell LLP — where Preska was also a partner before becoming a judge — a firm that has represented more than 20 victims of the hack".
  • "This accusation is based on the inclusion of the email address of her husband, Thomas Kavaler (a partner in the law firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel), on “Starfor's [sic] clientele list.” Kavaler has since denied that either he or his firm have ever been a Stratfor client. His firm does, however, represent major companies – such as Merrill Lynch & Co and American International Group Inc – who were victims of the hack. Hammond’s lawyer, Elizabeth Fink, subsequently filed court papers seeking Preska’s recusal. She said that Kavaler's status "as both a victim of the alleged crimes of the accused and an attorney to many other victims creates an appearance of partiality too strong to be disregarded, requiring disqualification" ".

Burrobert (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Pinto, Nick (21 February 2013). "Judge in Jeremy Hammond Case Won't Recuse Herself". The Village Voice. Retrieved 7 March 2021.
  2. ^ "Jeremy Hammond's legal team seeks judge's recusal". Infosecurity Magazine. 15 February 2013. Retrieved 7 March 2021.
"This is about a random defense motion that was denied (and was never appealed)" :
  • What does "random" mean here?
  • Why is it relevant that there was no appeal?
"The Hedges article is a commentary piece":
  • The article was used for facts, not opinion. The facts are verified by the other articles that I mentioned. Are you suggesting that Hammond did not release documents related to Preska's partner and that the recusal request did not happen?
"The other coverage is routine":
  • The same argument could be used to justify inclusion.
Burrobert (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A criminal defendant submitted a motion, and it was rejected. That happens every day, and the sources don't show that this was a particularly legally significant or biographically significant order. And no, we can't use commentary pieces for statements of fact. We doubly can't do so for material on BLP-implicating matters like this. Neutralitytalk 16:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A criminal defendant submitted a motion, and it was rejected. That happens every day, and the sources don't show that this was a particularly legally significant or biographically significant order". You have managed to strip the significance from the statement making it seem trivial.
  • "And no, we can't use commentary pieces for statements of fact". There were three sources quoted. If three sources are not sufficient, here are some more showing the significant coverage the decision received.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

Burrobert (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Albergotti, Reed (21 February 2013). "Judge Denies Request For Recusal In Hacking Case". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  2. ^ "Judge Refuses to Recuse Herself From Alleged Hacker's Cas". Bloomberg.com. 21 February 2013. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  3. ^ Knefel, John (28 May 2013). "Jeremy Hammond Pleads Guilty to Stratfor Hack". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  4. ^ "Jeremy Hammond speaks out from solitary confinement". Salon. 21 February 2013. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  5. ^ "Judge in hacker case is married to a Stratfor client". Salon. 29 November 2012. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  6. ^ "Jeremy Hammond Judge to Decide on Recusal, NLG Will Hold Press Conference Before Hearing | National Lawyers Guild". www.nlg.org. 20 February 2013. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  7. ^ "Hacker Jeremy Hammond Issues Statement from Prison". eSecurityPlanet. 25 February 2013. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  8. ^ "Jeremy Hammond Sentenced to 10 Years in Jail for Stratfor Hack". International Business Times UK. 15 November 2013. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  9. ^ Klasfeld, Adam (14 December 2012). "Hack Snared Judge's Husband, Defense Says". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  10. ^ Klasfeld, Adam (22 February 2013). "Judge in Hacktivist Case Refuses to Step Aside". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved 9 March 2021.

New York church school cases

[edit]

Preska seems to have issued some controversial rulings regarding the separation of church and state in New York schools which gathered a fair bit of reporting at the time for going against higher-court precedent. From what I can find the articles are mostly OP-eds though, so just curious whether other thinks it should be included. Swaggernagger (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to lock the page from anonymous edits?

[edit]

Today there was what appears to be vandalism. Is there a way to lock the page from anonymous edits while the vandalism is reverted? modify 18:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I just reverted to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loretta_Preska&oldid=1242895555, which was what was there before the vandalism. modify 18:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Loretta_Preska&oldid=1251549762"