Talk:Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation

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

Criteria for including cases[edit]

Before I jump in and start editing this article, could someone who has been involved up to now talk about your criteria for including cases? It appears that only about one fourth of the existing cases are included.Kevin (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are many more cases, but most go unreported by the media. WP:RS governs. --Weazie (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I added Essek v. Obama and will add more when I can properly reference them. It would appear that WP:RS doesn't require a media source, only a reliable source. The orders published by the court, which always state the facts of the case, are reliable sources too. Kevin (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS expresses a strong preference for secondary sources; court documents are primary sources. And WP:BLP says, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Some editors take this very literally. --Weazie (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the only source for a case is a court document, it really shouldn't be listed. There needs to be something to demonstrate that the case has some notability and some secondary source mentioning it gives it at least a patina of notability. Ravensfire (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

State Ballot Challenges[edit]

Should state ballot challenges be included? I note that Obama's attorneys cited THIS WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE in their submission to the Illinois Board of Elections. In at least one set of cases, Farrar v. Obama (and others), a hearing was heard before an administrative law judge in Atlanta, evidence was presented and testimony was taken.Kevin (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ballot challenges are included in this article (to the extent there is a WP:RS). --Weazie (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, when I get time, I'll get Virginia in. Kevin (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lakin, Huff et al[edit]

Are the cases of Terry Lakin and Darren Huff et al. rightly called "Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation"? The President wasn't named in these actions and they wouldn't have determined his eligibility. They are, rather, criminal charges leveled at individuals motivated by their belief that Barack Obama is ineligible. In no way was Obama's eligibility being litigated. Kevin (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the introduction of that section indicates, in these cases criminal actions were motivated by birther beliefs. (Was MLK jailed for defying an injunction?) And without going into each of the cases: the defense sought to make Obama's eligibility part of the defense, but the judges excluded that defense; Obama's eligibility was not litigated only due to a ruling by a judge. --Weazie (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

The opening sentence ("The Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation is a group of lawsuits filed in various United States Courts by numerous individuals who believe ...") seems to me a classic example of the type of tortured construction discussed in WP:BOLDTITLE.

Unless someone has a valid objection, I'd like to change this to "Numerous lawsuits have been filed in various United States Courts by parties who believe ..." (no bolding). --NapoliRoma (talk) 07:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. The lede in general seems a little dated; please WP:BEBOLD. --Weazie (talk) 16:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. There's still a lot of work that could be done here, but not a lot of time on my part right now.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Legal Foundation v. National Democratic Party[edit]

Although this case is still active, there are pending motions to dismiss. (It will most likely get dismissed.) I doubt its dismissal will be noted by a reliable source. --Weazie (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are TWO Liberty Legal Foundation v. National Democratic Party lawsuits, the one in Arizona and an almost-identical one in Tennessee. Both have been dismissed. Kevin (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tisdale v. Obama[edit]

I'm adding this case and citing to an original source, the federal court rulings in the case. See WP-PRIMARY. This entry does not constitute original research, because it is a straightforward, non-conclusory statement of the basic facts from the case as presented by the judge. The Wikipedia rules allow citations to court cases for limited purposes when they are handled carefully, which I believe is this case here. Kevin (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More "citizens grand jury" action.[edit]

Larry Klayman is leading an action to "indict" Obama (and Biden) with a citizens grand jury similar to one discussed at the end of this article. The only sources, besides WND, are this this Snopes article and Klayman's citizens grand jury's site. Are either/both of these sufficiently reliable as to note the "jury"'s existence. --Weazie (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Begay went to prison in 2002[edit]

I added the fact that Begay went to prison in 2002, to make clear that his prosecution/sentence was a done deal long before Obama was even a candidate, so there isn't any logic to his birther lawsuit. Sussmanbern (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should I add Westlaw, LexisNexis, etc. citations?[edit]

Many (not all) of the cases listed here are published and/or available on Westlaw or Lexis. Would anyone like me to add the citations so people can look up these cases? Also some of these decisions are available on the Internet (from Google Scholar, or Leagle.com etc.), would anyone want me to link them? Sussmanbern (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Huff reference and wrong information[edit]

The section on Darren Huff says: "At his October 2011 federal trial, Huff testified Obama was ineligible to hold office and that he plotted to take over Madisonville, Tennessee, after the Monroe Country grand jury there refused to indict Obama.[188]" Nowhere in the reference given does it say any of this. The first claim, "Huff testified Obama is ineligible" might be true, but the second part, that he testified that he "plotted to take over Madisonville, Tennessee" seems to me to be the opposite of what he is reported as saying. For example the Associated Press quoted Huff as saying: "I have never made a statement about taking over the courthouse, the city, the state, nothing," Huff said. "I never said anything about taking anything over." [1]

Anyhow, I propose removing the sentence, unless a legitimate reference can be found. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most of the references state this. Just not in those exact words. Armed people going to a courthouse and government offices to "arrest" city officials, law officers and judges, sure sounds like a takeover. This guy stated he planned to go into the courthouse and public offices to "arrest" law officers and public officials. When asked why he had his weapons he stated "because ain’t no government official gonna go peacefully". That certainly sound like he planned on taking over the courthouse and city of Madisonville. Perhaps the wording could be tweaked, but the intent is there for sure. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if the references do state that, then the fix is to associate one of them that does state that with this sentence.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not whether Huff said these things prior to his arrest, but whether he "testified" to these things at his trial. No source that I have been able to find after significant effort says that he "testified" to these things. The article is tantamount to saying "Huff admitted his guilt on the stand" when in fact he did not. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sibley and Palfrey[edit]

The article currently says: "Montgomery Blair Sibley, a disbarred attorney who once represented Deborah Jeane Palfrey (the so-called 'D.C. Madam')"...

Sibley was disbarred - in 2008, but only for three years, not permanently. I think this passage misleadingly implies he was permanently suspended.

I suggest this passage should be rewritten: "Montgomery Blair Sibley, who represented the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey (the 'D.C. Madam')..." Geo Swan (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do reliable sources say? Both Huffington Post sources cited in the article describe Sibley as "disbarred." The Huffington Post can be wrong, of course, but Wikipedia can't rely on original research. Regardless, that Sibley presently cannot practice law ought to be (briefly) mentioned. Weazie (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do RS say? Two legal sites, from 2008...
  1. In March 2008, the Supreme Court of Florida suspended Montgomery Blair Sibley from the practice of law for three years...
  2. After years of over-the-top abusive litigation, the state bar finally took action, and he has been suspended by the Florida bar for three years...
Can I assume you agree with removing the term "so called" that prefaces "DC Madam"? Geo Swan (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indifferent to the use of so-called, as it can signal a common, nonjudgmental designation (but the term also has negative uses).
As for Sibley, this recent article says "Sibley is not currently licensed to practice law as the result of a 2008 suspension...." So editing the article accordingly shouldn't be a problem. --Weazie (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add in a section covering the Trump's racist birther views - Melania and Donald Trump?[edit]

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/melania-trump-supported-her-husbands-racist-birtherism-claims-on-tv — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is focused on the actual litigation, and Trump did not file any lawsuits. The conspriacy theories (and their motivations) have their own article, and it does discuss Trump. --Weazie (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama_presidential_eligibility_litigation&oldid=1195559343"