Jump to content

Talk:Ronnie Earle

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


Untitled

[edit]

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

Solidmelts2air 02:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Accusations of un-ethical behaviour

[edit]

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

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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. -- BD2412 talk 19:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

organization

[edit]

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)[reply]

Cheerleader source:

[edit]

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)[reply]

Quotes

[edit]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

So, since it's against Wikipedia policy to delete quotes, my friend Daniel doesn't like Ronnie Earle - I'm sure he has some quotes about him. Can I post them? They can't be deleted, right? Also, I believe my family and a few of my coworkers might have some comments as well. Remember, they can't be deleted, because it's against Wikipedia's policy. This is obviously not what Wikipedia intended. I'm certain that if the quotes against Ronnie Earle numbered 80% and those for numbered 20%, we wouldn't list it as such.
The point of an encyclopedia is to provide information to the reader and as unbiased as possible. Providing unlimited quotes from anyone who's ever said anything about Ronnie Earle is idiotic. NoHitHair 22:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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... -- BD2412 talk 06:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Quotes really belong in Wikiquote. -Willmcw 06:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I strongly agree. I don't believe the quote section belongs in this article; what quotes are useful should be moved to other sections as supporting evidence and the majority of them should be deleted. Argyrios 02:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self prosecution

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The Christian Science Monitor story[1] that the opening paragraph links says that Earle "walked in to file charges for improper campaign-finance reporting. Against himself." But, notwithstanding the notorious accuracy of newspaper reporters, I doubt that saying Earle "filed charges against himself" holds water any better than "prosecuted himself." I've changed it to "turned himself in." Read the story and you'll see, as Gorgonzilla has pointed out, that's what he did. Overall, however, I'd say[2] that the NPOV of this article suffers by opening with this transparently bald-faced and self-serving publicity stunt. Rather than deleting it, I'm contemplating moving it under the "Other politicians investigated by Earle" header as I await further input from some of you fine Wikipedians who are so hard at work on this controversial article on this controversial man. ô¿ô 10:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is not that important, but if it is mentioned in the opening the opening should describe it as turning himself in not 'self prosecution' and needs to explain the circumstances. The article makes it sound as if the judge gave the story rather than Earle. --Gorgonzilla 18:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Democrat?

[edit]

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. -- BD2412 talk 05:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. -- BD2412 talk 13:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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! -- BD2412 talk 22:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go: visual voting record. Happy trails from AUSTIN. --66.69.219.9 22:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Legislative voting record - how did Earle vote on the issues, not who voted for Earle. Nice map, tho. -- BD2412 talk 22:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). -- BD2412 talk 22:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know that the dozen Democrats he prosecuted were conservative? -Willmcw 06:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

This is not sourceable without sourcing original research, but many Democratic Texas District Attorneys don't like Ronnie Earle, including Bill Turner of Brazos County, Texas. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 00:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The film

[edit]

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)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.86.116 (talk • contribs)

Unique Powers

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
No one responded, so I removed the reference to the constitution and rearranged the section so that it made more sense to me. It could probably use word-smithing and a check to make sure I have not changed the meaning by re-arranging. --Habap 21:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV insertion

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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.

That conspiracy to violate election law wasn't included in Texas statutes before 2003 is not under dispute, and conspiracy is what DeLay was charged with.

The statements about what is prosecutorial misconduct are POV personal research.

Hardly. The complaint against Earle for Prosecutorial Misconduct is not only public, the LW paper Washington Post has even reported the story and is linked here. --DEastman 08:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.197.10.43 (talk • contribs)

Oh I understand a lawyer trying to make a defense brief which is essentially what you are attempting to turn the article into. As you yourself admit you know some of the parties, you seem to operate in the manner of the Texas GOP, you show all the arrogance and contempt. I have read opinions from law professors who are rather more eminent than anonymous IP addresses that claim that the arguments of the DeLay lawyers are hogwash. We will soon see the result of the defense motions. --Gorgonzilla 04:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think efforts to slam Earle through the article are going to wind down soon, as it seems that the Republicans are preparing to cut the strings on DeLay and let him hang in the wind on his own. This scathing critique of DeLay by conservative commentator George Will forecasts this strategy - Will basically excoriates DeLay as a 'big government big spender', and practically calls for DeLay's ouster based on the matters prompting the indictment.  BD2412 talk 22:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Charges' against earle

[edit]

The only thing that should be described as a 'charge' in this article is a criminal charge brought by a state or federal prosecutor. A claim made by a defense lawyer is not a charge except in sloppy journaleese. An allegation of professional misconduct is only notable if reported to the relevant bar association.

None of this happened. In fact all the washington post story reports is the usual huffing and puffing that defense lawyers do if regardless of whether their client is Slobodan Milosevic or Mother Theresa. In any case this complaint is entirely subordinate to the DeLay prosecution and the placement of the section above the DeLay section only shows that Long John Siler is up to yet more sockpupetry. Again, choose one ID and stick to it. --Gorgonzilla 00:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I observe that you have now fallen to the level of ad hominem arguments. Apparently, you have decided that when it suits your purpose, you are able to rely on anonymous "law professors" to support your positions. Yet, you are admittedly not educated in the law. If you were educated in the law, you would know that among legal professionals, whether another attorney as violated a rule of professional ethics is a matter for discussion on many an occassion. While there may never be a grievance filed against Ronnie Earle, his conduct is very likely being discussed by criminal lawyers, both prosecutor and defense, all around Texas. Your edict that only criminal charges leveled by prosecutors at the state or federal level should be characterized as "charges" is absurd. While the term "charge" certainly includes the types of charges you describe, it is sophistry to blindly ignore that charges are also made by journalist, fellow citizens, and even computer technicians who pretend to understand complicated legal principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.145.243.70 (talk • contribs)

  • Geez Louise, enough with this BS. Stop trying to cram Democrat-bashing, Earle-crucifying talking points in here. You'll be a much happier person. Wikipedia isn't the place for it – you'll just get into fights. And BTW, arguing over who knows the law better and who's a bigger computer nerd is pretty hilarious. I'm sure a person so educated and intelligent would spend his time sockpuppeting on wikipedia, perhaps the nerdiest of crimes. TIMBO (T A L K) 22:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, I'm a lawyer. The word our anonymous denizen is thinking of is "accusations" - while "charges" may be correctly identified as a synonym of this term, we have to be very careful to select words that do not mislead in their context. Because this article prominently discusses criminal charges, a reader stumbling upon it and seeing two different references to charges meaning two different things is liable to be confused. Therefore, we should use the clearest language possible to distinguish "charges" in the legal sense from "accusations".  BD2412 talk 22:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the lack of precision is accidental on his part. His past activities under a series of sockpuppet pseudonyms makes it clear that his purpose here is to misinform. While it is possible he is actually a lawyer I doubt that he has ever practised. He demonstrates an impatience and lack of caution that is entirely un-lawyerly. If he is a lawyer he is a paid lobbyist making some astroturf. More likely this is just another way to blow smoke and intimidate.--Gorgonzilla 04:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true I am not a bar certified lawyer. But that does not mean I am ignorant of it. I have addressed meetings of the American Bar Association, I am currently trying to avoid being co-opted to serve on one of its committees. There would be no point in becomming a lawyer, I could charge rather more as an expert witness. --Gorgonzilla 04:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Narrative flow regarding complaint against Earle

[edit]

It makes no sense to have the complaint against Earle as a free-floating section in advance of the Tom DeLay indictment, especially since the section begins by saying an indictment was filed without indicating until the following sentence who filed it and what for. It creates the appearance that a complaint was filed, and the indictment came after (and perhaps was a retaliation for) the complaint, rather than vice-versa.  BD2412 talk 18:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the title for the same reason. The complaint comes from the DeLay lawyers and it is a part of a defense submission to the judge hearing the case. It is not at this point an independent complaint to the state bar. The new heading makes the provenance and the relevance of the complaint clear. --Gorgonzilla 01:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

[edit]

Anon User:209.247.222.94 appears to have violated the 3rr rule. See [3] for details. I suggest that before making further reversions or deletions, that user discuss the proposed changes in the talk page. Most notably, there is a clear divergence of opinions about Abramoff's relevance to this article.

Thanks. --CSTAR 17:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I only see two reverts. Can you list the specific "diffs" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, discussion of editing changes about controversial topics is a good idea. -Willmcw 21:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I had considered the ensemble of the first three edits as a revert; was I mistaken? (That's why I said "appears" since I'm not too familiar with wikipedia legalese) In any case, I did not block that user. My intention was to encourage discussion of that controversial deletion before it went through another cycle. --CSTAR 21:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question has history of this type of thing. He 3RR'd the Nagin piece nine times in a day until being banned for the 3RR violation. He seems to be a party operative.

The link to Abramoff is very relevant as Earle instigate one of the original Abramoff investigations. The ARMPAC investigation that DeLay was indicted over started with an investigation into Abramoff. Abramoff is currently facing much more serious fraud charges and is a person of interest in a murder investigation so it is unlikely Earle would bother indicting him for a mere $195K money laundering rap (he is charged with stealling $30 million). --Gorgonzilla 03:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:209.247.222.94 and User:209.247.222.85 are sockpuppets. Any further revert by either may lead to a block of both. --CSTAR 03:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He also seems to be sockpuppeting as 'John Henry'. He has been removing large amounts of relevant content from the Abramoff related sites under that nym. Attacked me for my '5th revert' on a page I had only edited once that day, strongly suggesting that this is a sock. --Gorgonzilla 03:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abramoff-Reed Indian Gambling Scandal

[edit]

"Earle caused what is now known as the Abramoff-Reed Indian Gambling Scandal the full ramifications of which have not yet been felt." How can he have caused it if he wasn't the one alleged doing wrong, but rather the one investigating the alleged wrong-doing? --Habap 21:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right! The people who created the scandal were Abramoff, Norquist and Reed. Earle certainly played a significant role in starting the investigation. But where that is at the moment I don't know and have not been able to find out quickly. I am under the impression that there is another prosecutor looking at that docket. Earle would not have indicted DeLay on conspiracy when the Abramoff investigation turned up some pretty clear cut bribery issues. On the other hand Earle is state not federal. --Gorgonzilla 22:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

11 Year Old Girl Prosecution

[edit]

Part of the opening summary states: "Earle has also been criticized for bringing a capital murder charge against 11-year old LaCresha Murray for the murder of Jayla Belton in 1996. Murray was sentenced to 25 years in prison on the basis of dubious circumstantial evidence and a confession made under duress." Not only is the link an obviously biased source (where's the NEWS source on this??), but - "dubious"? "Circumstantial"? Says who? For the average reader running across this, and especially as an opening summary, this is heavily biased to make Earle look bad. Perhaps rewording would be necessary, but I would move it entirely into another section - NOT the opening summary. NoHitHair 02:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wrote that in a hurry during a POV attack so it could probably be improved on. Someone had taken the original text and removed a bunch of important facts to make it look like Earle was a racist and the girl is still in prison. Having looked at Google there are 500 stories on this, only 70 of which mention Earle, almost all written after the DeLay indictment (it seems to be a DeLay inc. talking point). I tend to think that what it mostly shows is that there was a problem with the police officers. I would support moving it out of the intro, I have not seen it mentioned as an opening in any of the mainstream media accounts of Earle, it is not one of the most notable things about Earle. The investigation of Abramoff and DeLay are.--Gorgonzilla 02:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed a few more things. Moved the Murray indictment from the opening and tried to make it less biased by not only adding the critics' point of view. Now has critics and proponents. Reworded a few things. Seems better. Lemme know what you think, thanks. NoHitHair 06:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External References

[edit]

I spent some time this morning to clean up some of the external references, and I added a few more relevant articles. I had problems with the following references:

1) "Advocate for the accused, Texas-Justice's, collection of articles on Earle" Bad reference - All copyright violations of articles. Not stored by the original article owners. Could be POV. I don't think we should use it in the article.

2) "Archive of biased media articles about Earle & the Delay indictment" Bad reference - This is not an archive, but a search through an archive. This "reference" may get lost over time. I don't think we should use it in the article.

3) "Webpage in support of LaCresha Murray" Bad reference - an undocumented web page; could be purely POV. There are no references in this article to credible news sources. I don't think we should use it in the article.

There was an official campaign site, that would be notable. I don't think the article should link to random blog sites but an official campaign site is relevant if it actually mentions Earle.

4) "Televised interview with William Gibson, chairman of the grand jury which indicted Delay. Bad reference - Copyright violation of movie clip. Not stored by the original movie clip owner. The original source could not be identified. Unless we find the original, I don't think we should use it in the article.

 kgrr talk 11:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The third one was entirely POV - it was someone else's reference, but I wasn't sure if it was against Wikipedia's rules, so I left it in and moved it. Thanks for taking care of it, though. NoHitHair 08:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


POV in DeLay Case

[edit]

I cut some POV out of it. Words like "persecution," "crusade," and others were floating around. I also corrected the spelling of DeLay's name a bunch of times, for good measure.--RattBoy 02:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Buy

[edit]

The comments attributed to Byron York can't be found in the linked article. I'm not sure that one partisan pundit's opinion of Earle's motivations belong in an encyclopedic article, but if the comments are unsourced, removing them is a no-brainer.--RattBoy 11:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hutchison debacle

[edit]

I moved the Hutchison part to her own section rather than in the other victims’ file. Her case was and is very important because frankly I was reading about the Delay case in National Review and thought "This sounds so familiar" and then BAM!

This is the same guy who went after Hutchenson years ago. Same very vague charges. So I thought this should have its own section before the Delay story to put things in perspective and let the reader come to his or her conclusions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccommas (talk • contribs) 04:28, 4 December 2005


Martin debacle

[edit]

If anybody deserved prosecution, it was this guy. But read between the lines.... #1 Had himself deliberately wounded with 00 buckshot. That can't be done unless you are willing to die trying. #2 Had a cousin with a criminal background do it. You have to be a complete idiott to trust someone like that to keep his mouth shut. #3 Offered the cousin a state job for payment. He'd never be able to pay up due to nepotism laws. #4 Did it to gain sympathy. If anything, getting wounded after 2am in a trailer park would create more questions than sympathy.

Unless someone rewrites the Martin section to sound more believable, I'm convinced Earle deliberately went after an innocent guy. You can't make me believe that someone intellegent enough to beat a 4-term incumbant Democrat made all those stupid mistakes in staging his own shoting. From everything I've read on the Martin case, there was no evidence other than the testimony of the cousin. Such cases just don't go to trial, but Earle took it all the way. If this isn't an example of abuse of power, what is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.32.58 (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MARTIN'S SIDE: I just found Martin's personal web site where he explains all about what happened to him. It is really interesting, and if true, a bunch of big-shots like Earle should go down. It is so neat that I inserted the link in the References of the main article. The censors will probably delete it before the day is out because it makes Earle look bad. Check it out at http://www.michaelmartinusa.com/5173.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.15.64 (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perception of Earle

[edit]

One of the bullet-points reads: "Bob Beckel, Democrat Party Strategist, 'I know Ronnie Earle and he's definitely a partisan Democrat.' October 14, 2005 FoxNews' Hannity & Colmes."

Unfortunately, the link provided merely shows that Beckel was on H&C. It gives neither credence nor context to the quotation. I believe the quotation should be removed. Can anyone give a reason why it should remain?--RattBoy 22:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right rattboy. I assumed at first the Beckel quote was meant to support the idea that the prosecutions were/are politically motivated. The statement might be taken out of context. In any event, it does not add much so my vote is to kill it.

-- mccommas (remembered to sign my name this time)

Okay; I pulled the quote. It's not verifiable.--RattBoy 01:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans...

[edit]

I removed this paragraph from the article:

Earle has often been accused of having a political bias. In his career as District Attorney, Earle has prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans, however it should be noted that until the past decade Texas politics consisted of warring factions within the Democratic Party. Only in the past ten years have conservative Democrats begun been identifying themselves as Republicans, and during that time period Earle's prosecutions have swayed towards high profile Republicans.

It doesn't seem to be saying anything of substance. Essentially, it says Earle prosecuted Democrats when Democrats controlled the state; now that Republicans control the state, he is prosecuting Republicans. That is hardly surprising. I think this paragraph formed as various editors revert-warred and tried to use it to argue their case, but in any case the end result seems to contain no meaningful information. --Aquillion 06:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles from 2005

[edit]

The following are links to articles, which have no place as a list in a biography. I removed these from the "external links" section. Materisl must be sourced according to </references tag>. However, many of these do not appear to directly be sourcing for claims made in the article. Arbusto 03:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ronnie Earle. 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) 19:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Career as the District Attorney

[edit]

This section is inaccurate and focuses on one aspect of Earle's career — prosecution of politicians — which was only a small (albeit headline-grabbing portion — of Earle's impactful careeer. During Earle's tenure, the Travis County DA did, indeed, have the authority to investigate crimes involving state government and elected officials through its Public Integrity Unit, but that authority was undermined and ultimately taken away following his successor's drunk-driving arrest and conviction in 2013. This section focuses almost exclusively on Earle's prosecutions of elected officials but neglects his many innovations in criminal-justice reform, victims' rights, and restorative justice. That is Earle's true legacy. For all his accomplishments, a fair assessment of Earle's career must also reference the Oak Hill satanic ritual abuse trial, a gross miscarriage of justice that occurred midway through his long and mostly honorable career. This is far too much for me to dive into to edit immediately, but Earle was an important Texas figure with national stature, and the article about him needs improvement A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other aspects of his career for which sources are available, please absolutely do feel free to add them. BD2412 T 17:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Travis County District Attorney's Office during Earle's Tenure

[edit]

User -A-M-B-1996- removed the following sentence:

"The Travis County District Attorney's office investigates and prosecutes crimes related to the operation of the Texas state government."

While it is no longer true that the Travis DA has this jurisdiction, it was true during the entirety of Earle's tenure. I think the sentence should be added back with appropriately edited to convey that what was then true is no longer true. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that I found the reorganization undertaken by -A-M-B-1996 to be quite good. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ronnie_Earle&oldid=1207075092"