"

I'm going to dispute your decision to deny to others access to such information.  It is of considerable significance for an attorney of such stature to have done something as alleged.  It is of public interests, and that is incontrovertible.  Moreover, to put an end to your debate, let's remember that this matter was picked up by news sources throughout the nation, and, as a result, it need not be belabored further as to its need to be noted in the subject article.

Also, your argument that it is in violation of WP:UNDUE because it is allegedly ""designed to impugn the character of the person"" is ludicrous, and for good reason:  It is an infamous public act on the subject's part, as documented by numerous news outlets, and it is being duly noted, irrespective of what you think of it. Since when is Wikipedia subject to third-world censorship? Should your logic of censuring factual information because it can have the effect of impugning someone be applied universally, then Charles Manson's murder convictions need to be removed, stat! So, yes, let reason guide your decisions that you attempt to apply upon all Wikipedia viewers, and not unfounded impulses, with all due respect.   "