Talk:David O. Carter

message: A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/David O. Carter 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) 17:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot-created subpage

message: I see that someone noted Barnett v. Obama was dismissed by this judge, and then someone removed it, and Paul Pieniezny made reference to a "special Obama patrol" in Wikipedia?  How does that work? Is the "special Obama patrol" a self-appointed group of partisan editors, or is it an official Wikipedia policy of some kind?  It just sounds non-NPOV to me.
I am skeptical of editors who go out of their way to marginalize positions they don't agree with.
Anyone who manages to get their name into the newspaper or a court filing has become noteworthy, particularly if it generated a controversy that was publicly discussed. Judge Carter's dismissal of Barnett v. Obama is significant because it was one of the last outstanding challenges to President Obama's eligibility. That is news, and that is now history. I think it belongs in this article.Cadwallader (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had had a look at the talk page of any Obama related article (like the one I linked to in the Barnett v Obama part) you would have known that I was not referring to a group of editors, but to this: . This is not the first article where editors are trying to "balance" the article by including the birthers' view. There are clear reasons NOT to always do that, because there are also rules such as WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

text: A court of law has also referred to them as "birthers," along with every major national media outlet in the country. Cbreitel (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

text: As I said on your talk page, Carter asks or invites these people a year in advance, and Perkins is a huge firm - so it is not as simple as you are putting it. What was Carter to have done in connection with this appointment in January 2009? And this would imply not only that it was easy to find a replacement for "that guy", but also that it would have been easy to keep track of everybody who was filing a case or who had a case against them before his court. The Barnett case was not even restricted to Obama, but included his wife and Hillary Clinton. So, anybody from a firm who is currently representing one of the co-defendants is out? What about all the plaintiffs - it is not even clear how many there were, since Taitz amended her filing twice to add more and more of them. There are at present probably tens of court suits against Obama, many if not most by people either committed or incarcerated. In one of these suits, Brittney Spears appears as a co-defendant. So, Carter should not hire any lawyer from a firm representing Brittney Spears?--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Paul, that info is totally relevant.  So let's put it out there.  It makes far more sense to tell the story, than to delete the story.  If the story is that Carter chose Velamoor before Obama was even elected, then that instantly quashes rumor and speculation. Need a source for it though.Cadwallader (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Barnett v. Obama Dismissal Be Noted? 

message: While the LA Times did call them "birthers", it is more "encyclopedic" not to use slang, so I removed the phrase 'by so-called "birthers" '.Cadwallader (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A court of law has also referred to them as "birthers," along with every major national media outlet in the country. Cbreitel (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

text: As I said on your talk page, Carter asks or invites these people a year in advance, and Perkins is a huge firm - so it is not as simple as you are putting it. What was Carter to have done in connection with this appointment in January 2009? And this would imply not only that it was easy to find a replacement for "that guy", but also that it would have been easy to keep track of everybody who was filing a case or who had a case against them before his court. The Barnett case was not even restricted to Obama, but included his wife and Hillary Clinton. So, anybody from a firm who is currently representing one of the co-defendants is out? What about all the plaintiffs - it is not even clear how many there were, since Taitz amended her filing twice to add more and more of them. There are at present probably tens of court suits against Obama, many if not most by people either committed or incarcerated. In one of these suits, Brittney Spears appears as a co-defendant. So, Carter should not hire any lawyer from a firm representing Brittney Spears?--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Paul, that info is totally relevant.  So let's put it out there.  It makes far more sense to tell the story, than to delete the story.  If the story is that Carter chose Velamoor before Obama was even elected, then that instantly quashes rumor and speculation. Need a source for it though.Cadwallader (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut the Slang 

message: Under the Notable Cases header one of the items concerns delegates to the Republican convention suing the Republican National Committee.
This is notable of course.
But the two sentences there seem to date from 2012.
Surely either the case was tried, or settled, or dismissed, or disposed of some other way and Carter is no longer "set to preside over the lawsuit" --- unless it really has been tied up for 5 years.  (That also would be interesting.)
So it would be great if somebody could bring this up to date.
Son of eugene (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disposition of Delegates to the Republican National Convention case 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Judge carter and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 19#Judge carter until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Mdewman6 (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Judge carter" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]