Talk:Reggie Walton

message: Started this article about a U.S. judge in the news due to CIA leak criminal investigation.--FloNight 20:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation of article

message: The article says that Scooter Libby won on just one of the counts against him:
: "Libby was found guilty on four of the five counts with which he was charged: two counts of perjury, one of obstruction of justice, and one of making false statements to federal investigators."
But Christopher Hitchens' article on Slate says that Libby won on two counts:
: "In the other two 'counts' in the case, both involving conversations with reporters (Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time), Judge Reggie Walton threw out the Miller count while the jury found for Libby on the Cooper count."
Obviously one or the other statement is incorrect.  Does anyone know which?  NCdave 07:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See "The Counts" in "The Verdict" in the NYTimes index of articles on Libby; it is one of the references in the cross-linked articles on the case. --NYScholar 20:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added the source citation to this article.  FYI: It is: Diary of the Leak Trial, The New York Times, updated periodically, accessed June 23, 2007.  --NYScholar 20:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that means they are both correct, sort of.  The article isn't counting the Miller charge, which Walton threw out. Is that right?  NCdave 10:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Libby case

message: The "external links" section includes a link to a short document on the supremelaw.org web site, which is apparently run by a tax protester named Mitch Modeleski.  In the document he uses the pen name "Paul Andrew Mitchell," and gives his title as "Private Attorney General" (whatever that means).  The link was added March 7, 2007, by Zosimog, which seems to be a defunct ID.  Perhaps Zosimog was actually Modeleski, himself?
I'm not a lawyer, but it looks decidedly goofy to me.  I was tempted to just delete it, but took the conservative approach and just added an attribution so that readers will know what it is.  If someone else wants to delete it entirely, that's fine with me. NCdave 08:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, color me surprised.  There actually is such a thing as a Private Attorney General.  I had no idea. NCdave 08:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mitch Modeleski, a/k/a Paul Andrew Mitchell, "Private Attorney General"

message: Could not follow this talk page (directed here by the tag for neutrality.  Added unsigned templates and refactored somewhat w/ a couple of headings to make clearer who posted what about which subjects and when.  Please use four tildes and add comments at bottom of page.  Thanks.  (Added talkpage header template as well.) --NYScholar 20:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: talk page corrections

message: I suggest the page Reggie B. Walton should be the main page.
Reggie Walton should either be a redirection, or a disambiguation page.
Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: redirect

message: A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Reggie B. Walton 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) 23:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-established as Redirect page. --TommyBoy (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot-created subpage

message: As of today, the NAR/TRA vs. BAFTE case was decided by him, in favor of the NAR and TRA. I don't feel I can do a neutral writeup of it, so can someone do a neutral update, please?Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NAR/TRA Decision

message: Someone placed Mohammon v. Bush into the "past cases" section.  Almost all of the more than a dozen Guantanamo habeas petitions before Walton remain open.  So I have moved this into the "current cases" section.
Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: explanation

message: I'm pretty sure many of the cases that were current 10+ years ago no longer are. That seems like a less-than-useful categorization to use in a generally static encyclopedia entry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaBunny42 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Current" and "past" cases?