Jump to content

Talk:Jay Sekulow

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

NPOV

[edit]

Well, I have tried too weed out the worst of the PR. Also reinserted this, which was taken out (without explanation) on Dec.19, 2005: In November 2005 Law.com [1] published an article in which it was alleged that Sekulow "through the ACLJ and a string of interconnected nonprofit and for-profit entities, has built a financial empire that generates millions of dollars a year and supports a lavish lifestyle -- complete with multiple homes, chauffeur-driven cars, and a private jet that he once used to ferry Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia."[2] The article quotes a number of former donors and supporters who now claim that Sekulow has engaged in a pattern of self-dealing to finance his "high-flying lifestyle." Huldra 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if I logged in before editing that would be helpful... anyway, took off the Cleanup and POV tags. Re-add if you feel it is justified; personally, I don't think anything else needs to be done to this article. (edit: I could also try signing my comments...)DC 21:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Career section, esp. the 2nd paragraph needs to be re-written. It is blatantly pro-ACLJ, talking about "defending rights" and "being treated with equal respect", while ignoring the countervailing legal arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.213.144 (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I've removed the following:

Several landmark cases argued by Sekulow before the U.S. Supreme Court have become part of the legal landscape in the area of religious liberty litigation. In the Mergens case, Sekulow cleared the way for public school students to form Bible clubs and religious organizations on their school campuses. In the Lamb's Chapel case, Sekulow defended the free speech rights of religious groups, ensuring that they be treated equally with respect to the use of public facilities. And, most recently, in McConnell v. FEC, Sekulow ensured that the constitutional rights of young people remain protected with a unanimous decision by the high court guaranteeing that minors can participate in political campaigns.

In 2005, TIME Magazine named Sekulow one of the "25 Most Influential Evangelicals" in America and called the ACLJ "a powerful counterweight" to the ACLU. Business Week said the ACLJ is "the leading advocacy group for religious freedom." Sekulow's work on the issue of judicial nominees - including possible vacancies at the Supreme Court - has received extensive news coverage including a front page story in The Wall Street Journal. In addition, The National Law Journal has twice named Sekulow one of the "100 Most Influential Lawyers" in the United States. (1994, 1997) He is also among a distinguished group of attorneys known as "The Public Sector 45" named by The American Lawyer. (January/February 1997) The magazine said the designation represents "45 young lawyers outside the private sector whose vision and commitment are changing lives." Sekulow serves as a member of the Board of Trustees for The Supreme Court Historical Society in Washington, DC.

These are cut-and-pasted from [3] which is a violation of WP:COPYVIO. Someone is going to have to make the effort to a) paraphrase the information b) provide actual citations to (say) Time Magazine and the WSJ and c) to write the section to WP:MOS standards. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced statements

[edit]

I have tagged several unsourced statements in the article. If citations are not provided in the coming week, then these statements will be removed, per WP:PROVEIT:

Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}.... Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living persons.

∴ Therefore | talk 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

User:70.174.76.31 has twice cut and pasted wholesale from [4] and [5] which is a clear copyright violation. I've invited the user to come and discuss why this clear policy is not applicable in this case. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jay SC WEB.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Jay SC WEB.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two adult sons

[edit]

These sons probably don't need to be in the Jay Sekulow page. --Neomnod (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

his sons are a part of his non-profit cash grab to wealth and fortune so yeah they belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:365F:A360:3DED:3559:A45D:640 (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
   My rewording of "all of whom live in Brentwood, TN." imo is irrelevant to our colleague Neomnod's point: "All of whom" cannot refer to the two people who were the last ones mentioned. I changed it to an ugly but grammatically correact wording that expresses the only reasonable thing the grammatically challenged colleague can have intended to convey: that 4 ppl (2 parents & 2 of their sons) all live in that municipality. My commitment as an editor is to be accurate, grammatical, and (to the extent consistent with those priorities) avoid clumsiness. If i awaken in a sudden flush of rhetorical fluency in the next 10 hours (its getting late here in Munich), i may manage to improve it before flying home.
--Jerzy•t 20:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jay Sekulow. 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) 04:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

list of cases?

[edit]

I have never seen a "list of cases" on any other lawyer pages, is this a new thing? It looks like advertising. Any lawyer could argue ALL his own cases are noteworthy, but really? Is there a wiki policy on this? It looks weird in the article. Really weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:365F:A360:3DED:3559:A45D:640 (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Can someone lock Sekulow's page for a while? Someone (likely w/ VPN) keeps persistently changing his education record to Trump uni. Also, can these VPN IP addresses be blocked? Thanks. --Smghz (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2017

[edit]

Add this sentence to the section "criticisms" Lolopida (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In June 2017, The Washington Post revealed that "Jay Sekulow’s family has been paid millions from charities they control". Documents obtained by the Guardian confirmed later that "millions in donations" were steered to his family members.

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 01:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jay Sekulow. 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) 04:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting Trump via his radio stations

[edit]

I notice that Jay Sekulow hosts the K-RLA/870 evening show in Los Angeles, talking about 'Making America Great Again' since he is on the legal team for President Trump. More could be said here in his Wikipedia article since that is more current then just religious persuasion. What do you think? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference: http://am870theanswer.com/radioshow/432 -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish by birth, &/or raised Jewish...?

[edit]

From the information given in this article, it doesn't seem unthinkable that Mr. Sekulow could have been born Jewish, before joining Jews for Jesus. However, nothing here actually says that. There is no reason to assume that because he later joined Jews for Jesus, he was Jewish in the first place: Many gentiles join that organization (and I will note, without prejudice, that many Jews do not consider JfJ anything but a variety of Evangelical Christianity). So: Was Sekulow born &/or raised Jewish? →If so, please say so. It cannot simply be understood.--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is rather common knowledge that Jay Sekulow is Jewish. And if his mother was Jewish, then per orthodox Judaism, he would be considered Jewish. Perhaps this intricate genealogical website will convince you (search site for Natalie Wortman or Natalie Wortman Seculow) http://chelm.freeyellow.com/czesner.html See also https://forward.com/news/national/374864/meet-jay-sekulow-a-jewish-born-believer-in-jesus-on-trumps-legal-team/ (PeacePeace (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Common knowledge about an individual should play no role whatsoever in determining whether basic information should be included. There are always many people who don't possess that common knowledge. (For instance, people from a different culture, or people from a different country, or people reading this several years in the future.)50.205.142.35 (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLP I deleted sentence on bankruptcy

[edit]

I went to the link and found no mention of "bankruptcy" there. Also, my initial concern was that the statement might not distinguish between a man going bankrupt and a corporation in which that man has an interest going bankrupt. Perhaps the composing editor has a reliable source and can restore the sentence with clarity about personal versus corporate bankruptcy. If corporate bankruptcy, then unless one man owned the corporation, the bankruptcy should not refer to his name alone. I found this google book which says that Sekulow's FIRM went bankrupt. https://books.google.com/books?id=Vjwly0QyeU4C&pg=PA615&lpg=PA615&dq=jay+sekulow+bankruptcy&source=bl&ots=lNC4_tgXkt&sig=ACfU3U1lfP5kMuF3Mb86yLi81KimWBw-vQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj34a3uu5LhAhWM44MKHT2iAS0Q6AEwUHoECE4QAQ#v=onepage&q=jay%20sekulow%20bankruptcy&f=false (PeacePeace (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

WTF IS ACLJ ???

[edit]

There are several instances in this article of the abbreviation "ACLJ". But nowhere is this completely unfamiliar abbreviation explained. It should either be explained or removed entirely.50.205.142.35 (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere - except maybe in the very first sentence in the lead with a piped link to the American Center for Law & Justice? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Center_for_Law_%26_Justice The ACLJ is 32 years old and is well known by people who are Christian.Easeltine (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

weight issues

[edit]

@Soibangla: I see you are also POV pushing on this WP:BLP like you are over at Talk:Alan_Dershowitz#Trump_content. In this case using WP:OVERCITE to push the POV.

text removed 

Sekulow made significant  statements that had previously been asserted by Trump supporters, but debunked.[1][2][3][4]

The same argument applies for removal here. BLPs are not a location for AP2 WP:TE. You can go through all the debunking, etc on the Trump impeachment article. BLP policy is quite clear. Use of the word significant, is "significant" to who? And debunking attorney speak, please? Probably half of the statements made by the attorneys on both sides are false, we dont need to get into it on BLPs.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf, I reject your assertions. soibangla (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are attempting to debunk Sekulow's legal minutia on his BLP article. I summarized your statement to take out the POV, just like I did in the Dershowitz article. Take the WP:BATTLE over to the Trump impeachment article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jtbobwaysf, I continue to reject your assertions and moreover I recommend you cease casting aspersions upon me. soibangla (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/10/trump-defenders-misleading-claims-about-house-impeachment-inquiry/
  2. ^ https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2019/oct/30/rush-limbaugh/limbaugh-wrongly-claims-republicans-are-being-shut/
  3. ^ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/oct/28/lindsey-graham/graham-wrong-house-impeachment-inquiry-denies-trum/
  4. ^ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/oct/10/trump-lawyer-claims-lack-due-process-house-impeach/

Impeachment - legal arguments and statements at trial

[edit]

There has been an ongoing issue in this article recently involving a paragraph that discusses the Trump impeachment. Specifically, that paragraph addressed (1) "the trial memorandum Sekulow co-authored," stating that its "reasoning has been roundly rejected by legal scholars"; and (2) various "statements in the Senate chamber regarding trial procedures" and assertions made by Sekulow, including back-and-forth edits about whether those assertions were false.

I have deleted this paragraph, on the basis that it is injecting needless controversy into this article, because it does not even belong here. With respect to what I have labeled #1 above, the trial memorandum relates to Sekulow only to the extent that he "co-authored" it -- that is, that he has been one of the lead counsels for the Trump defense. I'm skeptical that the analysis of its legal merit belongs on Wikipedia at all, since it seems to rely on original research and synthesis of published material. But if it does belong anywhere, it should be in article focused on the impeachment itself, rather than appearing in this biographical article.

As for #2, it's admittedly more directly personal to Sekulow, since he was the speaker, but there's still an issue of giving undue weight to a couple of arguments in his long career. It also puts us in the inappropriate position of serving as fact-checker or taking sides in a disputed assertion; an AP article is probably sufficient to count as a reliable source generally, but by rule we need to tread carefully on contentious issues in biography of living person articles. So, for example, if someone made a false statement to the Senate that led to him being censured or charged with a crime, we might be fine with saying something like, "He was convicted for lying to Congress after falsely stating (X)." (See, e.g., Michael Flynn for some similar examples.) But it seems like a minefield to go around denoting statements by public/political figures as "false" without more definitive attribution and certainty for that label. --EightYearBreak (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jay_Sekulow&oldid=1241106142"