Talk:Heller Ehrman

Page was previously removed for some copyright violations and promotional tone on October 7, 2007.

User:Butseriouslyfolks has since clarified the specific problems with the site and I have re-written it in compliance with that. If any Admin or User sees anything that is still currently out of wack, please by all means feel free to correct it or point it out to my user talk page and I will correct it, but please do not delete the page.

Appreciate it.

Burning Sands 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it facing dissolution? There's nothing in the article to indicate that the firm is having financial or other problems. Captain Quirk (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Law firms and midsized enterprises in general do not get a whole lot of attention on Wikipedia. Nobody knew unless they were following it, and the problem surfaced very quickly. My sense is that if the firm survives it's probably not notable to write about a glitch like that. If it dissolves or reorganizes then there will be reliable sources and we can do a post mortem here. The Chron[1] notes that the Recorder has been following the story since 2007.Wikidemon (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Norbert Basil MacLean III

The section on notable cases mentions Norbert Basil MacLean III. The section is unreferenced other than to the Congressional Record of Sep. 27, 2008, in which a short floor debate was held regarding HR 3174. The article says HE represented MacLean, but it is unclear if this was in court or where. Also, it is unclear as to what HE actually did with regard to HR 3174. This part of the subsection is vague and unreferenced and of questionable notableness. It should be deleted. (Indeed the whole subsection is poorly referenced.--S. Rich (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional info. The US Court of Federal Claims, Case No. 04-448C, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order of Dismissal on July 25, 2005. In the Memorandum, the court stated "Plaintiff [MacLean] did not appeal the NMCCA's (Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals] decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) as authorized by statute 10 U.S.C. § 867." Thus, MacLean did not avail himself of the due process rights established by Congress in the UCMJ. To characterize him as being precluded from obtaining SCOTUS access, or not having receive proper due process, is less than correct. Also, Heller did not win any of the numerous civil cases they filed on MacLean's behalf, making this portion of their practice less than stellar.--S. Rich (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

[The following is copied directly from the discussion page of Norbert Basil MacLean III]

MacLean did file a writ-appeal to CAAF; then was denied Supreme Court access under 28 U.S.C. 1259(4)

"The BLP did file a writ-appeal in CAAF on September 3, 2002 after the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals re-opened his case and issued a decision denying a petition for writ of error coram nobis (Government argued that Navy court didn't have jurisdiction to review the petition but the Navy court rejected the Government's argument and found it had jurisdiction and then denied the writ petition). CAAF docket states:

"Misc. No. 02-8028/NA. United States, appellee, v. Norbert Basil MacLEAN, III, appellant. CCA 92-2821. Writ-appeal petition for review of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals decision on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b) on August 30, 2002 and placed on the docket this date." http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/journal/2002Jrnl/2002Sep.htm

CAAF then granted several motions but denied his writ-appeal petition on October 28, 2002: "Misc. No. 02-8028/NA. United States, appellee, v. Norbert Basil MacLEAN, III, appellant. CCA 92-2821. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition and appellant’s motion to attach appellant’s declaration in support of writ-appeal petition, motion to attach documents as exhibits to the writ-appeal, motion for leave to submit two additional authorities, and a pleading which this Court construes as a motion for default judgement, it is ordered that the motion to attach declaration in support of writ-appeal petition is granted; that the motion to attach documents as exhibits is granted; that the motion for leave to submit two additional authorities is granted; that the motion for default judgement is denied; and that the writ-appeal petition is denied." http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/journal/2002Jrnl/2002Oct.htm

Reviewing the documents in the case the motion to attach documents was new evidence which was found. CAAF granted the motion to attach documents as exhibits to the writ-appeal so they are part of the court-martial record of trial (in the appellate section of the record). BLP was then denied petitioning the Supreme Court for a writ of cert by operation of 28 U.S.C. 1259(4). But had the CAAF granted the BLP's writ-appeal the United States could have appealed to the Supreme Court under section 1259(4). (Mattwashdc (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

[My response:] If this WP:RGW is going to be published, then the whole story you've provided should be put into the article. Then it will come down to deciding if "Dem's the rules" that are to be followed in determining when and how much Due Process is to be afforded. So what if he didn't get to SCOTUS -- even if the law might have allowed it. The Supremes wouldn't have reviewed his case! BLP had multiple days in court and multiple bites at the apple. Just because he was not satisfied with the results does not justify this advocacy on his behalf in Wikipedia. The fact that this chronology of military and civil and military and civil litigation (just how many cases has he filed?) was not set forth in a fair, balanced manner again demonstrates POV and WP:ADVOCACY. It has to stop.--S. Rich (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Posted:--S. Rich (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heller Ehrman. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080206003143/http://www.thelawyer.com/global100/ to http://www.thelawyer.com/global100/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)