Talk:Covington & Burling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Wikiscanner note

This page was referenced by a page discussed about from http://www.brandweeknrx.com/2007/09/covington-burli.html in which evidence was produced and verified that the staff at Covington & Burling has been removing sections of this page. I've reinserted the changes removed - however there are still neutrality issues which should be corrected.

[edit] Controversial sections

Needs to be more position neutral.

[edit] Removed OR section

The following section is unsourced but plausible; hence it has been moved to the talk page. Please cite your sources. Captainktainer * Talk 16:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Found a source for the Skull/Bones society and have re-added it back to the page.

[edit] "pro-bono" work for GTMO detainees

Here's an article that mentions a Covington & Burling lawyer named David H. Remes who's defending the fascists at GTMO.[1] It was found via HotAir.com.[2]

I haven't had time to research this yet, but I'm noting it here for future reference.

David H. Remes is listed here[3] although it doesn't mention GTMO.
Jason M. Knott[4] and Trisha B. Anderson[5] are listed as GTMO defenders.
-- Randy2063 01:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
More GTMO-related work, although most appear to be on different cases than the others:
Stephen George is listed as assisting "in political asylum proceedings."[6]
Gregory M. Lipper "assists in firm's representation of Yemeni nationals" at GTMO.[7]
Brian D. Smith "provided advice on legislation related to the treatment of detainees (in connection with the firm's Guantanamo Bay detainee representation)."[8]
Tara M. Steeley[9] and Jeffrey C. Wu[10] worked on amicus briefs for retired generals and admirals in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld against the DoD policy.
I'll add Lipper to the main GTMO lawyers list. The others may take more time.
-- Randy2063 22:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Functional Firearms Ban?

"The only dispute is whether D.C. Code section 7-2507.02 'effects functional disarmament.'" This is a quote from Heller's Brief. Contrary to what kevinp2 keeps posting on any possible entry related to this case, it is NOT a given that D.C.'s laws are a functional firearms ban. D.C's and Heller's brief both quibble over whether there is a self defense exception to certain provisions, but it is a misrepresentation to say that D.C. argues there is an exception to the ban on functional firearms because D.C. does not concede that it is a ban on functional firearms.Harvardgirl33 (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)