Talk:Shalom Weiss
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
Contents |
[edit] Neutrality
The current version of the article, which was completely rewritten by Rogerplunk, is not in accordance with Wikipedia's content policies. Furthermore, it contains unverifiable information, such as that obtained from original trial transcripts. Although a proper article should provide a well-rounded perspective, the article as is completely omits the "guilty as charged" point of view.
It has clearly been written by somebody on Weiss' legal defense team. We should keep the article as unbiased as possible, and therefore I suggest a previous version be restored until we can work out which parts should and which parts should not be removed. The prior version contained less information, but the information is less disputed and most probably gives a more factual representation.
Rogerplunk adds a lot of factual details, supported by references, which should be looked at.
This is the version in question. I suggest the page be restored to this version. —Stimpy 15:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I cleaned up phrases with obvious bias. I think the article stands a chance of being kept with more additions to the guilty as charged side. --Tvwatcher 18:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- In addition, I used the history pages to save information Rogerplunk deleted to make the article more balanced. --Tvwatcher 02:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
== RESPONSE ==BY Rogerplunk:
The issue of neutrality verses bias is central to Wikipedia. But it is not easy to distinguish between the two. The Best Review (Anatomy of a Failure), being an insurance industry article, is clearly biased in favor of the government’s position. Even so, it is perhaps the most reliable and comprehensive source of information on the financial collapse of National Heritage life Insurance. It is for this reason, that I thought it should be the first cited reference, and should be used as much as possible in verifying events. Most other sources on the internet, regarding the Weiss story, are sensational-based with inaccurate information.
The Weiss case, concerned the “mortgage-backed bond scheme”, and was basically a money laundering case. Money laundering is not what is generally thought of as “insurance fraud”, which involves fooling an insurance company out of money (theft by fraud). As the Best Review article shows, the purpose of the “mortgage-backed bond scheme” was to raise money to fill a $35 million financial hole in National Heritage (made by earlier schemes, which Weiss was not involved in). The plan was for Weiss to buy and service non-performing mortgages for the purpose of increasing the value of the mortgages, and thus raising money for National Heritage. This is normally legal. However, the money used for this was earmarked for reinsurance, and was wired to South Star (controlled by Weiss) by Smythe, CEO of National Heritage, without the knowledge of the CFO. The mortgages were then fraudulently returned to National Heritage through the bond scheme. These transactions were highly complex and are not easily summarized for mass consumption. Even experts found it hard to make sense of the transactions.
Oddly, the DOJ award page, also inserted by tvwatcher, inaccurately states that the case involved “looting” National Heritage of $250 million. The word “looting”, meaning to steal, is a different crime from money laundering. I suppose we cannot expect the DOJ awards people to understand the cases they are giving awards for (even though the prosecutor is clear about the crimes in the indictment). The amount of money laundered was about 100 million dollars, depending on how it is calculated (this is the amount wired to South Star to purchase mortgages). As stated in the Weiss article, Weiss was convicted of using about 7 million for personal use. However, it was not alleged that this money went into his pockets. It was used for business expenses. Because the transactions were illegal, the expenses were considered, legally speaking, to be diverted for “personal use”.
On the issue of Weiss’s innocence: this remains relevant because he has not had an appeal. As the Ken Lay case shows, if a person dies after a conviction, but before an appeal, the conviction is extinguished because an appeal is considered integral to the finding of guilt (abatement rule). Weiss was barred from getting an appeal because he was a fugitive (fugitive disentitlement doctrine). However, during his extradition from Austria, the U.S. provided letters of assurance to Austria that he would get an appeal. Weiss is still challenging the government on this issue in a habeas petition. Thus, this is certainly relevant information. An appeal is considered to be a fundamental right, and thus this should be a major part of the Weiss article. Materials on this are available at pacer.com (although it does cost a small amount money, and a lot of time to research it).
Weiss’s basic argument on his innocence is that he was out of the loop, and was not aware of the illegal activities. I know of no other sources for this other than the trial transcripts. Although not available on the internet, they are public documents. Weiss’s defense should not be considered biased if it is made clear that it is his position/opinion. Bias comes into play only when an opinion is presented as a fact, or where the opposing opinion is not adequately presented. I think the government’s position was presented well. But invite any improvements on it. Rogerplunk January 20, 2007. Edited roger 03:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Use of the phrase "Mr. Weiss"
A Wikipedia contributor completely redid this article, and although it is in intelligent language and seems to contains some accurate contributions, it contains obvious bias. It needs to be revised.
First, this is not the New York Times, and in Wikipedia one doesn't write, Mr. so and so. So the first thing to do is delete all the "Mr." references.
--Tvwatcher 04:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, but much more needs to be done to fix this article up. See my post above. —Stimpy 15:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Section Titles
These seem a bit long... I think the first one could just be National Life Insurance Company Fraud, which is a bit shorter. The fact that amounts of money are involved should not need extra emphasis, really — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 13:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Call-girl
My recollection of the story (and I could provide links later) is that the authorities followed Weiss's Brazillian girlfriend. I know some sites use the "callgirl" term. But I think it is unfair to her to call anyone a callgirl, unless there is good reason. The story is that she was with him in Brazil and Europe. It was a long-term relationship, not a callgirl relationship. roger 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Extradition
I inserted a section on extradition with the references tvwatcher asked for. roger 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Incarceration
I inserted one sentence on the nature of the habeas argument, with reference to pacer.com, where both the government and Weiss's arguments may be studied. Also corrected the name of the prison. It is federal, not state: USP Coleman. roger 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Introduction
I inserted the Best's Article as the primary source for the collapse of National Heritage. It is the most researched and reliable source of informaion on this subject. The source that was there before[1] was about fraud in general, but not about National Heritage. Took out references to the amounts "looted", which is addressed in the next section where they will be re-inserted. Corrected years as fugitive (one, not three). Corrected the claim re longest sentence. It is the longest sentence for a white collar crime. There are criminal convictions with higher sentences. Inserted in statement that Weiss has not had his appeal, and he still claims he is innocent. If he claims he is innocent, this should be made clear at the beginning of the article, especially since he has not been able to appeal his conviction (though promised by the Government).
- Stating Weiss's claims of innocence at the beginning of an article is an excellent way of writing a 5 paragraph essay on why Weiss should be granted an appeal, not the proper manner in which this encyclopedia article should be composed. This is clearly an attempt to use Wikipedia as a free medium by an individual trying to attain an appeal for Weiss. --Tvwatcher 07:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The appeal issue, as stated below, is central to the Weiss story, which is why a sentence was added. How many U.S. citizens have had the United Nations Human Rights Committee rule on his extradition case (which involved the appeal issue)? Only one: Weiss. That is significant. The fact that the U.S. gave assurances to Austria that he would get an appeal, and he has not received and appeal after 4 years, is also significant. How is this part of the story less significant than his year as a fugitive? roger 01:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bias in section titles and terms used
The section, "Looting of National Heritage (1990-1993)" should be simply be entitled "Looting of National Heritage." This is an attempt to broadcast that Weiss, based on the time period in the section title, could not have possibly contributed to the looting of National Heritage. The intention of this addition is obvious, and the time period should be removed. Readers should be able to make that conclusion for themselves if inclined.
Frankly, even the title of the section and distinctly making a section entitled "looting of National Heritage" is an attempt to put as much space between a convicted individual (the recipient of the harshest sentence related to the collapse of National Heritage) and crime. Furthermore, the insisting that such terms as "white collar crime" be used is also an attempt to present the case that because the crimes involve improper monetary transactions as opposed to violent crime, the defendant does not deserve an 845 year sentence.
Even the last section title shows obvious bias. By using the term, "Current proceedings," the contributor is attempting to make the claim that the convicted individual (an accurate reference) is on the verge of a breakthrough moment in his case (the basis of which is that he has not been granted an appeal, which he forfeited when he fled his trial). I'm sure Bernie Ebbers, Jeffrey Skilling, and other convicted individuals also have their own "current proceedings," but their articles do not have such sections, and neither should the article on Shalom Weiss. At most, this article should only have one brief section for the purpose of explaining the appeal issue. The prominent theme of the article should not be a campaign for an appeal for an indiviudal. --Tvwatcher 08:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bias?
Please, please study the Best's Review article, esp p. 100. Neither the Government nor insurance regulators claim that Weiss was involved at the beginning (1990). He came in later in 1993, after NH had been so looted, that they were looking for a way out. That was the whole reason for the mortgage scheme. This is an important part of the story, and made clear in the Best's Review article.
"White collar crime" is simply being clear. It does make a distinction between violent crimes, or drug crimes. But these are important distinctions. (Also, there are longer federal sentences out there for some drug crimes, which is why I inserted "white-collar crime".)
The appeal issue is a big issue in the Weiss story. It has been reviewed by the United Nations, and the European Union. It was central to the extradition from Austria, and it is the reason why his side of the strory is still relevant.
"Current" means what is currently happening in the Weiss story. How is that biased? This is relevant information. Wikipedia , especially, is designed for current developments on a subject. This small paragraph covers the last four years. It is a very brief review, with links to his docket for people to view the government's and Weiss's competing arguments.
Lastly, I do not see how the term "campaign", fits here. The information provided is relevant information on the Weiss story that was missing in the earlier versions of the Weiss article.
roger 01:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
