Talk:Mitch Modeleski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] Reapeated reverts and legal threats

Hi, when this article was being vandalsied constantly by 166.214.106.208 and Supremelaw, I left a message asking the user to discuss on the talk page. When he registered an account, he sent me the following email through WP:

(text removed awaiting further correspondance) Martinp23 16:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have asked the emailer to comment here. Martinp23 15:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Threats and legal stuff at Mitch Modeleski. --Chris (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

To save interested parties the few clicks to look at the diffs, the correspondence posted here was largely the same as that posted inappropriately (diff) to the article space by Modelski (or whoever). Since I am thoroughly unimpressed by said posters alleged legal knowledge (indeed, I doubt seriously this person ever passed the bar in any state), and since readers are all curious like me, I'm posting that text back here. I don't think this can reflect on User:Martinp23, since this is soley my action, and the text reposted here was cut-and-pasted from text posted publically by Modeleski at the diff above:

"Greetings Wikipedia et al.:

I hereby demand that you remove the false and defamatory materials which Wikipedia finds in response to a query for the text "Paul Andrew Mitchell".

An individual unknown to the Supreme Law Firm has repeatedly reposted false and defamatory text in that entry e.g. the federal employees assigned to Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. did lack requisite credentials, as confirmed by the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/index.htm

I do NOT appreciate the many times I have attempted to replace that false and defamatory materials with correct information. :::Nevertheless, other individuals also unknown to the Supreme Law Firm have activated some kind of automatic "reversion" which promptly eliminates my edits and replaces them with the same false and defamatory materials.

Therefore, FORMAL DEMAND is hereby made of you to REMOVE all references to "Paul Andrew Mitchell" from Wikipedia immediately.

This is NOT vandalism; however, I do not know the hidden and/or secret mechanisms you are using to revert my edits to the same false and defamatory materials.

STOP IMMEDIATELY REVERTING TO THOSE FALSE AND DEFAMATORY MATERIALS.

If you want a partial listing of the truth in this matter, click here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/index.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/index.htm

Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 :::U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a) http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm :::http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice"

(Note to User:Martinp23: it is my opinion that this material is not dangerous to you, in any way. However, if you are genuinely concerned that my reposting of it would threaten you, I hereby give you, specifically, permission to take the usually-unacceptable step of editing my comments on this talk page to remove it. However, I don't feel you should, obviously, or I wouldn't have posted in the first place. Eaglizard 08:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Eaglizard - Looking at the "to:" line of the email you posted above, I think it's perfectly OK for you to post it here, on account of the fact that it says "Dear Wikipedia" (so he obviously sent the message to the wrong person in sending it to me personally). Martinp23 11:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article is protected

I have temporarily protected this article to forestall further vandalism and legal threats. I have reduced it to a stub because the content was not sourced. The content will be restored if editors can provide reliable sources for it.

Mr. Modeleski may detail here precisely which facts were incorrect, or he may contact the Wikimedia Foundation office, who will always respond to any well-founded complaint that an article is defamatory. Mr Modeleski should also be aware that we have a strict policy against legal threats, and any further threats will result in his being blocked from editing Wikipedia.

I have posted this at the admin noticeboard WP:ANI. Just zis Guy you know? 16:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• • The user is continueing email correspondance with me and I am just confirming the problems he has with the article. When I have his permission, I will post a copy of the correspondance here. Martinp23 16:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• • OK - he has denied me permission to post correspondance, so I'll just tell you that, by using the law, I am attempting to defuse his legal threats. He has ordered me to remove all references to [his name] from wikipedia (is there any legal backing for this?) and informed me that he is contacting my "Parent orgnisation" (Wikimedia), demanding $900 for his time (an unfounded demand, as I have pointed out to him in e-mail). I'l keep you up to date on this page (if no-one cares, just say, and I won't :D) - Martinp23 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Advice: send him to Jimbo and take yourself out of it entirely. I'm sure Wiki administration has dealt with such threats before (Daniel Brandt, anyone?) and know exactly what he can and can't demand. Fan-1967 22:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Just before posting my last message I emailed Jimbo about it and the whole correspondance is being cc'd (by [his name] to a huge range of wikipedia people). Hopefully where I (probably will) fail, they can triumph in proving him wrong :P Martinp23 22:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I know of no legal basis for a request to remove a name from Wikipedia. As I understand it we can include any material which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources and which is stated in appropriately neutral terms. Just zis Guy you know? 14:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitch Modeleski entry necessary

Paul Andrew Mitchell aka Mitch Modeleski is indeed not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction, and in fact has never even attended law school. He runs an online "law school" called "Supreme Law School", which people attend by email for a fee of about $10/month. He claims to be a "Private Attorney General", but that claim is based solely upon a law which allows plaintiffs, who prosecute lawsuits for the public good, to be reimbursed for attorney fees. However, he has never been such a plaintiff and, even if he were, that is not a lawful title. He has previously been barred from filing lawsuits in the federal court system without prior court approval, due to his abusive and facially frivolous filings in Mitchell v AOL.

If you visit his website at supremelaw.org[1], you will see that he has filed numerous lawsuits, all of which have been dismissed, and that he has been involved with such questionable and potentially dangerous persons as the Montana Freemen. Nevertheless, he continues to harass, abuse, and threaten others via email and through various discussion groups for perceived wrongs. He is best known for threatening lawsuits under the RICO Act, and threatening the illegal arrest of people who cross him.

For that reason, this Wikipedia article is very important for the many people who have become inundated with his neverending threats and abusive lawsuits - past, present, and future - and Wikipedia has no real cause for concern despite what Mr. Modeleski may say. It is important, however, to ensure that he is also listed under his pseudonym, "Paul Andrew Mitchell", since that is the name by which he is generally known, and the name he regularly uses.

Further information about his pseudo-legal tactics may be seen at paulandrewmitchell.com[2], Quatloos.com[3], and other websites which follow and critique the tax denier movement, also known as the "tax honesty movement" (i.e., those who believe there is no law which requires one to pay income tax). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ElfNinosMom (talk • contribs) 22:15, August 31, 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that http://www.paulandrewmitchell.com and http://www.quatloos.com qualify as reliable sources, as required under WP:LIVING, especially if MM aka PAM objects. We can, however, use quotes from his own site to indicate his positions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Arthur Rubin. Those sites were not proffered as sources for an article about Paul Andrew Mitchell, but rather are intended as mere illustration for the sole purposes of this discussion. I agree wholeheartedly that the only authoritative web source for such an article is Paul Andrew Mitchell's own website at supremelaw.org. Many apologies for the confusion. Thanks again.ElfNinosMom 21:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Has everyone spotted that the article is unprotected now? Stick to WP:V and WP:RS and there should be no further trouble. Guy 22:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)