Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson

Mixed verdict

This seems to be causing some confusion in the press. It's not uncommon for a jury to return a mixed verdict. For example, Elizabeth Holmes was found guilty only on some counts and innocent on others. Yet, she was found guilty of fraud. It would be rare for a white collar criminal to be found guilty of all counts, the prosecutors throw the book and see what sticks with the intention of getting at least some fraud convictions. Any fraud conviction will be a win, in their book, how many is icing on the cake. Guilty of securities fraud should not be downplayed or muddled over, it's quite serious and significant, even if the more serious charge of short and distort was not guilty. Both sides are going to distort things: the SEC will call it a win since they got a fraud result, and Lemelson will say it was win since he was not guilty of the more serious charge. All we can say is he was guilty of some things and not guilty of some other things. It adds nothing for Wikipedia to get involved with the each sides biased POVs how to spin the result. Per WP:10YT. -- GreenC 22:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Some of the statements currently in the article seem problematic to me. For example, the article says that the jury found that the subject "lied about the company recklessly", but the sources cited for this proposition do not support this language. The Law360 source, for example, says that Lemelson "was cleared of allegations that he ran a short-and-distort scheme" but that he was found by the jury to have "violated securities fraud rules three times with specific statements". The rest of the article details assertions by parties to the case, but not jury findings. I also note that the article presently states that the jury found Lemelson "not guilty" of various charges, but this was a civil trial rather than a criminal trial. If the SEC had a case for a criminal prosecution, they would have brought a criminal prosecution, but in a civil case there can only be a finding of civil liability. BD2412 T 05:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"Lied recklessly" is the language of the SEC's suit that was brought against him. Reuters "intentionally or recklessly made false statements" echoes this language. The results here: "The jury determined that the SEC proved Lemelson 'intentionally or recklessly made untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading'". Specifically the jury found found for the Plaintiff on Count 1 which is SEC_Rule_10b-5, which includes reckless, thus this wording was in the SEC complaint, and why sources like Reuters say reckless. I suppose it could be changed to "intentionally or recklessly". You are correct about civil liability that needs to be adjusted. -- GreenC 16:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Our clearest path forward would be to quote the operative language of the non-primary sources reporting on the situation. WP:PRIMARY is very specific in requiring that "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation", which is certainly the case with an interpretation of the outcome of this case based on the language of the charging documents. BD2412 T 17:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"violated securities fraud rules three times with specific statements" is from law360, the judgement says different. It's a vague reading IMO that obscures what he did, which is to lie, it obscures the lying behind "specific statements"; what does that mean "specific statements"? A less legalistic and more accessible interpretation is from Reuters which says he "intentionally or recklessly made false statements about a California biotech company while betting against its stock". This most people can clearly understand. Somewhere we need to say he was found liable for lying ("false statements"). -- GreenC 04:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Law360 is behind a paywall and while there is nothing wrong with that, there are plenty of other reliable sources openly available such as Reuters that are "freely" available. Law360 can't be archived at Wayback or Archive.today. Finally law360 is fairly specialized for the legal community, this is a good example how their choice of language obscures because it assumes certain legal knowledge many readers may not have, we can explain it better with other sources. -- GreenC 04:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Law360 was provided in the article as the source for this proposition before I got here. While it is behind a paywall, anyone with an institutional email address can get a free peek behind that paywall. A source that is specialized for the legal community would seem particularly useful for supporting a specifically legal point (much along the lines of WP:MEDRES being required to support medical claims). It is also legally highly important to note that a "false statement", even one made recklessly, is not necessarily a "lie". If I am certain that it will rain next Thursday, and I say this, and it does not rain, I was not lying for having said that. Absent a reliable secondary source specifying that the subject of a Wikipedia article "lied", it would be a clear WP:BLP violation to interpret the outcome that way. BD2412 T 04:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

OK IANAL but it needs to be said he made false statements. As for sticking to that sole source because it happened to be there before you arrived, I don't understand the rationale for that, there are better sources. Even Law360 has said repeatedly he made false statements: . Outside of Law360 there is Reuters: "Jury in SEC case finds priest shorting biotech's stock made false statements", Barrons, CFO, Haute Living and many others. -- GreenC 15:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Interpretation of sources

A recent edit summary from User:GreenC stated, "makes Lemelson into a victim who won the case, makes it look like the SEC lost the case". This interpretation of the outcome of the SEC v Lemelson case feels unusually biased. Looking at two of the sources included in the article text that was reverted, one says "Jury Clears Priest in ‘Short-and-Distort’ Scheme" and "Ruling only on issues of liability, the jury said Lemelson did not intentionally or recklessly engage in a scheme to defraud Ligand investors..."; and a second one says "Hedge Fund Priest Beats SEC Short-And-Distort Claims" and "A Boston federal jury on Friday absolved a Greek Orthodox priest of fraud claims". That second source also says, "The SEC said in a press release Friday that it won the trial, without mentioning the claims the jury rejected." Note the use of the words clears, beats, and absolved -- all nomenclature that would suggest that Lemelson, at least in part, was a victim who won the case, and that the SEC lost the case. In the end, financially, the SEC wanted to extract a judgment of $2.3 million, but obtained only $160,000. In other words, the SEC got less than 7% of what it sought, but that is not permitted to be characterized as a "loss" for the SEC in the case? Seems odd, especially when taxpayers were likely charged far more than $160,000 just to prosecute the lawsuit.

Considering User:GreenC's activity on this biography for about 8 years, plus their accusation of "white washing", I wonder if there should be a concern that this editor is pushing to WP:OWN the content and how it is portrayed, despite what third-party sources are saying? An admin above said that they "would remind editors that reliable sources discussing this should be allowed to be included as appropriate". That is not happening. The sources are being unilaterally reverted, only minutes after their inclusion. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should be engaging in saying who won or lost a mix-verdict case it's purely opinion and opinions are mixed, it depends on which aspect you want to emphasize. And notice how sources say he "won", then Lemelson is appealing to the SCOTUS - that's not usually what people do who won. Anyway if you want me to break down all the ways your edit was biased towards Lemelson I will do so. I won't respond to your accusations about me personally other than to say 8 years is far too long but that's what we are dealing with here constant non-stop biased editors by a long list of blocked socks and meat-puppets. If you think I have an OWN problem, I will notify our COI noticeboard who can take over, they are much tougher and less lenient than I have been, when faced with difficult pages like this has been. -- GreenC 18:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

If the sources characterize winners and losers in the case, then it is not our place to say that the sources reported it wrong because an appeal is underway. The care that we need to take in relaying information about BLP subjects is not slackened merely because there is a history of biased editing with respect to the article. We do not actively try to import negative inferences beyond what the sources actually say merely to balance out biased editing. BD2412 T 19:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Certainly we don't need to frame this case in a pro-Lemelson way just because one can find a few sources that do so. It would be better to objectively state the facts what happened and leave all the sideline cheerleading out of it. -- GreenC 20:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

A summary of the general sentiment across all available sources would be appropriate. BD2412 T 23:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Most source say it was a mixed-verdict and that is good enough because it's factually true. Even Lemelson can't keep it straight, here he is saying the SEC won: "Hedge Fund Priest Seeks New Trial After 'Trivial' SEC Win". Of course he has to say this, to justify why he wants a new trial. Should we re-write our article to frame it like the SEC had a (small) win? That's what Lemelson is saying and the SEC would agree. But no, we report the facts objectively and fairly. We don't take sides with POVs unless there is overwhelming consensus. -- GreenC 01:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

In that case, let's lay out all the sources and their statements on the matter. Swiss Mister in NY has gotten a start on that process, at least. BD2412 T 02:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I received an automatic notification that my name was invoked, so I feel compelled to reply, even if this is starting to feel a little perplexing. Here's what I don't understand about how this biography has been "supervised"... I believe that reliable sources have tended to convey the following key facts about the SEC action:

1. Internal Ligand e-mail correspondence and trial testimony confirmed that the CEO of Ligand Pharma wanted Lemelson "silenced for good". Any time this sourced fact is introduced to this biography (Barron's and Reuters), it's quickly removed. Why?

2. Ligand's CEO's internal e-mail correspondence seems to have acknowledged Lemelson's evaluation of Promacta, that the treatment could become unneeded in light of cures like Gilead's Sovaldi (Barron's). Would this acknowledgement be allowed in this biography? Doubtful.

3. The involvement of Representative Hunter and former SEC official Bondi to lobby the SEC to bring the charges (Barron's and Law360). If this is mentioned in the biography, it gets removed.

4. Lemelson's refusal to settle the case is in contrast to "the vast majority of civil enforcement cases brought by the SEC" (Barron's), but if this is mentioned in the biography, it's removed.

5. While the SEC claimed that it won the case, one source (Barron's) points out that this "might confuse the historical record". This assessment is not permitted in the biography, though.

6. Various sources quote Lemelson before, during, and after the trial, but it appears that not a single quoted statement from Lemelson is allowed in the Wikipedia biography section about the SEC action. Why? If you look at other biographies involving courtroom cases, it's customary to include quoted statements from the subject.

In all, it feels like some of the important and interesting facts that make the SEC's case relevant to a biography of Lemelson are not just missing from the biography, they're being disallowed (repeatedly) in the biography, despite there being no disagreement that these are factual elements of the case. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Because it's all a lot of trivia that is water under the bridge at this point and not significant for this BLP. The trial is over and yeah we could say a lot of things including about how Lemelson was sanctioned by the judge for manipulating the media while the trial was ongoing (Barron's incident see Talk:Emmanuel_Lemelson/Archive_2#Update - the same Barron's you want to include a pro-Lemelson quote from). Lots of things could be said about Lemelson that would make him look extremely bad. But this BLP doesn't need all that nonsense. It simply states that facts for understanding what Lemelson did, what he was accused of, what the results were. When you add in all the other stuff, the drama, the basic facts gets lost and confused in a lot of drama that is easily manipulated and turns the article into a battleground space that explodes in size, and is difficult to impossible to fairly balance with due WP:WEIGHT. -- GreenC 01:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll restate what an administrator said above: "...this biography contains an interesting and novel instance of case law and judicial ruling. I see that there has been some dispute over the content in the article history, and would remind editors that reliable sources discussing this should be allowed to be included as appropriate. More people editing on a topic is almost always a better thing." So, here I was, providing reliable sources discussing the interesting and novel aspects of the ruling, representing more people editing on the topic, and instead of it being seen as a better thing, my contributions have been summarily reverted (by one entrenched editor, without discussion) as "trivia".

Do we have a reliable source for "manipulating the media", or is that something that an entrenched Wikipedia editor investigated and brought forward as their own WP:NOR conclusion?

Is there any evidence that Barron's did not follow good standards for investigative journalism, and is there any evidence that leaked or shared documents invalidate journalism that makes use of them?

Is it really "trivial" that a US Congressman in the district where a pharmaceutical company is headquartered was influential in bringing a case against our biographical subject person's short-selling of that company's stock? (Not to mention, that the same Representative later was convicted on criminal charges and spent 11 months in prison!) Is that "drama", or is that more appropriately context that shapes the reader's understanding of the SEC case against our biographical subject?

I'm also concerned about the lack of attention of a certain editor, if there is some confusion about the gender of Judge Patti Saris, described here as "he".

The admin's advice above was essentially "lighten up on the reversions of reliably-sourced content", and yet the response seems instead to be doubling down on reverting. It's not a good direction to be heading. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, the admins :) According to User:Smalljim - an admin - who has been involved in this article for probably 8 years, thanked me above: "Thanks for keeping this article compliant with our policies and guidance. The recentism ten year test might be helpful in deciding what should be in the section about the recent litigation." Which is exactly what we are doing, removing all the subjective and cherry picked fluff that lacks context.

• As for manipulating the media, Lemelson was sanctioned by the judge in the middle of the trial for leaking information to Barron's, it may have even been illegal (I'm not sure). The same journalist who Lemelson has a relationship with, the one making the very pro-Lemelson comments, is the same one you claim is a reliable, independent source and want to include in this article. That's just one of the many problems with your proposed edits.
• As for not following good standards at Barron's, I have no idea what a good standard is at Barron's, but that journalist is not independent on this topic. If you disagree we can open a WP:RS discussion and let the community decide.
• As for the Congressman, the judge said there was "barely" evidence of any wrong doing, only enough to do discovery for, and then nothing happened AFAIK nothing came of it, it was a non-issue. Since we don't have all the facts it's difficult to write about it fairly here, but clearly the judge didn't consider it important to the case, why should we? Otherwise it would be misleading to the reader who might reach conclusions the judge didn't who had more evidence then we do.
• As for the gender of the judge, who is a "certain editor"? I didn't write that originally, but I fixed it. Glad you are familiar enough with the judge's gender to quickly pick up on it, we do need experts like you in subjects areas like this for basic facts. -- GreenC 19:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The fee bid was rejected. According to this source. The defendant was seen to have "largely beat a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission suit." In the ruling, the judge acknowledged that the defendant was the “prevailing party,” aligning with the previous news sources that similarly characterized the outcome.

BD2412 T what is your perspective as a lawyer? 178.197.210.61 (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, GreenC. I see our pro-L friend is back in another guise, quacking loudly. For what it's worth, I've tweaked the last few paragraphs to more closely match what I think may be a 10 year view.  —Smalljim  19:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

It's amazing that you would question my intentions when your partner and you can't address the main issue -- that nothing goes on this biography without the approval of two editors, and that's been the case going on 8 years. Should we enter this issue into an RfC? - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

There is not, strictly speaking, a rule that "nothing goes on this biography without the approval of two editors". The rule is that WP:BLP content to which any editor objects must subject to discussion and consensus for inclusion. BD2412 T 18:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Expanding on section about SEC Case + general lack of up-to-dateness

Hi everyone,

I've been reviewing this article and noticed a few areas where we could improve its coverage of Emmanuel Lemelson's career (I've begun editing some of this already):

1. SEC Investigation: The section covering the SEC civil penalty is quite brief, despite previous animated and intense discussions about expanding it. I'd like to re-open the conversation and propose a more thorough examination of this event, given its significance in terms of this article. A more detailed account would better align with Wikipedia's policies on NPOV, Verifiability, and Notability. I propose we expand this section to include:
   • Specific allegations: Clearly outline what the SEC accused Lemelson of (lying about Ligand on "social media, radio programs, written interviews and in papers he published as research reports in an effort to shake investor confidence in the company, lower its stock price and increase the value of his short position. These false claims included that the company was on the brink of bankruptcy" (Source Short-and-Distort Scheme · The Hedge Fund Journal, including the nature of the false statements and how they were disseminated.
   • Impact of the statements: Explain in more depth how these statements have been alleged by the SEC to have influenced the market or investors.
   • Short-selling connection: Clarify the link between the false statements and Lemelson's short-selling activity.
   • Outcome of the case: Detail the specific reasons why Lemelson was cleared of the main charges (to maintain NPOV)
2. Hedge Fund Activities: Before I added the info about The Spruce Peak Fund and its reported performance (vs. SP500 as well), the section detailing Lemelson's hedge fund activities seemed to end abruptly in 2016. Given that he remains an active figure in the financial world, it's important to bring this section up to date with any recent developments in his career. This would ensure the article remains comprehensive and relevant. Does anyone have any secondary sources documenting his post-2017 career/The Spruce Peak Fund or anything else since 2017?
3. His Vermont Home Neighbourhood dispute: This was originally discussed under his clerical career. I think it belongs under the "Personal Life" section with more detail, which I have started adding.

I'm happy to help research and gather reliable sources for these expansions. I'm hoping we can work together to improve this article and ensure it provides a complete, accurate, and up-to-date portrayal of Emmanuel Lemelson's career, including both his successes and any controversies or legal challenges.

Please share any thoughts or concerns you have.

Thanks, Wickster12345 (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

PS (this is just an addendum to the main points I made above). One more thing I would like to stress: I believe we are giving lack of due weight (per Wikipedia's policy- See section titled: Due and undue weight of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by NOT mentioning the more 'legalistic' reasoning, in a few sentences without going overboard, of the reasoning that led to:

1. Lemelson being charged to begin with
2. Lemelson's partial acquittal
3. Lemelson having to pay a civil penalty
4. Lemelson's bid to get USC review denied

Just because this is a biography, this doesn't mean we can't go beyond basic news reporting in discussing legal cases Wickster12345 (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. The current article is precise, neutral, easy to understand, concise and to the point. It does not obscure with attempts to "legally reason". This is not a court room or a law journal or a legal news outlet. The audience is the general reader who has no background or interest in the law that wants a quick 5-10 minute read about the life of Lemelson. This court case was in the main not that complicated, unless we make it so by getting into the weeds and details of who said what and why. This is exactly what the previous socks attempted to do, and the result was a re-hashing of the case and blatantly POVish statements.

Since your proposal is largely in line with previous sock attempts: Other Lemelson socks have shown an interest in Switzerland, like you have, and in translating German-language articles into English, like you have. Your account demonstrates previous Wikipedia experience (not your first account). These are all raising red flags. -- GreenC 05:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I assume good faith intent on your part here: your suspicions (which I respect and understand, because there has been a lot of pro-Lemelson attempted editing on this article) that I am a Lemelson affiliate based on your assumption of an "interest" in Switzerland on my part (An assumption possibly itself based on me having edited Swiss-related pages and written Swiss-related articles recently and translated articles from German- I swear I hadn't even heard of Lemelson until 4 days ago!) are unfounded. I want to be clear: This is the only Wikipedia account I own and have ever owned and I know no one else personally who, to my knowledge, edits or has edited Wikipedia. But let's put this aside.

Back to why the current article needs expansion: Just because it is a Wikipedia guideline to Make technical articles understandable (which refers to technical articles, such as law ones, being made as simple as possible) , this does not per se establish any guideline regarding list of subtopic angles to avoid or go into depth into within an article or subsection which would be relevant to this article. Simplicity and clarity does not mandatorily equal topic specificity and preclude being able to go into depth in certain topics in a clear, succinct way.

Further, you say the audience is supposed to be "general reader". But when you assert that a general reader wants "a quick 5-10 minute read about the life of Lemelson", you are actually making my point for me: This is because some general readers surely want a quick 5-10 minute read solely about the SEC case, some may want a general biographical overview and some may want something else, it's up to them how they want to spend their "5-10 minutes" (I don't think the 5-10 minutes concept is based on any Wikipedia policy or guideline, whether a technical article is understandable or not has only weak bearing on how long it takes to read it, if something is too complicated one could argue people would spend less time and give up). You even say "the court court case was in the main not that complicated", so why should it be so complicated to add clear, simple descriptions of some of the legal underpinnings and, more importantly, an explanation of what Lemelson actually did?

1. Until I added the description of Lemelson writing fake reports and then circulating them to various outlets the reader had absolutely no opportunity to even visualize what this fraud was about. This has nothing to do with he-said she-said, this is about what reputable secondary sources reported on the case.
2. The reader still does not even get ONE sentence explaining why the Supreme Court said they're not reviewing the case.
3. The reader doesn't know why the court said he's guilty of this and not guilty of the other, not ONE sentence

We should be able to add a few explanatory sentences here and there. I am happy to propose some.

Also, you didn't address the question about Lemelson after 2017

Thanks Wickster12345 (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

An SPI has been initiated: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swiss Mister in NY. -- GreenC 01:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Good luck! Wickster12345 (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The SPI is based on the evidence of overlapping coincidences, not a throw of the dice (luck). It's unusual in a site with 6 million pages to see this degree of coincidental overlap. Every item could be explained one way or another, none is conclusive on its own, it's the totality of coincidences. I'm a computer programmer (and trained historian) and when there are multiple matches between two records, in different parts of each record, one can usually say with certainty they are of the same thing. So my concerns remain high. We'll see what anyone else says if anything. In the mean time, if you want to post on the talk page some proposed changes I will give it an honest opinion. -- GreenC 02:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Further sock activity

Lemelson socks continue to push content into Wikipedia, in other articles, including a lengthy paragraph in the judge's article, Patti B. Saris. I don't believe this case rises to the level of notability for inclusion in the judge's lifetime bio. There is some press coverage, about someone who most people have never heard of, in a case that had minor repercussions for everyone involved, that set no legal precedent. Furthermore, previous socks in that article made questionable additions about the judge's personal life. -- GreenC 19:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The edit that was reverted and described as "pushing content into Wikipedia" was initially added by user @BD2412: here Is this the “sock”? It is not easy to find any other cases she presided over that have much media attention.

As for the fee bid commented on above, according to the sources, the defendant had “largely beat a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission suit.” The judge’s July ruling recognized the defendant as the “prevailing party,” which is consistent with earlier reports on the outcome, only now in the Judge’s words. 174.198.1.195 (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

As I have been pinged back here, I generally disagree with the removal of reliably sourced content about a case presided over by a judge. Most federal judges preside over hundreds of cases in their career, but very few get any kind of sustained media attention. To the extent that one does, it should be noted in the article on that judge, particularly if they are called upon to decide novel questions of law, and those decisions are themselves reliably reported, or even given scholarly examination. I think this case is notable for this judge. BD2412 T 21:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The judge has presided over many cases which have received press coverage. Search on her name at nytimes.com for example. Or washingtonpost.com .. dozens of articles (none about Lemelson) ..there is nothing particularly outstanding about this case it's just one more in 100s during her career, it is routine nothing came of it. It's a classic case of WP:UNDUE, and further given the extreme history of sock and COI editing on this topic, it's obviously a backdoor attempt to reframe the story to be favorable to Lemelson. That Law360 piece is cherry picking. -- GreenC 22:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

If you can find better cases, by all means add them to the article. Our articles on federal judges should cover their most significant cases. It does no good for the encyclopedia to assume that there are cases of greater significance, and therefore remove cited content with respect to a case already noted in the article, replacing it with nothing. BD2412 T 22:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the discussion on this talk page, the concern with the exclusion of reputable sources like Barron's, Reuters, and Law360 is understandable. I believe it's important to take a more inclusive approach and refrain from dismissing these sources solely based on perceived bias in favor of the subject. It's vital to consider the consensus across these sources rather than labeling them as biased.

The following are just a few examples of aspects of the case reported in multiple reliable sources that stand out for notability but are missing from the page:

1. The case was unprecedented in its nature, representing the first-of-its-kind SEC case (where a defendent was accused of securities fraud for true statements about a company he didn't trade in).

2. Only a small percentage of SEC cases actually go before a judge, (this particular case may have been the only one Judge Saris presided over).  98% of SEC cases are typically resolved through settlements before reaching trial.

3. The involvement of a sitting US Congressman in compelling the charges and his subsequent guilty plea to felony offenses.

4. The magistrate judge’s finding of evidence of ‘selective enforcement’ and ‘bias,’ raised important questions about the fairness of the charges. The magistrate then allowed the defendant to depose the SEC, which is apparently unheard of.

5. Internal emails from the pharmaceutical company confirming the defendant was right about his commentary and that they wanted him “silenced for good”

6. The SEC issuance of multiple false press releases following the trial, claiming that they prevailed on the fraud charges.

7. The defendant's comments were ranked as the "spiciest courtroom quotes of 2022," further demonstrating broad media interest in the case.

Most post-trial sources indicate that the defendant prevailed over the SEC. The judge herself has recently acknowledged that the defendant was the ‘prevailing party’.

Once reliable sources are removed and excluded, the case becomes just another ordinary one.  At the same time new details were added to the section that were never charged yet remain.

A new section was recently added about a local subdivision dispute with neighbors.  The source is an unknown local newspaper.  However, the above unprecedented SEC litigation, involving dozens (if not hundreds) of reliable sources from global financial media, is almost entirely omitted, with all notable aspects excluded. The subdivision section is actually larger than the section on the SEC litigation.

If there are too many exclusions, it seems like it becomes original research by omission. 174.208.229.21 (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph added to Patti B. Saris editorialized to tell readers that this case was 'notable' but did nothing to explain why it was notable at all, much less notable to Saris. The paragraph matched the tone of previous sock activity. Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the characterization of the case, which any editor can improve. The issue is that a cited instance of a case presided over by the judge was removed entirely, with the rationale that it was relatively insignificant, and without any support for the implied proposition that this was, in fact less significant than other cases over which this judge has presided. A federal case important enough to cover in any article in Wikipedia is likely important enough to cover in the article of the judge who presided over it. BD2412 T 00:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What is important to Lemelson isn't inherently important to any other article. We summarize sources to explain those kinds of things. As I said, if this is 'notable' we should explain why it is notable without having to just tell readers that it based on vague precedent or disputed assumptions. Without context it is better to leave it out completely than to leave it in as something that was indistinguishable from a back-door PR attempt. Grayfell (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Most people in the world (including most federal litigants) are non-notable. A judge presiding over the case of a notable person seems inherently notable to me, particularly if the case is not a quickly dismissed or settled matter. As for the context, that can be supplied. Deleting the content instead merely deprives the reader of a point of information in a way that avoids doing the work of explaining the information. BD2412 T 01:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

One thing we have learned over the past 8 years, give this editor an inch, they take a mile, they do not stop. The judge's article is just the start, they are in 15 pages and some others are also questionable. Lemelson and/or supporters have managed to turn this SEC case into something far bigger than it was in reality. Minor issues are inflated into major things. See Lemelson in Duncan D. Hunter for example - which neglects to mention nothing ever came of that investigation! It was a non-event, yet there is an entire paragraph about it in this persons bio and it incorrectly portrays what happened. The judge's article is another example. They are using Wikipedia to promote Lemelelson while also portraying him as a victim.

I don't know why these socks keep pinging you, they obviously consider you an ally. If there was organic inclusion of material by legitimate editors I would see your support, but these are not organic editors they are clearly COI accounts and encouraging them only emboldens them to continue an ever increasing amount of disruption. -- GreenC 15:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I do think the pinging is unfortunate, as I am not interested in being associated with their crusade. I have been working on working on U.S. federal judicial matters for over fifteen years, which has tended to bring me to a good number of litigation controversies, and I suppose the sock hopes to trade on my reputation by involving me in this one. As frustrating as this is, however, I continue to think that it is objectively reasonable to note this case in the article on the judge. What if we just had a minimal line saying "From 2018 to 2024, Saris presided over the SEC case against Emmanuel Lemelson", and leave the interested readers to find the details of the case here? BD2412 T 16:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

When you give tacit support to their goals, they continue making you an ally. I have been in the same position many times, including in this article previously when I attempted compromise. But it doesn't work, give an inch they take a mile. And they don't stop, going on 8 or 9 years now. You will continue to be pinged, for many years into the future. You are directly associated with the Lemelson socks. It is very easy, don't deal in good faith with known bad faith actors, it is personally degrading, and bad for Wikipedia. Until they disclose their COI. Keep in mind, this article was created by a notorious sock farm. The same people involved with that outfit are still here, and most likely the person/organization who paid for it.

Now, we might add a single sentence, but alone it would be undue weight, require some additional sentences about other cases. However, they will be back, because give an inch they take a mile. They will add more content in that article, and in other articles. It opens up a new locations for disruption. They are extremely determined, focused and never stop. -- GreenC 16:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but taking reliably sourced information out of an article because a sock would like to have it in the article is still shaping content in response to the sock rather than for the benefit of the reader. I am stepping back from this topic, and will leave it to you to determine what is appropriate with respect to Patti B. Saris. Further discussion on what should be included in that article should take place on the talk page of that article. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not so much that there are "vague, precedent or disputed assumptions” or a lack of “context “; valid edits are being removed. For example, another editor on this talk page suggested a new page for SEC vs. Lemelson. One was created using neutral, reliable and consensus-based sources. Unfortunately, the page, like the information on the judge's page, was taken down (and turned into a draft) where no other editor can easily find or work on it. @Swiss Mister in NY, pointed out that there are only two editors who insist on removing information about this case, which has possibly hundreds of media references, making it stand out from other cases. 174.208.229.21 (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

EAJA Case

In July 2024, the Court acknowledged Lemelson as the “prevailing party” in the SEC matter, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).

Due to the contentious edit history related to the case and the court’s detailed interpretations of the legal issues involved, the source is provided here for reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:59C8:21FC:6C10:CDF0:36D4:27B3:8163 (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

In this edit Special:Diff/1258709887/1259806076 you removed statements not contained in a primary source. However, those statements are sourced, to a reliable secondary source. Wikipedia is a secondary source based encyclopedia ie. we report what secondary sources report. The statements you removed are accurate, sourced to a reliable secondary source, and they provide context as the nature of what exactly happened. Just saying "reports with false statements" is obscure it could be anything. -- GreenC 14:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The statements under consideration do not constitute formal allegations, as they lack sufficient factual support. This absence of supporting detail may account for their appearance in lesser-known publications. While The Hedge Fund Journal may be a recognized outlet within the financial sector, the information it presents may not meet the standards for inclusion in an encyclopedic context.

To ensure a balanced representation, it is essential to incorporate comparable information from counter-allegations if the uncharged assertions are to be included, thus providing a more balanced view.

For enhanced comprehensiveness and neutrality within this section, it is recommended to reference major secondary sources and reputable law journals. This approach would align with established encyclopedic standards and contribute to a well-rounded understanding of the subject matter.

Suggested sources for reference include prominent legal analyses and critiques published in recognized journals that are widely accepted within the legal community.

Here is a suggestion for the section based on such sources:

SEC v. Fr. Emmanuel Lemelson et al.

In SEC v. Fr. Emmanuel Lemelson et al. (D. Mass., No. 18-cv-11926), the SEC accused Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management (LCM) of defrauding investors to benefit from a short position in Ligand Pharmaceuticals. The SEC alleged that Lemelson made false or misleading statements about Ligand’s operations and its drug Promacta in 2014, seeking penalties, a permanent injunction, and restrictions under the Securities Exchange Act and Investment Advisers Act.

Lemelson denied the claims, arguing that Ligand had pressured the SEC through lobbying, including a presentation portraying him as "dishonest." A magistrate allowed Lemelson to investigate potential SEC bias and selective enforcement, referencing Ligand’s efforts and a letter from former Congressman Duncan Hunter.

After a seven-day trial, the jury found Lemelson liable for three misstatements regarding a different company, Viking Therapeutics but rejected claims of a fraudulent scheme or Investment Advisers Act violations. Lemelson was absolved of all Ligand-related accusations contained in his reports.  LCM was absolved of all claims.

The court imposed a $160,000 civil penalty and limited injunctive relief to five years. The judgment was upheld on appeal (SEC v. Lemelson, 57 F.4th 17, 1st Cir. 2023).

In July 2024, a court ruling established that Lemelson was recognized as the prevailing party according to the standards set forth by the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).

The case is notable as a rare “short-and-distort” prosecution and the first of its kind, where the defendant openly disclosed their short position. 2605:59C8:21FC:6C10:CDF0:36D4:27B3:8163 (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The Hedge Fund Journal looks like a reliable source. It's just giving some factual examples of what he did. Do you have a reliable independent secondary source that confirms this was a "first of its kind" case? That does not include your own interpretation of primary source court documents. -- GreenC 16:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The piece republished in the Hedge Fund Journal appears to be a reprint of content produced by a private law firm, lacking independent editorial oversight. As such, this source may not fulfill the reliability standards set by Wikipedia for secondary sources.

Furthermore, the inquiry arises regarding the existence of credible sources that substantiate claims of specific actions taken by the individual in question. If verifiable examples of such actions were indeed present, one would reasonably anticipate their inclusion in the legal charges filed against him.

The proposed text is derived from law journals and reputable news sources such as Reuters rather than from primary sources or personal interpretations.

The uniqueness of this case can be attributed to reliable sources, which are elaborated upon in the following sections.

"The SEC often sues defendants for lies told to “pump and dump” a stock but it has filed just a handful of enforcement cases alleging a “short and distort” campaign, and none where the investor publicly announced that he was short." 2605:59C8:21FC:6C10:CDF0:36D4:27B3:8163 (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Are there any additional comments, feedback, or insights regarding the proposed text as outlined above? 2605:59C8:21FC:6C10:7970:CB53:4074:631D (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with it. The article as it exists now is fine. -- GreenC 17:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The Hedge Fund Journal's reprint of content created by a private law firm lacks independent editorial oversight and raises questions about its reliability. Furthermore, the hearsay it reports has no evidentiary basis and was not included in the charges, which warrants examination in any context of encyclopedic standards. 2600:1000:B160:959C:847B:711D:1F2:5794 (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The following version is being resubmitted for consideration because it contains enhanced detail and presents a more comprehensive, encyclopedic analysis supported by referenced materials:

SEC v. Fr. Emmanuel Lemelson et al.

In SEC v. Fr. Emmanuel Lemelson et al. (D. Mass., No. 18-cv-11926), the SEC accused Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management (LCM) of defrauding investors to benefit from a short position in Ligand Pharmaceuticals. The SEC alleged that Lemelson made false or misleading statements about Ligand’s operations and its drug Promacta in 2014, seeking penalties, a permanent injunction, and restrictions under the Securities Exchange Act and Investment Advisers Act.

Lemelson denied the claims, arguing that Ligand had pressured the SEC through lobbying, including a presentation portraying him as "dishonest." A magistrate allowed Lemelson to investigate potential SEC bias and selective enforcement, referencing Ligand’s efforts and a letter from former Congressman Duncan Hunter.

After a seven-day trial, the jury found Lemelson liable for three misstatements regarding a different company, Viking Therapeutics but rejected claims of a fraudulent scheme or Investment Advisers Act violations. Lemelson was absolved of all Ligand-related accusations contained in his reports.  LCM was absolved of all claims.

The court imposed a $160,000 civil penalty and limited injunctive relief to five years. The judgment was upheld on appeal (SEC v. Lemelson, 57 F.4th 17, 1st Cir. 2023).

In July 2024, a court ruling established that Lemelson was recognized as the prevailing party according to the standards set forth by the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).

The case is notable as a rare “short-and-distort” prosecution and the first of its kind, where the defendant openly disclosed their short position.

2600:1000:B160:959C:847B:711D:1F2:5794 (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm really OK with the current version, and find the above to be unnecessarily detailed and not neutral for what it chooses to include and exclude and how it's worded. The above is pro-Lemelson in what it emphasizes. Our current article is fine, and if readers want more details there are many sources there. -- GreenC 01:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The most prominent sources, including Reuters and Barron's, were copied and pasted into ChatGPT with instructions to create an encyclopedic summary. The aim was to achieve a neutral perspective and avoid pro-(or anti) Lemelson bias. The preceding text is the output from the generated results.

Is the current live version possibly biased and not the above text created by a neutral AI chatbot? 2600:1000:B166:CA5F:AD7A:A54A:254C:7A82 (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Are we supposed to be impressed by your chat bot text? WP:LLM and WP:RSPCHATGPT. You don't even provide the prompt you used to verify it! Not to mention some of the sources you mention are not neutral in the first place. Obviously you are using chat bots now, this is a further problem we need to deal with. -- GreenC 18:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Which prompt would you like for verification?  Can you clarify where Reuters and Barron’s are perceived as lacking neutrality so we can address it? 174.242.133.23 (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you agree the Hedge Fund Journal cite is not a reliable source, since the content was created by a third-party private law firm that lacks independent editorial oversight? 174.192.14.217 (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Emmanuel_Lemelson/Archive_2#Update - Lemelson leaks information to the press in a prejudicial manner. This particular Barron journalist was collaborating with Lemelson. We can not trust this journalist to operate independently of Lemelson. Also, you are obviously someone with a COI related to Lemelson, and should not be editing this article at all. -- GreenC 20:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Based on the previous discussion on this page, it appears that Barron’s did not collaborate with Lemelson, nor was there any known deviation from its standard editorial process. The fact that Barron’s possessed privileged documents does not equate to collaboration.

There is no evidence presented indicating any flaws in the article, and no corrections have been issued. It is also noted that the text in question was largely derived from a Reuters article. In this context, it may be helpful to point out any specific concerns regarding the Reuters article.

Why do you assume there is a COI?

User:Wickster12345 who has been editing this page, and apparently as an IP as well has a COI The editor is connected to the school attended by the children of the subject and appears to have formed opinions about the subject based on those communications. 174.192.9.29 (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

We assume there is a COI because of your edits, comments, and the long history of COI editing at the article. Your attempts to deflect to some other editor only undermines your case. Grayfell (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I may have accidentally deleted your last post. If I did, it was unintentional. 174.242.133.203 (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

COI Editing

A new section is being created based on the preceding discussion. The text below was previously removed from this talk page under the EAJA section:

This text below in particular would seem to be disqualifiying for user User:Wickster12345 from editing this page. The explanations provided regarding the SPI (below) lack support from reliable sources and are based on "personal opinions" formed through relationships with individuals associated with the subjects’ children’s school.

“…I know people (I guess one could say 'in the 2nd degree') who have a TASIS affiliation and of course, word got around in that community that Lemelson was initiating conflict on the basis of disagreeing with TASIS on something (initially sex-ed, but he semi-manically... I have already developed personal opinions about his campaign: I personally think he writes in a way that seems he gets his 'jollies' this way, because his (in my opinion) grandiose appeals...

...just wanted to add some up-to-date specifics and color to the Lemelson Wikipedia article about his documented conduct (what did he exactly do eg. manipulate documents, censor critical reviews of himself, engage in fake distorted analysis etc.) for which he was held responsible by the SEC.

...I know someone who works at TASIS and by extension got interested in Lemelson."

This section, particularly the bolded text, addresses concerns about potential conflicts of interest in the editing activities of Wickster and related IP accounts.

There are insufficient reliable sources to support the claims made about the BLP. The editor introduced one source that is clearly unreliable, originating from a blog post. This source includes assertions of document manipulation, censorship of critical reviews, and involvement in fake analysis. The BLP was not charged with these accusations and was specifically cleared of any accusations of manipulation.

Additionally, Wickster has stated that his claims are based on personal opinions formed from interactions with individuals affiliated with the institution reportedly attended by the BLP's children (TASIS). He notes that these views arise from the institution’s conflict with the BLP.

Thus, Wickster has aimed to make positive edits to the school’s page while engaging in negative edits to the BLP page. Wickster was previously listed as a COI editor on the institution’s page but removed himself from the list.

If we take Wickster at his word, this scenario presents a significant conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.242.133.203 (talk • contribs)

And you are obviously the same individual who has been harrowing this talk page for the past 10 years tying up 100s of hours of wasted labor by good faith editors with your constant stream of complaints and sock accounts. I suggest you take your own advice and stop editing this page now and forever under any account or IP. -- GreenC 19:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)