Talk:Stephen M. Cohen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Stephen M Cohen article

Hello Bbb23 Tonight, I reversed your reversal of my contribution to the Stephen M. Cohen article. The source I used is the most recognized source for United States Federal Court Opinions used by every valid news source worldwide. Furthermore this article is directly on point in reference to the Cohen article.

Second, it is a very important case as it gives substantial rights to a third party of which a judgment creditor has tried to take an unlawful advantage as Kremen did in this specific case by going after Cohen's cousin Michael Joseph Cohen. Once the court issued its Summary Judgment is also granted the defendant the right to file a malicious Prosecution action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This is the first case granting third party rights against a judgment creditor who filed a fraudulent complaint without any legal merit against an innocent third party.

With all due respect, why would you remove my contribution? If Wikipedia does not want editors that provide valid information then we as editors need to know so. Vanessamx (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

In response to DR.K

The article and the united States Court order issued by Judge Lucy Koh is not an editor's dispute and there is no bases for an editor's consensus unless: 1) The Court is not a valid court, 2) The Judge is not an Article 3 Judge under the United States Constitution; 4) The order is false and not issued by the Article 3 Judge, or 5) the Article's website FIND A CASE has been hijack and the order has been tampered with. Please remove your reversal as it has no merit in this specific case unless you believe one of the above is true. If so, please state so. Vanessamx (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems with your edit. The first problem is technical: You signed your name in the article. This is not allowed. The second problem regards your sources. You are using the actual court document to back up your information. Such use of sources is flawed and falls under
WP:PRIMARY source regulations. You must find newspapers or other media which report this decision. And don't forget not to sign your name in the main article when you edit again. I hope this helps. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Dr.K. I will look for other sources before I update and I will also not sign my name in the main article. Thank you for taking the time to explain. Vanessamx (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Thank you for your patience. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 10:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pitching in, Dr. K. Vanessa, even assuming you find a reliable secondary source, you may have problems with the edit. My recollection is the material was somewhat tangential to the subject and could be problematic. I'm sure you disagree, which is fine, but that may mean we have to discuss this further to reach a
WP:BRD, which means that if an editor (you) adds material to an article and is reverted by another editor (me), you're not supposed to restore the material without discussing the matter. I'll, of course, wait to see what you come up with, but this process is sometimes frustrating, particularly for new editors, so I wanted to give you a heads up. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Open for discussion on a consensus

WP:BRD
Forbes wrote an article about Kremen's Failure to prove Fraudulent Transfer between Stephen Michael Cohen and his cousin Michael Joseph Cohen: [1][1] It is time we as editors are able to correct the Stephen Cohen article. Vanessamx (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that article is usable -- though not for the text that you earlier added. The judgment doesn't absolve Cohen of anything -- it simply says that Kremen has failed to provide enough evidence to justify continuation of the case and explains the issues that make such cases difficult in circumstances like this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity this article only relates to the statement on the Cohen family members being sued. See "Courts have ruled in Kremen's favor several times since 2006, with evidence that seven individuals, including some of Cohen's family members, and twelve companies were used to help him hide the money" It also relates to the fact that a judgment creditor must prove his allegations before a judgment can be issued. Kremen filed an action against Cohen's other family members and his Mexican Attorney who at the time according to the record, never spoke or wrote in English and most importantly were Mexican Citizens living in Mexico. He won because they were unable to understand the complaint and failed to respond within the time period required.

If no one else has an objection then I will write a comment on February 10, 2012

I intend to add "Courts have ruled in Kremen's favor however, Cohen's cousin "Michael Joseph Cohen was granted "summary judgment" against Gary Kremen for his failure to prove that Stephen Michael Cohen, a debtor has in fact transferred assets to his cousin in violation of the California Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Michael Joseph Cohen is now in the process of suing Kremen for $67,867,953 which is the exact amount Kremen sued for. The case of Kremen v Michael Joseph Cohen is an important case for third parties that are sued wrongfully. I will also put in the Forbes reference. Vanessamx (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that the Forbes source
verifies all of that text. For instance, there is no mention of the California Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. I'd also want to know what passage of that source supports the assertion of the case's importance. In any event, thanks for indicating your intentions here -- this is exactly how talk pages are meant to be used in deciding how to edit the articles. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Nomoskedasticity: The article in FORBES does mention the California Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. In the Forbes article they mention prevail under the UFTA. The UFTA is the California Fraudulent Transfer Act. Here is another FORBES article on the exact same subject. [2] Note: This article was written on 1/31/13 by the exact same author.

The Forbes author only commented about the Summary judgment issued by United States District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California. The very first article appeared on December 23, 2011 See [3][4]

This case is so important because if means that a Judgment Creditor does not have the absolute right to go after a third party, or a family members of a judgment debtor without good cause. Judge Kohl ruled that Plaintiff has demonstrated through repeated failure to prove his case that he simply does not have evidence of fraudulent transfers from S. Cohen to M. Cohen and consequently, she issued summary judgment. [5] This is the first case where a Title 3 Judge has ruled for a third party.Vanessamx (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see
WP:BLPPRIMARY. And, to indicate sources on the talk page here, don't use the <ref> templates -- simply enclose the web address in square brackets: [ and ]. As things stand, I can't click on the links you are providing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Nomoskedasticity I have no objection of taking out the importance, even though I think the public is entitled to know these rights. Vanessamx (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've reinserted the material and it won't wash. First, the source for the first sentence (summary judgment) is from a blog. It may be a Forbes blog but it's written by an attorney and it's written like an opinion piece. We can't use it as a reliable source. The sources for the second sentence are primary sources with copies of different opinions form the court. I'm reverting what you added, and I suggest you be a bit more careful. This idea that the "public is entitled to know" may be good for newspapers, but this is an encyclopedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the page back to the original page after the following people were deleted by Wikipedia 1. Ryulong This user has been banned from editing Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee. Youreallycan 2. CheckUser evidence confirms that the owner of this account has abusively used multiple accounts. Vanessamx (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why that means we should prefer your version over the previous one. Please explain. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First this is not about me. I am not requesting that the article be reverted back to anything I have written. I have no ego. However the article should be reverted back to the point prior to when Ryulong first changed the article.

As you are aware, Ryulong was banned by Wikipedia Arbitration Committee not once but twice. Once when he was removed an an administrator and once thereafter.

If you had taken the time to research the article that you cited, you would have notice that this was not a case involving Stephen M. Cohen. It was a case against his cousin Michael Joseph Cohen that was filed by Gary Kremen. Kremen paid Jay Adkisson an attorney who writes for Forbes to write the original article which he purposely mixed up both Cohens. Summary Judgement was issued to Michael Cohen against Gary Kremen based upon Fraudulent allegations in the complaint and the fraudulent article written in Forbes. Michael Cohen has subsequently sued Forbes and Adkisson in the District Court for the fraudulent article written on Christmas Eve.

Many court documents were filed by Stephen Cohen in the District Court alleging that Kremen has hired many publishers to write article which in fact were fraudulent. CNN was about to publish a major story about Stephen M. Cohen until their research found that over 70% of the story was in fact fraudulent. In the early days of the internet when the original case was filed many stories were written in the internet which were later picked up by major newspapers. In those days no one check to see if the stories were in fact real. Today, major newspapers due to legal actions now have a valid check and balance system.

Most interesting was the fact that Judge James Ware and Magistrate Judge Patricia v Trumbull were assigned to the original case of Kremen v Stephen M. Cohen. Magistrate Judge Trumbull California State Bar number 58504 was forced to RESIGN from the bench and she lost her license to practice law while sitting as a Magistrate Judge in the Cohen case.

Judge Ware was appointed chief judge in the Northern District and moved to San Francisco from San Jose to take that position. After receiving visitors from the Department of Justice in Washington he immediately resigned as Chief Judge and was forced into retirement.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to maintain articles that have merit and are truthful. Hiring others to write fraudulent articles determined by a court of law to be fraudulent and then placing them in Wikipedia only reduces the value of the hard work each editor does in other articles.

I have no problem with the truth being printed however I do have a problem when the facts do not support the articles Vanessamx (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ {{cite web|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/jayadkisson/2013/01/19/kremen/%7Ctitle=Kremen's Failure to prove Fraudulent Transfer |publisher=Forbes |date=2013-1-19

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 02:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen M. Cohen. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_M._Cohen&oldid=1201013342"