Talk:Thomas B. Griffith

Utah Law License

Smashingworth: Nobody is trying to keep people from knowing that Griffith never joined the Utah Bar. The problem with your edits is to mislead people into thinking that Griffith did something wrong. He wasn't required to get a law license, as it's a common practice to associate with an in-state attorney in order to advise your in-state clients. The entire paragraph is not written neutrally but from a partisan point of view. There are scare quotes around "clerical oversight." The fact that Griffith did not need the Utah license is only the perspective of "Griffith's defenders." It's a little ridiculous. All I did was delete your redundant and argumentative sentence, which started out quite petulantly, with the words, "Still ..."

Don't pretend that because I'm trying to remove your argumentative way of stating the facts that I'm trying to "Keep the truth from the people!" That's not what this is about.

As of now, the compromise isn't bad, but I still think it could be re-worked. After all, the controversy is really no controversy at all, and the page should explain that, not try and stir the pot.--Smashingworth 21:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thattherepaul: On what planet is one allowed to practice law without a license? How can you say that Griffith "did nothing wrong" when he in fact broke the law? Did you even read the Washington Post article? It says, "Utah State Bar rules require all lawyers practicing law in the state to have a Utah law license. There is no general exception for general counsels or corporate counsels." What motive compels you to keep deleting the fact that Thomas B. Griffith practiced law in Utah for four years without a state license? If a successfully confirmed federal appeals court judge practiced law in Utah for four years without a state license to do so, shouldn't people be allowed to know that? Why do you repeatedly delete this fact? Thattherepaul 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

padillah (talk · contribs)As a third opinion: I think there are strong feelings on both sides and some down time might be what's needed here. It looks like the current incarnation is, if not NPOV at least it encompasses both points of view. We'll need to work on getting rid of the "Supporters say..." vs. "Detractors say..." but I think this is something we can clean-up. And we need some sort of topical reference to the legality of the situation. We have claims that general counsel didn't need to be state licensed and others saying they did. Not being a lawyer, I think that needs to be stated and cited unequivocally. Padillah 17:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Thomas Beall Griffith was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why the source section?

This is a good question. the simple answer is that the fact that the Tom Griffith refered to near the end of the 1994 Church news article is not evident from that article. True, we could ask, how many Tom Griffiths living in the DC area who were Mormon lawyers could there have been in 1994? the answer is, certainly more than one. It is only the later Church News article that clearly indicates that the Thomas Griffith who we are speaking of lived in Leesburg at the time he became Senate Counsel that we can be reaonably certain that there is only one Thomas Griffith. While there may have been multiple Mormon lawyers in the DC area named Tom Griffith, it seems very unlikely that there were multiple Mormon lawyers living in Leesburg named Tom Griffith, so I think my connecting the dots here works. It would help if I could find an article about Griffith's later life that supports his having attended Langley High School, but bios of American figures that are easy to find tend to be remarkably silent on where these people went to high school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Thomas B. Griffith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121007060842/http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19628186/CONFIRMATION-HEARING-ON-THE-NOMINATION-OF-THOMAS-B-GRIFFITH-OF-UTAH-TO-BE-CIRCUIT-JUDGE-FOR-THE-DISTRICT-OF-COLUMBIA to http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19628186/CONFIRMATION-HEARING-ON-THE-NOMINATION-OF-THOMAS-B-GRIFFITH-OF-UTAH-TO-BE-CIRCUIT-JUDGE-FOR-THE-DISTRICT-OF-COLUMBIA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110402221821/http://www.law.cornell.edu:80/supct/pdf/07-320P.ZO to http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-320P.ZO

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)