Talk:Joseph Jett

Please Do Not Delete Properly Sourced Material

Everyone puts in time to add to knowledge on Wikipedia. Let's not let personal biases destroy that. Restored the page to included the inputs (including my own) that were properly sourced from NYTimes and Barrons. Personally, I am a woman and a cancer survivor who came here after an interest in Michael Milken, another Wall Street Rogue, who has contributed significantly to cancer research. Interested if Mr. Jett has supported any charities or is in anyway philanthropic. The page needs to be fleshed out like Milken's in my opinion. Cancerwontwin (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Cancerwontwin! I wanted to answer your question regarding charitable organizations. I am one of Mr. Jett's 30,000 twitter followers. He was gracious enough to contact me about my 5yr. old son's severe gluten and peanut allergies and I can always count on hearing from him when my boy is ill. Mr. Jett has a child with severe peanut allergy himself and he is very active in the child food allergy community. I cannot tell you how many of my friends have done a double take after realizing who it was that was tweating us with concern for our children. Mr. Jett created and chairs the charitable Anaphylaxsis Foundation to raise funding for immunotherapy treatment of peanut allergy. Such treatment is available in the UK but is vastly underfunded in the USA as use of the peanut germ itself obiviates interest of the drug industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.168.78 (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

IP Editor: This would be a nice addition to the article. Do you have a website for this foundation or other source? I searched on Anaphylaxsis Foundation on Google and came up with two hits for foundations with similar names, but Jett's name was not mentioned as a director or founder of either of them. If you can provide a reliable source we could always add that into a Present Day section. Right now it's unsourced, so cannot be added. Oh, and cancerwon'twin has not edited since November 2010, so it's unlikely they will see your message, just FYI. Regards, --Manway (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Joe's "30,000 twitter followers" are entirely acquired through follow-back services. He himself is following 34,000 in order to secure this 30,000. All of this is done through automated follow-back services, which you can see through his tweet history. There are no real tweets by Joe, it is only thousands of "thanks for the followback" using some kind of software program. Joe has fake employees working at his fake hedge fund (Joel Kaplan, anyone?), does fake speaking engagements to fake high school students, and now he has a fake twitter follower who admires his fake peanut-allergy charity. How nice. 89.248.128.101 (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Joe Jett is editing this page...

Joe Jett is editing this page, including passages from his mainly fictional autobiography which was discredited in several SEC decisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.173.99 (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Joe Jett posts here under these identities, FYI

slumdog0416 cancerwontwin ma'atma'at deaththrow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.173.99 (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone is back

Holy crap. Look at the edits on March 7th. Is this guy back editing his own article again? --Manway (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

History of this Wikipedia Page. An essay in attempted character assasination.

Comix and I are high school students who had the pleasure of hearing Mr. Jett speak at our school for black history month, Feb 2011. I am African-American. Comix is white for whatever it matters. We did a paper on Reginald Lewis and Jett, pioneers of African Americans on Wall Street, both proud men who challenged the prevailing powers and both bizarrely barred from practicing their profession.

This Wikipedia page began in 2007 as the brainchild of Mitch Cox of Barclays Wealth Management and Jett's former girlfriend, Melissa Leonardo of Merrill Lynch. According to Leonardo, Cox advised her to seize Jett's equity in the home Jett alone had invested equity into and simultaneously to launch this Wikipedia page. The page long asserted that Jett had failed to gain his Harvard MBA, had been found criminally liable by the SEC and that his business, Jett Capital Management did not exist. By seizing the home equity, they prevented Jett from having legal counsel when, after 13 years his case finally went before the District Court. Their long term goal was to cripple Jett financially.

For 3 years their assertions have dominated this page. However, in October 2010, Wikipedia's attorneys agreed that the page was libelous and defamatory and took steps to remove the assertions of criminal conviction and made it clear that Jett had earned his Harvard MBA on schedule with the Harvard MBA Class of 1987.

The love triangle between Jett, Cox and Leonardo and now the ebb and flow of the New Jersey Family Court custody battle between Leonardo and Jett are being played out on this Wikipedia page. So if anyone goes back and reviews the archives, you will note that this is personal not in the least bit scholarly. Jett does not edit this page as he is threatened with imprisonment and the loss of his children in New Jersey Family Courts if he dares assert his own innocence despite being a public figure.

Comix and I have taken properly referenced material so that Jett is fleshed out. The efforts to have this page ignore Jett's present business, the impact of race, or the media juggernaut in GE that accused him is nonsensical. Likewise for anyone to champion an organization so clearly incapable of justice as the SEC the single arbiter of justice is incredible.

Please add your own properly referenced material to this page and do not remove ours.

Relief03082011 (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

First off, please read WP:OWN. Especially the following: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." A checkuser request has been completed on both Comix and Relief, showing that they came from the same IP address, as well as one other user. I have no ill will against yo, Mr. Jett. This article must remain encyclopedic. If you believe it is defamatory, please contact an administrator with your concerns. But do not re-add your unencylopedic and promotional material again. --Manway (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say this issue has been raised at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Biography of Living Persons Complaint

I received a message from the fellow who removed our additions to the Joseph Jett page. I include it here in hopes that you will actually look at what was added, what was deleted and the references used and the fact that the SEC was contacted regarding the unreferenced post which was the only one that Comix deleted. And of course we have the same IP address we are sitting two feet apart.

Dear Manway, I notice from all the comments that anyone posting a favorable article must be Mr. Jett. Please do not be juvenile.

I filed a complaint with the biography of living persons as to our edits. We fleshed out the Jett article from properly referenced major newspapers and magazines after a black history month look at black pioneers on Wall Street. I do not understand your beef. The article championed the SEC without noting that the SEC has a 94% conviction ratio. Is that not pertinent information? We sourced the SEC report so how can there be criticism of that.

Jett's color certainly played a roll in this affair. We cited from major newspaper articles about the impact of race. You say that this is not scholarly? We added that GE own NBC and did a story on Law & Order based on Jett. AGain what is your issue with this? We used IMDB as the source. The media power of GE certainly played a role in the Jett case. How is this not a pertinent addition?

You should not have the right to remove anything that does not support your particular bias. We certainly did not. We did talk to the SEC. They knew nothing of a 2009 SEC investigation, but did send us to their website for the conviction ratio table. Since the 2009 SEC investigation had no reference cited and the SEC knew nothing we removed it. How is this not scholarly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relief03082011 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 8 March 2011 Relief03082011 (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What was the BLP violation in the timeline?

Manway, what was the BLP violation in the timeline? I found that to be the most informative part of the article. Can it be restored with just the BLP violation edited out?

Also, I do find it odd, as another user pointed out, that Jett's position at Jett Capital is the lead in the introduction. Jett is famous for his Kidder Peabody fraud. I googled "jett capital" and there is nothing except Jett's own website.

On another note, those two high school kids who share an IP address sure know a lot about Jett and his ex-wife's custody battles! Curious, that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.26.207.92 (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Also Manway, I think the January edits from "Code3663" you are going to find came from the same IP address. The stuff put in then (in a Jan 18 edit) is just more Jett puffery, and this edit also removed some valid, referenced stuff. Maybe the page could be restored to pre-Jan 18, with whatever edits you think need to get it in compliance with BLP policy? Your choice. But when I go back to a pre-Jan 2011 version of the page, it has much much better information than before Jett started editing again. Thanks for the help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.26.207.92 (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Added back the SEC investigation and charges, but not in timeline format. Also changed the intro. Numbacrunch (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice job, Numbacrunch. Sorry folks, real life intruded for a while. Just got back. To the IP editor, the BLP violation was calling Jett's ex-girlfriend a lapdancer. Source for that was a tabloid - and the reference was in quotes. Not reliable and a clear BLP violation. --Manway (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Manway had rolled back to the Nov 5 version and the page should have been left there. Just prior to the Nov revisions, Wikipedia had stepped in because the page was defamatory. If you go back, you will find that the page did assert criminality and academic fraud on jett's part. Numbacrunch's edit seems headed back in that direction by means of inclusion of specific material and exclusion of others. This creates a point of view. The interesting aspect of the Jett case was the controversy "Did he or Didn't He?" The SEC investigation said guilty but FBI and NASD (FINRA)investigations said innocent. No mention of the FBI and NASD investigations? The NASD forcing GE to return Jett's money not worthy of mention? Encyclopedic or pushing a point of view? Critiqueofreason (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Critiqueofreason: New editor. Just registered. Only edit to this page. Big red flag, sorry. Could you tell us your background with this article? --Manway (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Manway and Critiqueofreason, I have added in the NASD arbitration results, which had been there in past versions but had been lost. Hopefully this will make the article more objective. I couldn't find any source on the FBI investigation, if anyone can provide me a source on that, or include it yourself in an objective manner, that would be helpful.

Regarding the continued assertions that "Wikipedia's lawyers" had stepped in in Nov 2010 to clean up this page, can you expand on what you are talking about? I have been contributing to this page for a long while and know nothing about this. Its not in any of the history. How is it that all these brand-new editors to Wikipedia know detailed information about this, including these two (or is it three?) high school students who have a huge grudge against Joe Jett's ex-girlfriend, and share an IP address? Numbacrunch (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Bias in article

Hi guys, I have noted in the article that no criminal charges were filed, and that the NASD arbitration panel let Jett keep his bonuses. Hopefully this makes the article more complete and addresses the bias issue raised by a poster here. Numbacrunch (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey crew. Just want to further discuss the above poster's assertion that saying that culpability for the loss is still in dispute, and that this page should reflect it. Specifically, user "Critiqueofreason" says "the SEC investigation said guilty but FBI and NASD (FINRA)investigations said innocent."

The SEC definitely said guilty of securities fraud, that is clear. The NASD was only involved with the narrow issue of the freezing of Jett's bonuses, and ruled on that. They did not find him "innocent," they just said in 1996 (before the SEC charge was final) that Kidder had no grounds to hold onto Jett's money. They were not ruling on his responsibility for the losses.

The US Attorney's office decided not to charge Jett criminally and left the matter to the SEC. That is not the same as finding him innocent. The fact that the SEC (the primary US government agency with authority over the securities industry) found him to have committed fraud is enough to say unequivocally that he committed fraud. Yes, Jett continues to dispute this and declare his innocence. Yes, initially there were questions regarding who was at fault. The 2004 rulings however, established the final word on the case, and there is no longer any question on the findings of fact from the SEC's perspective, and we should reflect that here. Numbacrunch (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Jetts view

an editor said that jett's book claimed a court cleared him of wrongdoing. this may be what jett's book claimed, but it it not true. i don't think it should be in this article, unless a new section is started "inconsistencies with jett's book and the truth". i believe that the publisher stopped all promotion and distribution of this book because of the inconsistencies with facts on record, once this was raised by kidder's lawyers. though i would have to dig up a source on that. for those with any inside view on the case, including the sec ruling, jett's book is mainly a work of fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.134.89.183 (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Joe, you are no Michael Milken

Joe - please don't insult us with your fake sock-puppet identity, comparing yourself to Michael Milken. Even though he ended up as a "Wall Street Rogue" like yourself, comparing you guys is like comparing a T-ball team to the Yankees.

Even by Milken's critics, he is still considered one of the greatest financial geniuses of our time. Many of the top captains of business still consult him on the most complex financing issues. He basically invented the high yield bond market, single-handedly. You? By all accounts a clown who discovered a fake trade (and while you had it on, fooled some people into thinking you were a master trader) but was quickly found out.

OK - so what about your post-ban charitable careers? Milken has raised hundreds of millions for cancer research, and has driven some of the best minds to the problem (as well as other of society's toughest problems). You? A couple of tweets about peanut allergies ("carry two epipens, parents"). Sorry, I don't think you will go down in history as one of the greatest philanthropists of our time.

Get a real job, stop pretending you are still a high-flying financier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.229.88 (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Joseph Jett. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100227182438/http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/leer_jett_case_Tpr7lb0hZMJW1MFkO9mfyJ to http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/leer_jett_case_Tpr7lb0hZMJW1MFkO9mfyJ
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629115501/http://www.salon.com/books/int/1999/05/27/jett/print.html to http://www.salon.com/books/int/1999/05/27/jett/print.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718015207/http://www.websupp.com/data/SDNY/1%3A06-cv-13723-23-SDNY.pdf to http://www.websupp.com/data/SDNY/1%3A06-cv-13723-23-SDNY.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629115501/http://www.salon.com/books/int/1999/05/27/jett/print.html to http://www.salon.com/books/int/1999/05/27/jett/print.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080825003959/http://www.france24.com/en/20080718-reporters-banking-crime-trader-joe-jett-kerviel-wall-street to http://www.france24.com/en/20080718-reporters-banking-crime-trader-joe-jett-kerviel-wall-street

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)