Talk:Raymond Márquez

Conflict in sources
A 1997 New York Times profile says that he was released from prison in 1977. However, a short article in the Times in January 1977 says that he was released "two years ago." Given this conflict, I'm removing the earlier reference to his supposed 1977 release. I'll check to see if he was in the news between 1975 and 1977. The Times archive is full of stuff on Marquez from that era. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems the 1977 Times article was correct, as articles on the Tyler case say he met with Tyler in New York City in 1975. I've fixed and added a paragraph on the Tyler case, a judge who was convicted for lying about a meeting with Marquez. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, confirmed in the Gangsters of Harlem book (available on Amazon) that he was released in April 1975. That's a serious error in the Times profile, as the article made a big fuss about him being imprisoned for eight years. He wasn't. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Narcotics arrest?
In going through Google News and the New York Times archive, I'm finding references to a Raymond Marquez of Great Neck being arrested in 1964 in a major narcotics case. But I don't see that mentioned anywhere else. Does anyone know if this is the same person? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Original research
A new editor has added what appears to be original research to the article. In fairness to Marquez, as most of it is exculpatory, I'm leaving most of it in, but I've tagged the article. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Scotty, I believe that the article should be reverted back to your edits of October 5, because the new additons seem to be "original research" and are not cited with reliable sources per policy. The new editor may have a COI and may be involved with the subject. The new editor should be reminded that additions that are not backed up by sources will be removed. What do you say? Tony the Marine (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then again, after viewing the editors "talk page", maybe we should leave it as is for now. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm torn, to be frank, because this a BLP and I want to be fair to the subject. Yet on the other hand we can't have original research in an article. I've asked for help from the COI noticeboard, given the sensitivity of the situation. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good call. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically we could tag the article for COI, but the claim by this editor has not been verified. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Reposted from user talk page
I think this exchange belongs here, as it includes sourcing suggestions:

To Scott Berg and Tony the Marine, I shall endeavor to gather citations for all legal decisions cited. As for comments made to me, I have no problem acknowledging that I am the primary source. Furthermore, In the Matter of the Petition of RAYMOND MARQUEZ, DETERMINATION, DTA NO. 818561, that I posted on JD Supra<> you can verify what the NYS Tax Appeal Division determined for yourself. As for the reference to the appeals of the attempt to withdraw Mr. Marquez's guilty plea, that statement finds support in the New York Times story by Selwin Raab who states in the last paragraph of his interview article dated July 6, 1997, for which I was present and was held in my Manhattan office, that, "[A]waiting the appeals court decision, Raymond Marquez says that his only remaining link to the numbers world is as a customer who ventures a few dollars on an occasion hunch." Additional reference is available from appellate court records, such as in, "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,v.RAYMOND MARQUEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; in which Judges: Rosenberger, J.p., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams, Saxe, JJ. decided as follows: Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), rendered April 15, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of attempted enterprise corruption and promoting gambling in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 years probation and a 3-year period of conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed. Defendant's motion to withdraw his pleas was properly denied. The original sentence agreement provided for 5 years probation, the first 90 days to be served in jail. Although that sentence would have been illegal, the court took proper curative action by eliminating the 90-day jail term and thereafter imposing a lawful sentence of probation only (see, Matter of Kisloff v Covington 73 NY2d 445; People v Monereau, 181 AD2d 918, lv denied 79 NY2d 1052). Since the sentence was no more severe, and indeed was clearly less harsh, than that promised, defendant was not entitled to withdraw his pleas. The confusion, if any, over the original sentence cannot be said to have created such an ambiguity that the voluntariness of the pleas is called into doubt. Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: MAY 7, 1998."

Since, not all decisions are are published, your request for citations is a bit burdensome. However, with your Pulitzer Prize winning abilities, I am sure you can confirm all of what I have stated as truthful. As for the ultimate determination for Unincorporated business tax owed that was originally well under 1 million dollars as discussed in the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal's decision that is available for viewing at  my statement can easily be verified.

As for the remaining citations needed, you can refer to the New York Times article entitled, Convicted Gambler Whose Lawyer Is His Son, By JOHN ELIGON, Published: May 27, 2008.

So, as far as I am concerned, I again insist that the post be made complete and that my edits be allowed to remain in tact. By the way, I am, as you well know a "primary source" and not some unverifiable opinionated editor. So you and your cronies had best take notice of what I have said herein. Omitting the the parts of the story that create balance is just as disingenuous as making an untruthful allegation. So just be fair about it and don't skew the story. You cooperation will be genuinely appreciated. Rdmlawpc (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and I've been bending over backwards to be fair since this is a biography of a living person and there are specific procedures that need to be followed when the subject of a biography (or other interested persons) edit an article. Usual procedures dictate that unsourced material be summarily removed from an article, especially a BLP, but that has not been done. While I understand your passion concerning this article, you should be aware that sarcasm, threats like the one you removed, and saying things like "with your Pulitzer Prize winning abilities, I am sure you can confirm all of what I have stated as truthful" is not acceptable methods of communicating on Wikipedia and is going to tend to turn off editors who might otherwise want to help you. I've asked you to review the site policies and again encourage you to do so. I will examine the links you provided. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Scott, another reference that you should included amongst the others I have stated above is the New York Daily News article entitled, Spanish Ray Says his Number's Up by Robert Ingrassia published on Monday, July 23, 2001, immediately following the acquittal of the 1998 charges. While some of the information already posted, in addition to the edits I have contributed, are attributable to this source, it is not mentioned in the footnotes. Again, I don't seek to offend, although I find the original tilt of the story offensive due to information omitted, but rather to bring balance and truth to what is published over the Internet, since it will be here in perpetuity. The full and complete Raymond Marquez story is not the story that has been sensationalized by some journalists, prosecutors and authors who never interviewed him. There is more to it than any of them would care to acknowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdmlawpc (talk • contribs)


 * The Ingrassia article is a good resource and I've added text from it. Thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello David, Scotty is right, procedures need to be followed. We didn't make up the rules in Wikipedia, we just follow them. The important thing here is that you have cited and provided sources, Scotty is very competent and he will study them. When we write an article we depend on reliable sources such as newspaper articles which are posted in the internet for the public to view. We have no control as to what these sources write, however I do agree with you that some journalists may be baised and that is why we welcome additional information with the proper sources to balance out any article that is posted in Wikipedia. Try to understand that we also want a well balanced article. Once again thank you for providing sources and please trust Scotty, he will do what is right and within Wikipedia policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the two paragraphs about tax cases that were unsuccessfully brought against Marquez. Unless there is a secondary source that wrote about them, our policies don't permit inclusion. There is no reason from a BLP perspective to add this text. Nothing previously accuses him of engaging in these tax offenses. This just raises yet more accusations against him, charges not notable enough to have received coverage in secondary sources, and frankly as written it reads like self-promotion for his attorney. I also removed text about an appellate court upholding a judge's action against him. We don't need that kind of legal detail unless covered in secondary sources, and it adds nothing to the article. If the judge's action was reversed, on the other hand, it would merit inclusion whether or not it was covered in secondary sources. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I structured the article bit, added some details from a 1995 New York Times article. In fairness to Mr. Raymond Marquez he was never arrested for, nor accused of violence. I ask the editors to re-consider the use of the word "gangster" in the lead paragraph. I don't believe it is necessary, and the modifier "reputed" does not soften the blow.

Nelsondenis248 (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I also hesitate to use that term. To me, the deciding factor, apart from his lengthy criminal record and well-publicized notoriety, is that he has an entire chapter on him in a book entitled "Gangsters of Harlem." While I don't have the book, I have seen it on Google Books and it seems unsensational and well-researched. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well Scott, I see you heeded some of my comments and left in several of my edits.For this I thank you. The story is at least somewhat more balanced but still omits the fact that the determination that Raymond Marquez owes unincorporated business taxes is based on the same evidence that supported an annulment of an assessment for state income tax covering the same period of time. A point for which I clearing provided references. Why should that matter though. After all you were not there when jurors refused to serve in 2001 claiming there was no moral difference between what Raymond Marquez did and what the New York State Lottery does. Power Ball anyone? I also what to thank you for crediting me for losing the secondhand smoke case while removing all reference to the fact that I obtained the acquittal for Raymond Marquez in the 52 count enterprise corruption case that he won in 2001. Why don't you just remove me from the story altogether? After all the subject is Raymond Marquez, not R. David Marquez, Esq. As an aside, my name is not Raymond David MMarquez, only one "M" only in Marquez. No hard feelings. As for Tony the Marine, I guess you never heard about the Serpico story, and the mass corruption amongst the NYPD or the systematic payoffs and shake downs referred to as the "Pad." Cops taking bribes, a story that reaches back to the days of Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed. Long before Raymond Marquez, cops were on the take! Rdmlawpc (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I for one have cut you a lot of slack, but my patience with your snide tone and sarcasm is fast exhausting. If you want to be ignored, and if you want to alienate editors who can help you, you are doing an excellent job. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also you seem to be mixed up about who is editing what in this article. Not that it matters, but I didn't "credit" you with losing the second-hand smoke case. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I read through the legal documents you mentioned above, especially the 2007 document. As I suspected, these are lengthy and complex legal documents, and use of primary documents in BLPs is prohibited by WP:BLPPRIMARY. ("Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.") Even if this wasn't a BLP, policy on primary sources prohibit use of documents requiring synthesis or interpretation. Frankly I'm surprised that you would want us to use these documents, as their detailed presentation of Marquez's business affairs is anything but flattering. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Mr. David Marquez, Scotty has been more then noble to put up and comply with most of your requests. If you want to blame anyone about the content of the article you can blame Selwyn Raab and your dad who was interviewed on July 6, 1997 for an article which was published in the New York Times. This is where the "bulk" of this article originally came from. Another thing, thank you for the police-corruption lesson, but I'm not as ignorant as you may think. Corruption between the police forces goes far before Boss Tweed and Tammy Hall, the only difference is that he got caught. No one has implied that police corruption and bribes was only between your father and the department, as you seem to have indicted. Police corruption and bribes with criminal organizations and individuals has a history that reaches beyond what we call the beginning of the “civilized world” and continues today in every corner of the world. Did you ever hear of "El Grupo", the most powerful criminal family in Bayamon, PR during the 1970s? They had police chiefs whose surnames were Maldonado, Anrades and Arsola in their pockets. I rather see this article deleted then to see Scotty have to put with what he has to up to now. The thing is that even if it is deleted the truth is and will still be out there. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tony, much appreciated. But as I said on my talk page, deleting this article is neither feasible or desirable. It is a very good article, and it is really surprising, given the massive coverage of organized crime on Wikipedia, that the article was never created previously. If the SPA abides by site policies, there will be no problem. If not, we have to take it from there. Again, I invite that editor to provide input into this article on the talk page, here. But I remind him again that he needs to abide by WP:CIVIL, and that patience with him is fast eroding. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, now that I have found the "right" page for my comments, I'll make a few observations that I believe warrant attention. First of all, regardless of who chose to credit me with the loss of the secondhand smoke case, I am mentioned by name in each of the articles referenced in footnotes 2, 3, 4, 6, and 11. I see nothing to dissuade my criticism regarding the selectivity of when I am mentioned by name in the article. If there is any real need to make reference to me at all for my participation as Raymond's attorney, then an all or nothing approach should be employed if the rules you have enunciated are actually in effect. Volunteers or not, none of you have the authority to decide what should and what should not be included in the article, if adherence policy is your only guiding light. As for the assertion that I am trying to publicize my role, rest assured that I have had more than my 15 minutes of attention. I'd be just as happy to not be mentioned at all. Nothing on this site, or your opinions, are of any real moment to me. At the age of 60, with 28 years of professional experience behind me, I could care less what people think. As for whether they are loyal to the truth or not is another story. I have had my fill of bias, misreporting, exaggeration, and lies that all too often are characterized as "secondary sources" or "allegations." Just because someone else got it wrong does not make it right to repeat. And as for the "authorities" having a monopoly on the truth, nothing could be further from the truth. My cross examination of 23 cops and detectives on record, some of who were from OCCB, is proof enough for me. So if this article is just some rant, regardless of truth, knock yourselves out. Rdmlawpc (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I attended law school in Puerto Rico in the mid-seventies, and am all too familiar with the corrupt cops of Puerto Rico starting with Col. Lugo of the CIC and his underlings, some of who were in my graduating class of 1977. Rdmlawpc (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

To Tony and Scott. Yes, I again made three minor edits. If you cannot live with them, then we can take it up in a dispute resolution forum.Rdmlawpc (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This series of edits is unquestionably self-promotion, if you are who you say you are, and included your inserting your name prominently in the article while failing to include the fact that the suit was unsuccessful. Marquez's son and attorney is prominently quoted in the second-hand smoking articles, as in the other articles, so that person's name belongs in the article in that context, regardless of whether that is you or someone else. As for your latest comment, yes, if you continue to use Wikipedia for self-promotion and suppression of things you don't like concerning subjects in which you are personally involved, you risk being blocked. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Berg, I find your comments disingenuous and part of your continuing attempt to manipulate the content of what is reported in the press, albeit half truths, in an effort to sensationalize what you and your friend Tony have written about Raymond Marquez. Its naive at best to think that everything stated in the news is correct and unbiased which is why we don't accept newspaper reports as evidence in a court of law. As for your allegation that I am acting in a manner that evinces self-promotion, you have again missed the mark. My name is mentioned in several sources and the only one you and Tony chose to reference is the secondhand smoke case. That is an example of your selectivity, not mine. I have suggested that you delete all references to me and you have refused. The "article," as you refer to it, is not about me or any other members of the Marquez family, yet you and Tony have seen fit, for some unexplained reason that can only be liken to the neighborhood loudmouth who has nothing more to do in a pathetic life than to talk about others, act as self appointed guardians of the Marquez story. What crap! When you stated on my talk page that you had "bent over backwards" to try and be fair, you apparently haven't bent over far enough to accept a truth other than your own interpretation. I find it offensive and will continue to edit the page as I see fit in conformity with the actual facts and truth. You can hide behind the Wiki rules, and as a "writer" you can even fancy yourself as having some authority, which you don't. According to the Wiki disclaimer there is no editorial board. So gab yourself importance, stick it back in your pants and zip up your fly. Rdmlawpc (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC) contribs) 12:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Making noncontroversial edits is perfectly OK. But adding original research and material sourced to primary sources, as you have, and posting disruptively on talk pages (ditto) is not OK. Since you don't seem interested in making this article neutral, as evidenced by your adding text on the secondary smoking suit but not indicating that it was lost, I think it's probably best if you confine your contributions to the talk page. However, if you can't abide by WP:CIVIL, and so far you haven't, even that may not be advisable. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For example, I don't see anything wrong with this IP edit, which accurately reflected what was in the cited source. Edits have to reflect what is in verifiable sources. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This "neighborhood loudmouth" with a "pathetic life" w ho has his "fly" zipped up, has no objections that your name and any mention of you for that matter be removed from the article. However, I do agree and stand by Scotty, when requesting that any information that you add be properly sourced. You can be just as biased as the newspapers which you claimed are. What is so difficult about asking you to comply with the rules and provide sources to your edits? We depend on sources and the "New York Times" and "The New York Daily News" are the sources from which the information of this article came from. We do not invent stuff, if you have a "beef", take it out on them not us. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the information printed in Mr. Ingrassia's article referenced as footnote "4," and I quote, "Today, Marquez said, he's a legitimate businessman, running hotels in Commack, L.I., and Fort Lauderdale." Your use of the word "ran" implies that he is either dead or is no longer involved in running hotels. You're wrong on both counts! And, BTW the retirement section is not an appropriate place to parrot the report that weapons were found during a raid. Noticeably missing is any weapons conviction reported in the papers. This is what I refer to your bias!Rdmlawpc (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it "implies" nothing more than that the article was written ten years ago, and that is all we have to go by. As for the guns, as has been pointed out to you several times by multiple editors, if the coverage of Raymond Marquez has been unfair over these past six decades, your beef is with the media, not Wikipedia. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Tony, I think that we should hold off acceding to the "demands" of this SPA, pending review of this article by uninvolved editors. The name of the attorney seems to be prominent enough in the coverage as to warrant it being mentioned. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)