This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The more important reaction which is not mentioned in this section is the reaction of the court itself. The Rules of Criminal Procedure require that the judge give consent to the dismissal. Ruth Marcus wrote about that very subject. When the court does that perhaps it should be under the section "reactions" or in another heading.Church of the Rain (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Church of the Rain (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have the section 2025_U.S._Department_of_Justice_resignations#Further_Court_proceedings, which I am sure will get expanded based on today's hearing and further decisions by the court. But if you think this should be rename and/or moved, feel free to make revisions. Remember (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the resignations were in New York. Some were in Washington.Edknol (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Remember (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the concept of "sign" and "signature" in this article is confused and not quite proper. There exist ink (aka "wet") signatures (by pen, whether photocopied/scanned or as originals), CM/ECF (the federal court's case management and electronic case filing system) electronic signatures (/s/ markers, sometimes with a name attached like s/JOHN HANCOCK/ but not here), and cryptographic digital signatures (not at all present here). Claims that Sullivan "did not sign" are true for ink signatures but false for electronic signatures. And because of how the federal court's electronic filing system works, only one person (the filing user) can sign a document with an authenticated electronic signature, so it is not surprising to see a document with both an ink signature and electronic signature. (There are some exceptions to this "one person" rule but they require additional documentation which isn't present here.) So, too, "was the only one to sign[] it" may be correct as to ink signatures, but not as to electronic signatures and thus not to signatures in general. This problem extends to the EL section, which (incompletely) characterizes ECF No. 122 as "signed by Bove."

Another problem, if one could get past what "sign" and "signature" mean, is that there are different portions of ECF 122 with signatures in different places, and those mean different things. It is hard to unwind what it means for the entire document to be "signed" when some of the signatures only apply to portions of the document.

A further technical problem is that because the electronic signatures were of the /s/ short form rather than the s/JOHN HANCOCK/ form, it is not facially clear exactly whose signature was intended. Despite the formal rule referenced above that it is filing user (here Sullivan), in practice that rule is violated with some frequency, so it is hard to make absolute statements about intent. Also, one cannot take a PDF from CM/ECF and know what the /s/ unambiguously represents without also looking at the docket metadata that indicates who filed it (the filing user).

Yet another area of confusion, although I don't think this article has been tripped up by it, is that presence of a name on a signature block of a document does not constitute a signature by that name. While I'm here, the paragraph that discusses signatures in depth currently has an odd number of quotation marks (seven), making it very unclear what is supposed to be considered the quotation. jhawkinson (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will review when I can and edit. Feel free to revise if you can improve now. Remember (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think I fixed the issue. Let me know if you have any further thoughts. Remember (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't think this article should be merged as it's a notable event to be separate. Second, some articles have begun referring to it as the Valentine Day Seven. It might be premature now, but I think we should consider that this article might host that name soon. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moving your comment to the relevant discussion here Talk:Investigations_into_the_Eric_Adams_administration#Merge_proposal. Remember (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I support this action fully. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that seven prosecutors from the U.S. Department of Justice resigned in response to orders from acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove to dismiss corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams?
  • Reviewed:

Remember (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

From CNN:

The top criminal prosecutor in the Washington, DC, US Attorney’s Office, Denise Cheung, resigned Tuesday after declining a request from her Trump-appointed superiors to open a grand jury investigation that she viewed as premature, according to multiple people familiar with the matter. The direction originated from Emil Bove, the department’s acting deputy attorney general, to Ed Martin, whom President Donald Trump has nominated to be the permanent DC US Attorney.

I'm not sure whether it makes sense to partially rewrite the current page, creating a more general lead, devoting a significant portion to the resignations related to Adams, and creating another section for Cheung's resignation, or if it would be better to keep the current focus for this article but change the article name so that it's clear that it focuses just on the resignations related to Adams. I suspect that this will not be the last DOJ resignation related to pressure from Bove / the Trump administration to act contrary to DOJ practice. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the current resignations related to Adams are their own event so that should be the focus of this page. But I think having a larger page about DOJ resignations under the Trump administration would be a good top-level article that would include discussion of this along with the resignations related to Adams. That's my thoughts. Remember (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the summary talks about a Robert Driscoll, while the DOJ Resignations section says Kevin Driscoll. Which is correct? Best I can figure, Kevin's middle initial is "O", so it's not Kevin Robert Driscoll, but either way, it looks like a first name got confused somewhere. Nessalc (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's Kevin. Thank you for catching that. Not sure what happened there. Remember (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]