California man accused of killing daughter pleads out
ienj...@yahoo.com
Father accused of killing daughter pleads guilty
Man was accused of throwing daughter over cliff
By Kristin S. Agostini
Daily Breeze
In 2000 Ventura resident Cameron Brown summoned
authorities to the Palo Verdes Peninsula where he contended that his
daughter, 4-year-old Lauren Key, fell off a cliff after she strayed
from a trail along Inspiration Point.
Authorities were immediately suspicious because the trail
is one of the highest spots on the peninsulas cliffs. With no
witnesses police relied on expert testimony to challenge Browns version
of events, and arrested him after a months-long investigation. Until
yesterday Brown retained high-profile attorney Marc Geragos and
maintained his innocence.
In a Torrance courtroom in front of Superior Court judge
Mark Arnold Brown entered a guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter with
a promise of a 30-year sentence. As Sarah Key Maher, the victims
mother looked on, Brown told the judge that he had killed his daughter
out of desperation to avoid paying child support. At the time of his
arrest prosecutors maintained that Brown had refused to have anything
to do with his daughter because of his anger at Sarah Key's refusal to
have an abortion. Once Key decided to pursue child support prosecutors
argued that he decided to become part of his childs life in order to
kill her. Yesterday Brown confirmed those accusations. " I was
weak", the defendant told Judge Arnold, " I worked hard to build up my
savings, and at the time that I killed her all I could think about was
all the money I was going to loose over the years. I truly am sorry."
Outside the courtroom Sarah Key told reporters that she
rejected her former lovers apology. " He took my daughters life", Key
said, " I still go to sleep every night crying in bed." Key said she
intended to go to her daughters grave to tell her that justice was
served. When asked to comment on the plea bargain Cam's wife declined
to comment. Attorney Geragos however issued a statement, " This
decision was reached after careful review of the evidence and extensive
consultation with my client. We felt that we could prevail at trial
but we ultimately decided that the evidence was compelling enough that
we couldn't risk a trial and life sentence. I'm satisfied this is a
proper resolution for both sides, and it is my sincere hope that Sarah
can pick up the pieces of her life and heal." When asked if she
agreed with the plea deal Sarah Key maintained that she accepted the
plea only at the behest of prosecutor Craig Hum. Reached later at his
office Hum said, " We had overwhelming proof of guilt, but when his
attorney reached out to us we weighed the certainty of a guilty plea
versus the perils that a trial would pose, and ultimately the district
attorney decided that given this defendants age thirty years was a
harsh sentence." He added that his office would oppose early parole
for Brown. Brown will be formally sentenced by Judge Arnold on
January 24.
ienj...@yahoo.com
Theodore A. Kaldis
> This is a prediction, not reality, though I'm sure it will be soon.
You're an idiot. Their case is a shambles. Otherwise, the trial would have
already been underway for a month by now.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
Larry
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> ienj...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > This is a prediction, not reality, though I'm sure it will be soon.
>
> You're an idiot. Their case is a shambles. Otherwise, the trial would have
> already been underway for a month by now.
Ted, I've never expressed an opinion on the case. I don't know the
evidence either side has or how it will come out in court. But I do
know that most states have a speedy-trial statute (as well, of course,
as constitutional speedy-trial rights).
What I'm wondering is, if the state's case is as bad as you've claimed
it is, why wouldn't the defense rush to try it as soon as possible? I'd
think California law would limit the amount of time that the prosecution
could delay.
The only times I've seen defense lawyers want delays is when they want
to put off the inevitable conviction. And the only time I've seen a
waiver of speedy-trial rights is in exchange for consideration of some
plea-bargain or offer including a lesser sentence than what is
proscribed for the crime charged.
Of course, my observations are only with respect to NY cases, and I
don't know much about California's criminal procedure. And I don't know
if he's guilty or not - and I honestly can't say I am too interested in
the outcome (as much as I'd like to see Ken proven wrong). But it does
seem like strange moves for the defense to be making in a case when the
defendant is claiming "actual innocence" (as opposed to mitigation,
justification, etc.).
So why isn't the defense pressuring the court to start the trial? Can
you shed some light on this?
Theodore A. Kaldis
> So why isn't the defense pressuring the court to start the trial? Can
> you shed some light on this?
The prosecutor is claiming "new" evidence. Just what this "new" evidence is
I'd like to know. From what I hear, it seems to be just a ploy to buy him
more time when he can't get a continuance any other way.
On the other hand, what I have heard from Geragos' investigator about the
investigators' conduct in this case would absolutely curl your hair -- or
straighten it out if it's curly already. And you CERTAINLY don't have to
worry -- Ken will be eating HEAPS of crow when this thing finally shakes
itself out, and you can count on that. I know Ken will try to make light of
it, but I think you can appreciate that I'm not in a position to be able to
get into any specifics right now.
And also, the forensic accountant DID mislead the grand jury. Cameron's
credit problems were in the period December 2003 to July 2004 -- after he had
been arrested and jailed, and fully 3 years after the accident. She did not
testify as to dates regarding the credit problems, but I have seen Cameron's
credit report. Cameron did NOT have any credit problems in the time period
when he was paying child support (or even before), and her testimony made it
appear as if he did.
Larry
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>
> > So why isn't the defense pressuring the court to start the trial? Can
> > you shed some light on this?
>
> The prosecutor is claiming "new" evidence. Just what this "new" evidence is
> I'd like to know. From what I hear, it seems to be just a ploy to buy him
> more time when he can't get a continuance any other way.
Interesting. In NY, we (prosecutors) generally don't get extensions
from statutory time limits for new evidence. The idea is that the
prosecution can arrest and charge someone at any point, so they
shouldn't do it unless they feel they can proceed to trial within the
appropriate time frame.
> On the other hand, what I have heard from Geragos' investigator about the
> investigators' conduct in this case would absolutely curl your hair -- or
> straighten it out if it's curly already.
I've never met a defense lawyer who approved of the police officer's
conduct in the case, or a prosecutor who thought highly of defense
investigators, so I take this with a grain of salt. Has he filed
ethical complaints against any of the prosecutors or internal affairs
complaints against any police officers? Those I would take seriously.
> And you CERTAINLY don't have to
> worry -- Ken will be eating HEAPS of crow when this thing finally shakes
> itself out, and you can count on that. I know Ken will try to make light of
> it, but I think you can appreciate that I'm not in a position to be able to
> get into any specifics right now.
>
> And also, the forensic accountant DID mislead the grand jury. Cameron's
> credit problems were in the period December 2003 to July 2004 -- after he had
> been arrested and jailed, and fully 3 years after the accident. She did not
> testify as to dates regarding the credit problems, but I have seen Cameron's
> credit report. Cameron did NOT have any credit problems in the time period
> when he was paying child support (or even before), and her testimony made it
> appear as if he did.
Doesn't the grand jury presentation get reviewed by a judge? Can't the
defense move to dismiss the charges based on inadmissible evidence,
improper conduct by the prosecutor, or suborning misleading testimony?
Ken Smith
> In article <43800C47...@worldnet.att.net>,
> "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Larry wrote:
>>
>>>So why isn't the defense pressuring the court to start the trial? Can
>>>you shed some light on this?
>>
>>The prosecutor is claiming "new" evidence. Just what this "new" evidence is
>>I'd like to know. From what I hear, it seems to be just a ploy to buy him
>>more time when he can't get a continuance any other way.
>
> Interesting. In NY, we (prosecutors) generally don't get extensions
> from statutory time limits for new evidence. The idea is that the
> prosecution can arrest and charge someone at any point, so they
> shouldn't do it unless they feel they can proceed to trial within the
> appropriate time frame.
Ted was whining about the fact that prosecutors took their own sweet
time to charge Cam, even though it only makes sense to wait until you
have enough of a case to convict -- especially in a murder case, where
there is no statute of limitations to worry about.
>>On the other hand, what I have heard from Geragos' investigator about the
>>investigators' conduct in this case would absolutely curl your hair -- or
>>straighten it out if it's curly already.
>
> I've never met a defense lawyer who approved of the police officer's
> conduct in the case, or a prosecutor who thought highly of defense
> investigators, so I take this with a grain of salt.
Which is why I have discounted it, as well. The problem is that we
are dealing with Teddums, which requires me to take it with a pillar.
Sodom-sized. :)
> Has he filed
> ethical complaints against any of the prosecutors or internal affairs
> complaints against any police officers? Those I would take seriously.
Crickets on standby. The state board of accountancy would be reaming
the forensic accountant a new one, if what Ted says is true.
>> And you CERTAINLY don't have to
>>worry -- Ken will be eating HEAPS of crow when this thing finally shakes
>>itself out, and you can count on that. I know Ken will try to make light of
>>it, but I think you can appreciate that I'm not in a position to be able to
>>get into any specifics right now.
>>
>>And also, the forensic accountant DID mislead the grand jury. Cameron's
>>credit problems were in the period December 2003 to July 2004 -- after he had
>>been arrested and jailed, and fully 3 years after the accident. She did not
>>testify as to dates regarding the credit problems, but I have seen Cameron's
>>credit report. Cameron did NOT have any credit problems in the time period
>>when he was paying child support (or even before), and her testimony made it
>>appear as if he did.
>
> Doesn't the grand jury presentation get reviewed by a judge? Can't the
> defense move to dismiss the charges based on inadmissible evidence,
> improper conduct by the prosecutor, or suborning misleading testimony?
It's called a 995 motion. They tried. They lost. And to be honest,
this one was DOA from the outset.
Ken Smith
> In article <437FD958...@worldnet.att.net>,
> "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>ienj...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is a prediction, not reality, though I'm sure it will be soon.
>>
>>You're an idiot. Their case is a shambles. Otherwise, the trial would have
>>already been underway for a month by now.
>
> Ted, I've never expressed an opinion on the case. I don't know the
> evidence either side has or how it will come out in court. But I do
> know that most states have a speedy-trial statute (as well, of course,
> as constitutional speedy-trial rights).
California's protections on that score are predictably robust. It's
not exactly Texas....
> What I'm wondering is, if the state's case is as bad as you've claimed
> it is, why wouldn't the defense rush to try it as soon as possible? I'd
> think California law would limit the amount of time that the prosecution
> could delay.
This is the $6,400,000 question, isn't it? All the defense would
have to do is threaten to revoke the speedy trial waiver to force
prosecutors to either shit or get off the pot. IMHO, Geragos should
have pulled the trigger on that one in November of 2003, when the death
penalty review board was allegedly dickering over whether to certify the
case.
> The only times I've seen defense lawyers want delays is when they want
> to put off the inevitable conviction. And the only time I've seen a
> waiver of speedy-trial rights is in exchange for consideration of some
> plea-bargain or offer including a lesser sentence than what is
> proscribed for the crime charged.
In Cam's case, he started out with a PD, which means that he wouldn't
have gotten any more than a marginally competent defense. But Daddy has
deep pockets, and he came to the rescue. Geragos doesn't work for free,
unless the publicity value exceeds the fee.
> Of course, my observations are only with respect to NY cases, and I
> don't know much about California's criminal procedure. And I don't know
> if he's guilty or not - and I honestly can't say I am too interested in
> the outcome (as much as I'd like to see Ken proven wrong).
Larry's pervasive animus toward me rears its ugly head again....
> But it does
> seem like strange moves for the defense to be making in a case when the
> defendant is claiming "actual innocence" (as opposed to mitigation,
> justification, etc.).
>
> So why isn't the defense pressuring the court to start the trial? Can
> you shed some light on this?
We've been asking for some kind of illumination this for about a year
now, Lar. If Ted had better answers, we might be taking him seriously.
Ken Smith
> Larry wrote:
>
>
>>So why isn't the defense pressuring the court to start the trial? Can
>>you shed some light on this?
>
> The prosecutor is claiming "new" evidence. Just what this "new" evidence is
> I'd like to know. From what I hear, it seems to be just a ploy to buy him
> more time when he can't get a continuance any other way.
Again, if this speculation is true, why isn't Geragos pulling the
plug on the speedy trial waiver?!? Ted, I have always found your
speculation to be at odds with the known law and existing facts. Why
should anyone believe you now?
> On the other hand, what I have heard from Geragos' investigator about the
> investigators' conduct in this case would absolutely curl your hair -- or
> straighten it out if it's curly already. And you CERTAINLY don't have to
> worry -- Ken will be eating HEAPS of crow when this thing finally shakes
> itself out, and you can count on that.
Based on the evidence that *you* have presented, I am of the opinion
that Cam murdered Lauren -- even if he isn't actually convicted. As a
veteran marathoner, I find the claim that a fellow marathoner -- who was
wearing "hiking shoes" (unusual for SoCal)! -- couldn't "keep up" with a
four-year-old girl to be risible. Cam's lying, and there is no innocent
reason I can fathom for that.
> I know Ken will try to make light of
> it, but I think you can appreciate that I'm not in a position to be able to
> get into any specifics right now.
Geragos' strategy just mystifies here. That any man should have to
sit in jail for two years without even knowing when his trial date is
set is outrageous enough, but for an attorney of an "obviously innocent"
man to not be doing *everything* within his power to get his client
released is unconscionable.
So, where is the habeas motion, Ted?
> And also, the forensic accountant DID mislead the grand jury. Cameron's
> credit problems were in the period December 2003 to July 2004 -- after he had
> been arrested and jailed, and fully 3 years after the accident. She did not
> testify as to dates regarding the credit problems, but I have seen Cameron's
> credit report. Cameron did NOT have any credit problems in the time period
> when he was paying child support (or even before), and her testimony made it
> appear as if he did.
And you have filed your complaint with the state Board of
Accountancy? While California's mechanism for policing bad attorneys is
reputed to be non-existent, an accountancy board would take an
*extremely* dim view of such behavior, if proven.
Ken Smith
> Larry wrote:
>> In article <437FD958...@worldnet.att.net>,
>> "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> ienj...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is a prediction, not reality, though I'm sure it will be soon.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're an idiot. Their case is a shambles. Otherwise, the trial
>>> would have
>>> already been underway for a month by now.
>>
>>
>> Ted, I've never expressed an opinion on the case. I don't know the
>> evidence either side has or how it will come out in court. But I do
>> know that most states have a speedy-trial statute (as well, of course,
>> as constitutional speedy-trial rights).
>
>
> California's protections on that score are predictably robust. It's
> not exactly Texas....
>
>> What I'm wondering is, if the state's case is as bad as you've claimed
>> it is, why wouldn't the defense rush to try it as soon as possible?
>> I'd think California law would limit the amount of time that the
>> prosecution could delay.
>
>
> This is the $6,400,000 question, isn't it? All the defense would have
> to do is threaten to revoke the speedy trial waiver to force prosecutors
> to either shit or get off the pot. IMHO, Geragos should have pulled the
> trigger on that one in November of 2003, when the death penalty review
> board was allegedly dickering over whether to certify the case.
Correction: November, 2004. How time flies when you're having fun in
the L.A. County Jail, eh, Teddums?
Ken Smith
> ienj...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>This is a prediction, not reality, though I'm sure it will be soon.
>
> You're an idiot. Their case is a shambles. Otherwise, the trial would have
> already been underway for a month by now.
If that was the case, Geragos would be doing something about it, and
now. So, when is the habeas motion being filed? When was the speedy
trial waiver revoked? It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas.... :)
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Larry wrote:
>> Doesn't the grand jury presentation get reviewed by a judge? Can't the
>> defense move to dismiss the charges based on inadmissible evidence,
>> improper conduct by the prosecutor, or suborning misleading testimony?
> It's called a 995 motion. They tried. They lost. And to be honest, this
> one was DOA from the outset.
Ken doesn't know what was in it (NOT the credit report stuff), or why it was
denied.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Larry wrote:
>>> So why isn't the defense pressuring the court to start the trial? Can
>>> you shed some light on this?
>> The prosecutor is claiming "new" evidence. Just what this "new" evidence
>> is I'd like to know. From what I hear, it seems to be just a ploy to buy
>> him more time when he can't get a continuance any other way.
> Again, if this speculation is true, why isn't Geragos pulling the plug on
> the speedy trial waiver?!?
Beats me. But I'm going to ask him next time I see him.
> Ted, I have always found your speculation to be at odds with the known law
> and existing facts.
And I have always found your pleadings to be at odds with common sense.
BTW, what existing "facts" are they at odds with?
> Why should anyone believe you now?
Why should anyone believe you? You're batting .000 on your actions against
the Colorado Supreme Court.
>> On the other hand, what I have heard from Geragos' investigator about the
>> investigators' conduct in this case would absolutely curl your hair -- or
>> straighten it out if it's curly already. And you CERTAINLY don't have to
>> worry -- Ken will be eating HEAPS of crow when this thing finally shakes
>> itself out, and you can count on that.
> Based on the evidence that *you* have presented, I am of the opinion that
> Cam murdered Lauren
No you're not. Either that, or you're an idiot. Because IT DID NOT HAPPEN!
> -- even if he isn't actually convicted.
I doubt that he'll even be tried.
> As a veteran marathoner, I find the claim that a fellow marathoner -- who
> was wearing "hiking shoes" (unusual for SoCal)! -- couldn't "keep up" with
> a four-year-old girl to be risible.
Well, now, there's a bit to be said here -- but I can't say it.
> Cam's lying, and there is no innocent reason I can fathom for that.
Were the witnesses on the path who saw her running ahead of him lying as
well?
>> I know Ken will try to make light of it, but I think you can appreciate
>> that I'm not in a position to be able to get into any specifics right now.
> Geragos' strategy just mystifies here. That any man should have to sit in
> jail for two years without even knowing when his trial date is set is
> outrageous enough, but for an attorney of an "obviously innocent" man to
> not be doing *everything* within his power to get his client released is
> unconscionable.
THe trial date was already set, but the prosecuter played some tricks to buy
himself some extra time.
> So, where is the habeas motion, Ted?
Beats me.
>> And also, the forensic accountant DID mislead the grand jury. Cameron's
>> credit problems were in the period December 2003 to July 2004 -- after he
>> had been arrested and jailed, and fully 3 years after the accident. She
>> did not testify as to dates regarding the credit problems, but I have seen
>> Cameron's credit report. Cameron did NOT have any credit problems in the
>> time period when he was paying child support (or even before), and her
>> testimony made it appear as if he did.
> And you have filed your complaint with the state Board of Accountancy?
> While California's mechanism for policing bad attorneys is reputed to be
> non-existent,
So is that why this prosecutor thinks he can get away with these kinds of
antics?
> an accountancy board would take an *extremely* dim view of such behavior,
> if proven.
It can be proven. And will be, if what you say is true.
Larry
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 14:20:50 -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
> <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >Why should anyone believe you? You're batting .000 on your actions against
> >the Colorado Supreme Court.
>
> Are you surprised? Ken's going up against a corrupt system.
> Even so, Ken had/has two option. Do nothing, in which case he's
> definitely lost, or fight. It's a tough fight, but the only certain
> loss would be to do nothing.
Actually, failing to complete the bar application process results in a
certain loss, too.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Larry wrote:
>>>> Doesn't the grand jury presentation get reviewed by a judge? Can't the
>>>> defense move to dismiss the charges based on inadmissible evidence,
>>>> improper conduct by the prosecutor, or suborning misleading testimony?
>>> It's called a 995 motion. They tried. They lost. And to be honest,
>>> this one was DOA from the outset.
>> Ken doesn't know what was in it (NOT the credit report stuff),
> How could he not know? You made it available to anyone who wished to see
> it.
Oh yes, that's right. So that means that Ken is just blowing gas out his
@ss.
Wayne Delia
Ken is blowing what out of his where? Earlier, you had the following
exchange with Kent Wills:
_________
>Ken Smith wrote:
>>
>
>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>
>>
>
>>>>>>>> BTW, the Bible also says, "Let him who is without sin cast the
first
>>>>>>>> stone".
>
>>
>
>>>>>> So why do you throw "cyber-stones," as it were, at Ken at every
chance?
>
>>
>
>>>> Answer Kent's question, Ted.
>
>>
>>It's a lie.
No it's not.
>>I don't do any such thing.
Yes, you do. At every, or nearly every, opportunity.
___________
You're busted, Toad. Lucky for you Jesus is too stupid to understand
what you meant by "@ss", but it's plain to see you're a lying sack of shit.
WMD
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Larry wrote:
>>
>
>>>>So why isn't the defense pressuring the court to start the trial? Can
>>>>you shed some light on this?
>>>
>>>The prosecutor is claiming "new" evidence. Just what this "new" evidence
>>>is I'd like to know. From what I hear, it seems to be just a ploy to buy
>>>him more time when he can't get a continuance any other way.
>>
>>Again, if this speculation is true, why isn't Geragos pulling the plug on
>>the speedy trial waiver?!?
>
> Beats me. But I'm going to ask him next time I see him.
If this isn't a close case, there would be no strategic advantage in
a delay. I rather expect that it is a close case in his mind and as
such, there is some strategic advantage here.
>>Ted, I have always found your speculation to be at odds with the known law
>>and existing facts.
>
> And I have always found your pleadings to be at odds with common sense.
You perceive what you need to perceive, as opposed to what is. Even
Bob Vorie got it right.
> BTW, what existing "facts" are they at odds with?
Asked and answered. Just by way of example, the 995 attacked
evidence which was cumulative in nature and as such, it was doomed to
failure.
>>Why should anyone believe you now?
>
> Why should anyone believe you? You're batting .000 on your actions against
> the Colorado Supreme Court.
IOW, about the same average Mark Geragos is having these days.
I know what I'm up against, Ted. All I had to do was find one honest
judge.
>
>>>On the other hand, what I have heard from Geragos' investigator about the
>>>investigators' conduct in this case would absolutely curl your hair -- or
>>>straighten it out if it's curly already. And you CERTAINLY don't have to
>>>worry -- Ken will be eating HEAPS of crow when this thing finally shakes
>>>itself out, and you can count on that.
>>
>>Based on the evidence that *you* have presented, I am of the opinion that
>>Cam murdered Lauren
>
> No you're not. Either that, or you're an idiot. Because IT DID NOT HAPPEN!
Ken, you obviously have keen insight and a sharp intellect.
-- Theodore A. Kaldis
Cam was lying about not being able to keep up with Lauren. Why would
he lie, Ted?
Cam had hiking shoes on. I know what that means, because I have
them. They're much heavier than the typical running shoe and generally,
I only wear them when I anticipate inclement weather, or going on a
hike. Just from that fact alone, I would infer that Cam intended to
take Lauren to IP from the outset -- a very bad fact for Cam.
I have the insight of the athletically inclined, something you cannot
obviously relate to.
>>-- even if he isn't actually convicted.
>
> I doubt that he'll even be tried.
Well, you have been known to make ridiculous predictions in the past.
>>As a veteran marathoner, I find the claim that a fellow marathoner -- who
>>was wearing "hiking shoes" (unusual for SoCal)! -- couldn't "keep up" with
>>a four-year-old girl to be risible.
>
> Well, now, there's a bit to be said here -- but I can't say it.
If he had Grade 4 osteo in his knees, or something like that, you'd
stand a much better chance on that score. But presumably, the State
would have that information from the get-go.
>>Cam's lying, and there is no innocent reason I can fathom for that.
>
> Were the witnesses on the path who saw her running ahead of him lying as
> well?
Notice how the facts always change when Ted tells the story? First
it was skipping, and now, it is an outright run.
>
>>>I know Ken will try to make light of it, but I think you can appreciate
>>>that I'm not in a position to be able to get into any specifics right now.
>>
>>Geragos' strategy just mystifies here. That any man should have to sit in
>>jail for two years without even knowing when his trial date is set is
>>outrageous enough, but for an attorney of an "obviously innocent" man to
>>not be doing *everything* within his power to get his client released is
>>unconscionable.
>
> THe trial date was already set, but the prosecuter played some tricks to buy
> himself some extra time.
And why hasn't Geragos pulled any of his tricks out of HIS hat? This
is the most prominent factor in why we don't believe you. If I were the
one representing Cam, and I had the hand you claim, I'd be playing it to
the hilt.
>>So, where is the habeas motion, Ted?
>
> Beats me.
Well, until we get a credible answer on this, we have to conclude
that yours are the ravings of a personally interested family member.
>>>And also, the forensic accountant DID mislead the grand jury. Cameron's
>>>credit problems were in the period December 2003 to July 2004 -- after he
>>>had been arrested and jailed, and fully 3 years after the accident. She
>>>did not testify as to dates regarding the credit problems, but I have seen
>>>Cameron's credit report. Cameron did NOT have any credit problems in the
>>>time period when he was paying child support (or even before), and her
>>>testimony made it appear as if he did.
>>
>>And you have filed your complaint with the state Board of Accountancy?
>>While California's mechanism for policing bad attorneys is reputed to be
>>non-existent,
>
> So is that why this prosecutor thinks he can get away with these kinds of
> antics?
That's why lawyers suborn perjured testimony all the time -- they
know they can get away with it. The law is a profession ethics forgot.
>>an accountancy board would take an *extremely* dim view of such behavior,
>>if proven.
>
> It can be proven. And will be, if what you say is true.
If you had the goods, you should have gone after her yesterday. If
as you suggest, the prosecution's case is tenuous, that might have been
the straw that broke the camel's back.
Ken Smith
A public official is only authorized to do what the law permits him
to do ... but as we all know, public officials routinely run roughshod
over the rights of ordinary citizens. I completed the application
process -- or at least, the portions permitted under the enabling
statute, federal law, and the Colorado Constitution.
But if you don't love Israel, Larry doesn't believe you should get
due process of law.
Ken Smith
Don't you remember, Ted? You *published* the 995 motion. You must
have been stone drunk when you did it, but you did, and we all have a copy.
Our Tedy Brewski doesn't have a *problem* with the truth -- he simply
ignores it. Take this example: First, Ted doesn't drink, then he does,
and then, he doesn't! Problem is, more than half the time, Ted is just
too fuckin' drunk to remember that he DOES drink. ;)
_____________________________________________________________________
[August 10, 2002]
From: CraftyCRI <Crafty...@hotmail.com>
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> CraftyCRI wrote:
>> By James' estimation Ken is a far better candidate for "knowing God"
>> than you, Teddi Beer, your beer bolstered bluster notwithstanding.
>
> Sorry, Bruce. I don't drink.
As of when? According to many of your previous posts this is a blatant
lie. Are you saying you NOW "don't drink", perhaps? Or that you were
lying when you said that before you DID "drink" or that "drinking" for
"auzies" is different for the rest of the world? Which is it NOW Teddi??
_____________________________________________________________________
[September 10, 2003]
From: "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net>
Larry Smith wrote:
> Merlin wrote:
>> REPOST
>> Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>> UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
>>> FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
>>> Plaintiff did not seek review of that denial with the United States
>>> Supreme Court, as he is permitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257. *
> Bwaaaaaahhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaa! Worthless as the teats on
> a boar hog. One chance in a thousand even to get those high priests
> to grant a hearing, no matter how meritorious the cause. That is
> sooooo funny that the disingenuous fed court would even mention it.
> Who was the last bar applicant they heard in DC? Willner? And not
> one state even pays any attention to Willner, which is a de facto
> nullity. It is not even cited in bar cases because there are none
> to speak of, except Ken's and his only relief is to be heckled by 3
> or 4 obscure and anonymous sociopaths in this NG and one drunken
> Larson-wanker posing as an engineer.
Oh? And who might that be? Certainly not me, because I do not defend
Larson. As far as I can tell, his primary interest seems to be in
fleecing the flock.
As for "drunken", that's another one of Ken's lies. The last time I got
really toasted was in 1979. I drink in moderation -- never more than
just a couple of beers or a glass of wine. And not a drop if I am going
to be getting behind the wheel anytime in the next few hours.
_______________________________________________________________________
[January 8, 2004]
From: "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net>
Ken Smith wrote:
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> And I haven't said anything yet.
> Better that you should take the Fifth on this one -- if you haven't
> already consumed it. :)
I have nothing to hide. And I don't drink.
____________________________________________________________________
[Googled posts on file]
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Larry wrote:
>> Actually, failing to complete the bar application process results in a
>> certain loss, too.
> [...] I completed the application process -- or at least, the portions
> permitted under the enabling statute, federal law, and the Colorado
> Constitution.
According to you. But it seems to me that Judge Edward Nottingham, and also
the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, saw things differently.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Larry wrote:
>> Actually, failing to complete the bar application process results in a
>> certain loss, too.
> Ken completed every part of the process permitted under law.
No he didn't. There's no law that prohibits Ken from taking a psychological
examination.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Larry wrote:
>> Actually, failing to complete the bar application process results in a
>> certain loss, too.
> Ken completed every part of the process permitted under law.
No he didn't. There's no law that prohibits Ken from taking a psychological
examination.
Ken Smith
By that tautology, Cam Brown was lawfully indicted, as the presiding
judge concluded that the grand jury proceeding was conducted properly,
and Mark Geragoesthemoney didn't even bother to appeal. Stop whining
about the incarceration of your brother-in-law; if I'm not entitled to
the benefit of fair and consistent application of the law, then neither
is Cam.
That the Tenth Circuit misapplied Rooker-Feldman in my case is proven
beyond a peradvendure of a doubt. Recently, SCOTUS observed:
In Feldman, two plaintiffs brought federal-court actions after the
District of Columbia's highest court denied their petitions to waive a
court Rule requiring D. C. bar applicants to have graduated from an
accredited law school. Recalling Rooker, this Court observed that the
District Court lacked authority to review a final judicial determination
of the D. C. high court because such review "can be obtained only in
this Court." 460 U. S., at 476. Concluding that the D. C. court's
proceedings applying the accreditation Rule to the plaintiffs were
"judicial in nature," id., at 479-482, this Court ruled that the Federal
District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, id., at 482. However,
concluding also that, in promulgating the bar admission Rule, the D. C.
court had acted legislatively, not judicially, id., at 485-486, this
Court held that 28 U. S. C. §1257 did not bar the District Court from
addressing the validity of the Rule itself, so long as the plaintiffs
did not seek review of the Rule's application in a particular case, 460
U. S., at 486. Since Feldman, this Court has never applied
Rooker-Feldman to dismiss an action for want of jurisdiction. However,
the lower federal courts have variously interpreted the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine to extend far beyond the contours of the Rooker and Feldman
cases, overriding Congress' conferral of federal-court jurisdiction
concurrent with jurisdiction exercised by state courts, and superseding
the ordinary application of preclusion law under 28 U. S. C. §1738.
Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Saudi Basic Industries Corporation, 125 S.Ct.
1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005).
If you won't even acknowledge that others have gotten screwed by an
out-of-control court system, why should ANYONE shed a tear over a man
who appears to have murdered his daughter?
Ken Smith
> Kent Wills wrote:
>>Larry wrote:
>
>
>>>Actually, failing to complete the bar application process results in a
>>>certain loss, too.
>>
>>Ken completed every part of the process permitted under law.
>
> No he didn't. There's no law that prohibits Ken from taking a psychological
> examination.
However, the Bill of Rights prohibits bar examiners from demanding
one unless certain prerequisites are met. However, the Bill of Rights
isn't worth the paper it is printed on if judges won't enforce it when
asked.
Ken Smith
> Kent Wills wrote:
>>Larry wrote:
>
>
>>>Actually, failing to complete the bar application process results in a
>>>certain loss, too.
>>
>>Ken completed every part of the process permitted under law.
>
> No he didn't. There's no law that prohibits Ken from taking a psychological
> examination.
But if the Bill of Rights is to mean anything, I should have the
right to challenge the legality of such demands in an independent court
before I am forced to succumb to such blackmail. This right was never
granted.
If I'm not entitled to the benefit of due process of law, then
neither is your child-murdering (allegedly) brother-in-law. So, STFU
already!!!
Kent appears to have picked the wrong word. Unlike Kent -- for whom
English is a second language -- you have no excuse.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Larry wrote:
>>>> Actually, failing to complete the bar application process results in a
>>>> certain loss, too.
>>> [...] I completed the application process -- or at least, the portions
>>> permitted under the enabling statute, federal law, and the Colorado
>>> Constitution.
>> According to you. But it seems to me that Judge Edward Nottingham, and
>> also the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, saw things differently.
> By that tautology,
It's not a tautology. We need to inform readers unacquaited with this
situation of the basic facts.
> Cam Brown was lawfully indicted,
No he wasn't.
> as the presiding judge concluded that the grand jury proceeding was
> conducted properly, [...]
I doubt that the judge has yet seen Cameron's credit report.
> That the Tenth Circuit misapplied Rooker-Feldman in my case is proven
> beyond a peradvendure of a doubt. Recently, SCOTUS observed: [...]
So why haven't you filed a cert petition to SCOTUS? Do you intend to file
one, or are you going to continue self-flagellating yourself by interminably
whining here about how you were somehow done wrong?
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> Larry wrote:
>>>> Actually, failing to complete the bar application process results in a
>>>> certain loss, too.
>>> Ken completed every part of the process permitted under law.
>> No he didn't. There's no law that prohibits Ken from taking a
>> psychological examination.
> The examiners didn't have the authority under law to require the
> evaluation.
Says Ken. But the courts seem to believe otherwise.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> Larry wrote:
>>>> Actually, failing to complete the bar application process results in a
>>>> certain loss, too.
>>> Ken completed every part of the process permitted under law.
>> No he didn't. There's no law that prohibits Ken from taking a
>> psychological examination.
> But if the Bill of Rights is to mean anything,
The Bill of Rights DOES mean something. It means you failed to get a law
licence fair and square.
> I should have the right to challenge the legality of such demands in an
> independent court
You are trying to imply that the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board (and thus by
extension the Colorado Supreme Court, under whose oversight the Examiners'
Board operates) somehow have an interest in a particular outcome in your
case. This is a fantasy. Both the Examiners' Board and the Supreme Court
are in fact are disinterested (and thus INDEPENDENT!), seeking only a
resolution of the question, and having no interest in any particular outcome.
> before I am forced to succumb to such blackmail.
What "blackmail"? By the very act of applying to become a lawyer, you place
your psychological fitness to practise law into question.
> This right was never granted.
This right was never VIOLATED.
> If I'm not entitled to the benefit of due process of law, [...]
You already GOT due process of law -- so STFU already!
Theodore A. Kaldis
Perhaps you should ask the judge this:
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/ExcuseMe.wav>
the next time you lose in court.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> Larry wrote:
>>>> Actually, failing to complete the bar application process results in a
>>>> certain loss, too.
>>> Ken completed every part of the process permitted under law.
>> No he didn't. There's no law that prohibits Ken from taking a
>> psychological examination.
> However, the Bill of Rights prohibits bar examiners from demanding one
> unless certain prerequisites are met.
Luckily, in Ken's case, no one "demanded" that he submit to anything. Ken
was merely ASKED to submit to a psychological examination. And Ken refused,
so he did not have to take one. (On the downside, the examiners were unable
to resolve the question regarding Ken's psychological fitness to practise
law, and thus were forced to deny his application for admission to the Bar.)
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>> Larry wrote:
>>>>>> Actually, failing to complete the bar application process results in a
>>>>>> certain loss, too.
>>>>> [...] I completed the application process -- or at least, the portions
>>>>> permitted under the enabling statute, federal law, and the Colorado
>>>>> Constitution.
>>>> According to you. But it seems to me that Judge Edward Nottingham, and
>>>> also the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, saw things differently.
>>> By that tautology,
>> It's not a tautology. We need to inform readers unacquaited with this
>> situation of the basic facts.
>>> Cam Brown was lawfully indicted,
>> No he wasn't.
> Yes, he was, for what an indictment is worth.
How could he have been? On the basis of PERJURY? That's not lawful.
>>> as the presiding judge concluded that the grand jury proceeding was
>>> conducted properly, [...]
>> I doubt that the judge has yet seen Cameron's credit report.
> But the Grand Jury certainly did.
No they did NOT! Because if they would have, Cameron would NOT have been
indicted.
>>> That the Tenth Circuit misapplied Rooker-Feldman in my case is proven
>>> beyond a peradvendure of a doubt. Recently, SCOTUS observed: [...]
>> So why haven't you filed a cert petition to SCOTUS?
> As I understand it, Ken hasn't exhausted all the state levels yet.
Bullsh*t! He was told by both Judge Nottingham AND the 10th Circuit Court of
Appeals that his ONLY remedy was with SCOTUS.
> It would be fairly stupid to cert SCOTUS when there are state courts
> available.
What, suing the state Supreme Court in an inferior state court? Now there's
an action for you! Any guesses as to how it would turn out?
>> Do you intend to file one, or are you going to continue self-flagellating
>> yourself by interminably whining here about how you were somehow done
>> wrong?
> I can only guess, but I would expect that Ken would wait to go to SCOTUS
> until AFTER he's used all other options.
So why don't you ask Ken about how he's done in these action?:
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/10thcircuitenbanc.htm>
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/showcause.htm>
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/immuneresp.htm.htm>
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/injunction.htm>
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/10thcircuitenbanc.htm>
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/amicus.htm>
Has he seen any success in any of them? I doubt it.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Not only Ken, but relevant state statutes and the Constitution.
No they don't. Otherwise, Ken would have EASILY prevailed in court. (But he
didn't.)
Theodore A. Kaldis
> When one can be punished for refusing a request, it is no longer a request,
> but a demand.
Except that Ken wasn't "punished". Ken FAILED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
PROCESS, and thus his application was denied. If Ken would have been
punished, he would have been put in jail or stood in front of a firing squad.
> You seem to have trouble with this.
No, I understand it just fine. Unlike you.
> And here I thought it was an easy concept.
Obviously not for you it isn't.
Theodore A. Kaldis
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/10thcircuitenbanc.htm>
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/showcause.htm>
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/injunction.htm>
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/immuneresp.htm>
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/injunctionreply.htm>
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/amicus.htm>
Ken Smith
Which is, of course, why Cam Brown is legally incarcerated -- if the
995 motion wasn't so risible, he should have EASILY prevailed in court.
(But he didn't.)
Ken Smith
Under Colorado law, that is NOT a request -- it is a DEMAND. But Ted
is a true "Christian" -- a malicious, flaming hypocrite, who will never
let the facts or the law get in the way of his immaculate preconceptions.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>Larry wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Actually, failing to complete the bar application process results in a
>>>>>certain loss, too.
>>>>
>>>>Ken completed every part of the process permitted under law.
>>>
>>>No he didn't. There's no law that prohibits Ken from taking a
>>>psychological examination.
>>
>>But if the Bill of Rights is to mean anything,
>
> The Bill of Rights DOES mean something. It means you failed to
> get a law licence fair and square.
Then it *ALSO* means that Cam Brown was incarcerated fair and square.
>>I should have the right to challenge the legality of such demands in an
>>independent court
>
> You are trying to imply that the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board (and thus by
> extension the Colorado Supreme Court, under whose oversight the Examiners'
> Board operates) somehow have an interest in a particular outcome in your
> case. This is a fantasy.
Given that you are the one proclaiming that Cam Brown is the victim
of the broadest conspiracy in the history of Los Angeles, the irony in
that remark is thicker than Vegemite. As if the detectives, the judges,
the grand jury, the expert witnesses, the RPV Parks and Rec department,
DoC personnel, other 195s, the DAs office, and quite possibly Vladimir
Putin are ALL in on it. :)
> Both the Examiners' Board and the Supreme Court
> are in fact are disinterested (and thus INDEPENDENT!), seeking only a
> resolution of the question, and having no interest in any particular outcome.
Really, Ted? And how would you KNOW that? Because it is the answer
you need to arrive at?
>>before I am forced to succumb to such blackmail.
>
> What "blackmail"? By the very act of applying to become a lawyer, you place
> your psychological fitness to practise law into question.
But they can only investigate subject to the strictures imposed by
the federal and Colorado constitutions, federal law, and their own
enabling statute. What part of this do you not understand, Moronovich?
>>This right was never granted.
>
> This right was never VIOLATED.
According to Ted, who got his master's of outcome-based jurisprudence
from one of the bottles of Wild Turkey he emptied. You wouldn't even be
able to explain the concept of due process on a bet.
>>If I'm not entitled to the benefit of due process of law, [...]
>
> You already GOT due process of law -- so STFU already!
If I got it, then Cam got it -- so STFU already!!!
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>Larry wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Actually, failing to complete the bar application process results in a
>>>>>certain loss, too.
>>>>
>>>>[...] I completed the application process -- or at least, the portions
>>>>permitted under the enabling statute, federal law, and the Colorado
>>>>Constitution.
>>>
>>>According to you. But it seems to me that Judge Edward Nottingham, and
>>>also the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, saw things differently.
>>
>>By that tautology,
>
> It's not a tautology. We need to inform readers unacquaited with this
> situation of the basic facts.
If the judges are always right in my case because they are judges,
then they are always right in Cam's case because they are judges.
>>Cam Brown was lawfully indicted,
>
> No he wasn't.
By your own definition, he certainly was. The grand jury considered
the evidence, and decided on the basis of the evidence as provided that
there was probable cause to believe that Cam murdered his daughter in
cold blood.
>>as the presiding judge concluded that the grand jury proceeding was
>>conducted properly, [...]
>
> I doubt that the judge has yet seen Cameron's credit report.
It wasn't legally significant, in any event.
>>That the Tenth Circuit misapplied Rooker-Feldman in my case is proven
>>beyond a peradvendure of a doubt. Recently, SCOTUS observed: [...]
Dodging the question again, I see. Ted, do you have ANY integrity at
all?
> So why haven't you filed a cert petition to SCOTUS?
Because it isn't ripe yet.
So, why hasn't Cam revoked the speedy trial waiver? Why hasn't he
filed a habeas motion? Why hasn't he done ANYTHING to get his sorry ass
out of jail?
Ken Smith
Colorado law says otherwise (University of Colorado v. Derdeyn) --
but you have never been one to permit the law or the facts get in the
way of your personal vendetta against me.
>>You seem to have trouble with this.
>
> No, I understand it just fine. Unlike you.
You obviously don't -- or won't admit it.
>
>>And here I thought it was an easy concept.
>
> Obviously not for you it isn't.
Kent gets it. Even Bob Vorie got it. But you hate me so much that
you would never admit it even if you DID get it.
So, where's that dildo queen sister of yours? I thought she was
going to give me a piece of her mind (though I doubt I'd want anything
else of hers).....
Ken Smith
> Kent Wills wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>>>Larry wrote:
>>>>>>>Actually, failing to complete the bar application process results in a
>>>>>>>certain loss, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[...] I completed the application process -- or at least, the portions
>>>>>>permitted under the enabling statute, federal law, and the Colorado
>>>>>>Constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>>According to you. But it seems to me that Judge Edward Nottingham, and
>>>>>also the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, saw things differently.
>>>>
>>>>By that tautology,
>>>
>>>It's not a tautology. We need to inform readers unacquaited with this
>>>situation of the basic facts.
>>
>>>>Cam Brown was lawfully indicted,
>>>
>>>No he wasn't.
>>
>>Yes, he was, for what an indictment is worth.
>
> How could he have been?
Very easily. Even if the forensic accountant perjured herself -- and
I doubt that strenuously! -- it was only cumulative information.
> On the basis of PERJURY? That's not lawful.
No harm, no foul.
>
>>>>as the presiding judge concluded that the grand jury proceeding was
>>>>conducted properly, [...]
>>>
>>>I doubt that the judge has yet seen Cameron's credit report.
>>
>>But the Grand Jury certainly did.
>
> No they did NOT!
They were presented with the evidence, which they had access to.
> Because if they would have, Cameron would NOT have been
> indicted.
Sure, he would have been. The evidence is sufficient without it, and
even in spite of it, to justify an indictment. Sucks for Patty, but I
am sure she has a big, BLACK dildo to keep her company....
[sung to the tune of "Dead Man's Curve," by Jan & Dean]
I was cruisin' with my daughter one November day.
Drivin' 'round the Basin, lookin' for someplace to play.
The sky was kinda cloudy and the beach was just cold,
But where else in L.A. do you take a four-year-old?
I said, "C'mon now, Lauren, McDonald's is fine!"
She said, "Get a grip, Dad! I'm there all the time!
But I'll go you one better if you're not scared stiff,
Let's hike all the way ... to Dead Man's Cliff!!!"
Dead Man's Cliff,
It's no place to play!
Dead Man's Cliff,
You'd best keep away!
Dead Man's Cliff,
I can still hear 'em say,
"SHE WON'T COME BACK FROM DEAD MAN'S CLIFF!!!"
The scene was deserted at Inspiration Point,
Not a nudist, gay, or tourist, or kids smoking joints.
We rested for a moment, just taking in the scene,
She'd never seen the ocean looking pretty or clean.
I put her on my shoulders just to give her some height,
Never was I ever thinking she might take off in flight!
Before I knew what happened, she had started to slip,
I knew I couldn't stop her ... cuz there we were ...
At Dead Man's Cliff!
[chorus interruptus]
"Well, the last thing I remember, Dan [Lt. Danny Smith],
the girl was alive,
And then I saw her 'slip' into a sort of head-first dive,
I know I'll never forget that horrible sight!
I guess I found out for myself that everyone was right...."
"SHE WON'T COME BACK FROM DEAD MAN'S CLIFF!!!"
Dead Man's Cliff,
It's no place to play!
Dead Man's Cliff,
We'll put you away!
Dead Man's Cliff,
The jury will say,
"WON'T COME BACK FROM DEAD MAN'S CLIFF!!!" [repeat; fade]
Ken Smith
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 07:13:01 -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
> <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>Larry wrote:
[snip]
>>>If I'm not entitled to the benefit of due process of law, [...]
>>
>>You already GOT due process of law -- so STFU already!
>
> No he didn't. Ken hasn't had his day in court. Odd how you
> don't see this as a problem when Ken is the one whose rights are being
> violated, but when Cameron's rights are NOT violated, you claim they
> are and cry foul.
This is getting *so* tiresome -- it's the same old song, over and
over and over and over and over again. The same old, tired, fuckin'
screech, just because I won't suck his Jesus' diseased donkey dick.
What did I do to deserve this, Kent?
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Colorado law says otherwise
No it doesn't.
> (University of Colorado v. Derdeyn) -- but you have never been one to
> permit the law or the facts get in the way of your personal vendetta
> against me.
CU v Derdeyn doesn't apply here. That case dealt with ramdom drug testing
without suspicion where team members were required to sign a consent form.
But drug usage is an ILLEGAL act that requires one to take some positive
action to break the law. There is no way to subject everyone to random
testing at whim without violating the presumption of innocence. As such,
it represents a violation of their rights.
Psychological instability is another matter. An individual can be afflicted
with it without having taken any positive action to have caused it. And the
state has a veritable interest in assuring that candidates to the bar are
psychologically fit to practise law. And by the very act of applying for a
licence to practise law an individual places his psychological stability in
question. This applies EQUALLY to EVERY candidate. And the Bar Examiners,
as part of their evaluation duties, have a right to ask ANY candidate to
submit to a psychological examination should they have any question about the
candidate's psychological fitness to practise law. There is NO violation of
anyone's rights here.
>>> You seem to have trouble with this.
>> No, I understand it just fine. Unlike you.
> You obviously don't -- or won't admit it.
There's nothing to admit.
Get help.
>>> And here I thought it was an easy concept.
>> Obviously not for you it isn't.
> Kent gets it.
No he doesn't.
> Even Bob Vorie got it.
So Bob was taken in by your equivocation as well?
> But you hate me so much that you would never admit it even if you DID get
> it.
"Hate" has nothing to do with it. (And I don't "hate" you.)
> So, where's that dildo queen sister of yours? I thought she was going to
> give me a piece of her mind (though I doubt I'd want anything else of hers)
> ...
I reminded her of Lyndon Johnson's dictum, "Don't get into a p*ssing contest
with a skunk".
Theodore A. Kaldis
> What did I do to deserve this, Kent?
You refused to play by the rules, supposing that you are somehow above them.
Ken Smith
Yes, it does. You've never learned how to read a case ... but then
again, I've never learned how to fix a telephone.
>>(University of Colorado v. Derdeyn) -- but you have never been one to
>>permit the law or the facts get in the way of your personal vendetta
>>against me.
>
> CU v Derdeyn doesn't apply here. That case dealt with ramdom drug testing
> without suspicion where team members were required to sign a consent form.
> But drug usage is an ILLEGAL act that requires one to take some positive
> action to break the law. There is no way to subject everyone to random
> testing at whim without violating the presumption of innocence. As such,
> it represents a violation of their rights.
Again, you should stick to fixing telephones and chugging Wild
Turkey, as you are definitely out of your element here.
No consent can be voluntary when the failure to consent results in
the denial of a governmental benefit. As the Derdeyn Court put it:
__________________________________________________________________________
The fact that participation in intercollegiate sports is not a
"right" but a "benefit" does not alter the requirement that any consent
be voluntary. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that
Though a person has no "right" to a valuable government benefit and
even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number
of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not
rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes
his constitutionally protected interest . . . . For if the government
could deny a benefit to a person because of his [exercise of]
constitutionally protected [rights], his exercise of those freedoms
would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the
government to produce a result which it could not command directly.
Such interference with constitutional rights is impermissible. Perry
v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 583, 597 (1972).
It is quite clear that no consent can be voluntary where the failure to
consent results in a denial of the governmental benefit. Bostic v.
McClendon, 650 F. Supp. 245 (N.D. Ga. 1986) ("Consent" by city clerk's
office and police personnel to urinalysis testing was not voluntary
where employment would have been terminated if personnel refused to
participate); Feliciano v. City of Cleveland, 661 F. Supp. 578 (N.D.
Ohio 1987) (Police academy cadets did not voluntarily consent to
urinalysis for drug testing where cadets believed that producing urine
samples was necessary to retain their jobs); American Federation of Gov.
Employees v. Weinberger, 651 F. Supp. 726 (S.D. Ga. 1986) (Because
signed consent to Department of Defense mandatory urinalysis drug
testing was given only because jobs would be lost if consent forms were
not signed, the "consent" obtained was not voluntary); Schaill by Kross
v. Tippecanoe County School Corp., 864 F.2d 1309 (7th Cir. 1988)
("Consent" by high school student-athletes to drug testing not effective
as consent because participation in urinalysis testing was required for
participation in interscholastic athletics). ...
It must be remembered that the consent in question is the consent to
an otherwise unconstitutional search, and that to be voluntary such a
consent must be "freely given, without any duress, coercion or subtle
promises or threats calculated to flaw the free and unconstrained nature
of the decision." People v. Carlson, 677 P.2d at 318 (citing Bustamonte,
412 U.S. 218, and People v. Helm, 633 P.2d 1071).
_________________________________________________________________________
> Psychological instability is another matter. An individual can be afflicted
> with it without having taken any positive action to have caused it. And the
> state has a veritable interest in assuring that candidates to the bar are
> psychologically fit to practise law.
Why does a person need to be psychologically fit to practice law, but
not to be an engineer, accountant, or insurance salesman? Nine out of
ten lawyers never even set foot inside a courtroom, and many lawyers do
exactly what I do right now. This is a canard, and I suspect that even
*you* know it. Hawaii, Pennsylvania, and other states have dropped the
"mental stability" requirement, because it is fraught with opportunities
for politically-motivated abuse by examiners.
So tell me, Ted, why aren't you troubled by the fact that the
Colorado Supreme Court gave a law license to the cocaine-dealing
CONVICTED FELON daughter of a Democratic party hack, while also denying
a license to a Republican candidate for our state house of
representatives a mere *TWO DAYS* after he lost his bid for election?
> And by the very act of applying for a
> licence to practise law an individual places his psychological stability in
> question.
And by the very act of accepting a scholarship to play basketball, an
individual places his drug consumption habits in question.
> This applies EQUALLY to EVERY candidate.
This applies EQUALLY to EVERY athlete.
> And the Bar Examiners,
> as part of their evaluation duties, have a right to ask ANY candidate to
> submit to a psychological examination should they have any question about the
> candidate's psychological fitness to practise law.
Really? Care to cite chapter and verse? Under Rule 201.10,
examiners can only do so when they have complied with specific legal
requirements -- at least in theory. And when a district attorney wants
to cut a few corners -- suborning perjury and playing gamesmanship --
it's "no harm, no foul," right?
> There is NO violation of anyone's rights here.
There is *NO* violation of anyone's rights when a man is incarcerated
pending a trial on the merits when he is indicted for the alleged murder
of his illegitimate four-year-old daughter, even if the authorities play
fast and loose with the rules. "No harm, no foul," right?
Any argument you invoke against me can be applied to your
baby-killin' brudder-in-law, with even greater force. Perhaps you could
get Ahhnold to pardon Cam -- after all, it is Thanksgiving. :)
>>>>You seem to have trouble with this.
>>>
>>>No, I understand it just fine. Unlike you.
>>
>>You obviously don't -- or won't admit it.
>
> There's nothing to admit.
>
> Get help.
You should take your own advice, Stalker Boy.
>>>>And here I thought it was an easy concept.
>>>
>>>Obviously not for you it isn't.
>>
>>Kent gets it.
>
> No he doesn't.
Yes, he does. You're either dumber than I thought, or you get it and
don't want to admit it.
>>Even Bob Vorie got it.
>
> So Bob was taken in by your equivocation as well?
Bob put it this way:
________________________________________________________________________
As far as mental examinations, it's extremely subjective. They have long
history of abuse. Christians have been discrimnated against simply
because they have faith or believe in the second coming of Christ by the
same mental examinations. Ken has not commited a crime, he has not been
accused of a crime. Therefore I smell abuse in this area.
________________________________________________________________________
>>But you hate me so much that you would never admit it even if you DID get
>>it.
>
> "Hate" has nothing to do with it. (And I don't "hate" you.)
Yes, you do, Ted. You have been relentless in your malice. Obsessed
to the point of mental illness.
>>So, where's that dildo queen sister of yours? I thought she was going to
>>give me a piece of her mind (though I doubt I'd want anything else of hers)
>>...
>
> I reminded her of Lyndon Johnson's dictum, "Don't get into a p*ssing contest
> with a skunk".
I must confess that you rather resemble that remark.... :)
Larry
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When one can be punished for refusing a request, it is no
> longer a request, but a demand. You seem to have trouble with this.
> And here I thought it was an easy concept.
He wasn't punished.
If I apply for a driver's license, but refuse to get behind the wheel
and let the evaluator examine me, I've refused. And I end up not
getting a driver's license. Is this a punishment? No. Going to jail
to failing to take the road test - that's a punishment. Get it?
Ken Smith
> wheel test of your driving abilities. The Bar did not have the
> authority under law to require the examination.
> Further, everyone who wishes to get a driver's licence must
> have such a test at least once in their life.
> Your analogy doesn't work at all.
I think that even Larry is bright enough to know that it doesn't, but
his animus toward me is second only to Ted's.
This also explains why my legally sound arguments have fallen upon
deaf ears in our courts: When someone has a vested interest in ruling
against you, you can rest assured that he or she will. Judges don't
like it when people sue judges, even when the claims are meritorious.
And our judges are mainly Christians, which means their oaths of office
are less than worthless.
Ken Smith
lawfully arrested more than two years ago for the alleged cold-blooded
murder of his illegitimate four-year-old daughter Lauren Key. At this
writing, he remains under indictment, and is awaiting trial.
While the Kaldis family dinner table will again have an empty chair
on this holiday, and his sister Patty's bed will again be cold, but let
us not forget that Cam's continuing predicament is his own damn fault,
and that Ted's God would never allow punishment of an innocent man --
right, Teddums? :)
Though it may seem unfair at first that a man should have to languish
in jail for more than two years awaiting trial, let us never forget that
the power to force a trial on the merits has always been in Cam's
hands: All he had to do was revoke the waiver of his right to a speedy
trial. Besides, if he were truly innnocent, and had shown even a slight
degree of care, Lauren would be alive today, and he would not be going
through this ordeal of a lifetime.
While I am shooting the curl in some warm summer clime, I will think
about Ted's surfer-dude brudder-in-law ... and how pleasant the Greybar
Hotel must be during the holiday season. :)
Karma. It is a beautiful concept....
Theodore A. Kaldis
continues below:
Ken Smith wrote:
> ... for the continuing incarceration of one Cameron John Brown, who was
> lawfully arrested more than two years ago for the alleged cold-blooded
> murder of his illegitimate four-year-old daughter Lauren Key. At this
> writing, he remains under indictment, and is awaiting trial.
> While the Kaldis family dinner table will again have an empty chair on this
> holiday, and his sister Patty's bed will again be cold, but let us not
> forget that Cam's continuing predicament is his own damn fault, and that
> Ted's God would never allow punishment of an innocent man -- right,
> Teddums? :)
This is an idea that is contrary to the Bible. God does not micro-manage
what goes on here in this sinful world. And sin happens, though generally
through the conscious decision of sinful individuals.
> Though it may seem unfair at first that a man should have to languish in
> jail for more than two years awaiting trial, let us never forget that the
> power to force a trial on the merits has always been in Cam's hands: All
> he had to do was revoke the waiver of his right to a speedy trial.
> Besides, if he were truly innnocent, and had shown even a slight degree of
> care, Lauren would be alive today, and he would not be going through this
> ordeal of a lifetime.
> While I am shooting the curl in some warm summer clime, I will think about
> Ted's surfer-dude brudder-in-law ... and how pleasant the Greybar Hotel
> must be during the holiday season. :)
> Karma. It is a beautiful concept ...
"Karma" is merely the hindu restatement (or is it buddhist? -- I dunno, it's
from one of those eastern religions that were in vogue with the hippy crowd
about 35 years ago) of "As ye sow, so shall ye also reap". And what is it
that you are reaping today, Kenny?
Bear in mind that Ken does not know and has never interacted with Cameron in
any way, nor with his wife (my sister), and should therefore properly have no
beef against him. I don't know of anything that so wonderfully illustrates
why Ken was asked to submit to a psychological examination by the Colorado
Bar Examiners' Board as does a message like this.
Ken, please, get help. Straight up. For real.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Larry wrote:
>> He wasn't punished.
> The DOT has the authority under law to require a behind the wheel test of
> your driving abilities. The Bar did not have the authority under law to
> require the examination.
And who (besides Ken) says that the Bar Examiners don't have such authority?
Has Ken been able to find even ONE court that agrees with this assertion?
Short answer: NO!
> Further, everyone who wishes to get a driver's licence must have such a
> test at least once in their life.
So what? EVERYONE who applies to become a lawyer MUST demonstrate (to the
satisfaction of the Examiners' Board) psychological fitness. Ken FAILED to
do that. What part of that do you not understand?
> Your analogy doesn't work at all.
Nor does yours.
Ken Smith
>Ken had originally titled this message "Let's all be thankful ...",
>and continues below:
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>... for the continuing incarceration of one Cameron John Brown, who was
>>lawfully arrested more than two years ago for the alleged cold-blooded
>>murder of his illegitimate four-year-old daughter Lauren Key. At this
>>writing, he remains under indictment, and is awaiting trial.
>
>>While the Kaldis family dinner table will again have an empty chair on this
>>holiday, and his sister Patty's bed will again be cold, but let us not
>>forget that Cam's continuing predicament is his own damn fault, and that
>>Ted's God would never allow punishment of an innocent man -- right,
>>Teddums? :)
>
> This is an idea that is contrary to the Bible. God does not micro-manage
> what goes on here in this sinful world. And sin happens, though generally
> through the conscious decision of sinful individuals.
So, why do you continue to allege that my situation constitutes
divine retribution for exposing Bob Larson? As the sage used to say,
"Pick a lane!"
>>Though it may seem unfair at first that a man should have to languish in
>>jail for more than two years awaiting trial, let us never forget that the
>>power to force a trial on the merits has always been in Cam's hands: All
>>he had to do was revoke the waiver of his right to a speedy trial.
>>Besides, if he were truly innnocent, and had shown even a slight degree of
>>care, Lauren would be alive today, and he would not be going through this
>>ordeal of a lifetime.
>
>>While I am shooting the curl in some warm summer clime, I will think about
>>Ted's surfer-dude brudder-in-law ... and how pleasant the Greybar Hotel
>>must be during the holiday season. :)
>
>>Karma. It is a beautiful concept ...
>
> "Karma" is merely the hindu restatement (or is it buddhist? -- I dunno, it's
> from one of those eastern religions that were in vogue with the hippy crowd
> about 35 years ago) of "As ye sow, so shall ye also reap".
Its known origin is in Hinduism, though it can be found in the Judaic
religions as well.
> And what is it that you are reaping today, Kenny?
As the Scots say, "No good deed is left unpunished."
> Bear in mind that Ken does not know and has never interacted with Cameron in
> any way, nor with his wife (my sister), and should therefore properly have no
> beef against him.
I don't have a beef with him or Patty. However, I do have a beef
with her beefy -- or, should I say, unduly adipose -- BIG brother, and I
find it delightful that *every* argument he has used to wrongfully
malign me applies with equal or greater force to Cam.
> I don't know of anything that so wonderfully illustrates
> why Ken was asked to submit to a psychological examination by the Colorado
> Bar Examiners' Board as does a message like this.
I'm merely giving you a taste of your own medicine, Teddums. That
you don't like it when you are on the receiving end ought to be
instructive. And along those lines, here's a great song for
Thanksgiving revelers:
________________________________________________________________
[chorus interruptus]
__________________________________________________________
Have a Crappy Thanksgiving, Ted. You've earned it.
Ken Smith
> Kent Wills wrote:
>>Larry wrote:
>>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
[snip]
>>>>When one can be punished for refusing a request, it is no longer a
>>>>request, but a demand. You seem to have trouble with this. And here I
>>>>thought it was an easy concept.
>>>
>>>He wasn't punished.
>>
>>>If I apply for a driver's license, but refuse to get behind the wheel and
>>>let the evaluator examine me, I've refused. And I end up not getting a
>>>driver's license. Is this a punishment? No. Going to jail to failing to
>>>take the road test - that's a punishment. Get it?
>>
>>The DOT has the authority under law to require a behind the wheel test of
>>your driving abilities. The Bar did not have the authority under law to
>>require the examination.
>
> And who (besides Ken) says that the Bar Examiners don't have such authority?
> Has Ken been able to find even ONE court that agrees with this assertion?
> Short answer: NO!
If courts never make mistakes, then Cam Brown is lawfully
incarcerated -- so STFU, already!
>
>>Further, everyone who wishes to get a driver's licence must have such a
>>test at least once in their life.
>
> So what? EVERYONE who applies to become a lawyer MUST demonstrate (to the
> satisfaction of the Examiners' Board) psychological fitness. Ken FAILED to
> do that. What part of that do you not understand?
In what passes for Ted's mind, selective enforcement of the law and a
willful refusal of government officials to observe the strictures of law
are never a problem (unless, of course, Cam Brown is on the business end
of them).
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Kent Wills wrote:
>> Larry wrote:
>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>> When one can be punished for refusing a request, it is no longer a
>>>> request, but a demand. You seem to have trouble with this. And here I
>>>> thought it was an easy concept.
>>> He wasn't punished.
>>> If I apply for a driver's license, but refuse to get behind the wheel and
>>> let the evaluator examine me, I've refused. And I end up not getting a
>>> driver's license. Is this a punishment? No. Going to jail to failing
>>> to take the road test - that's a punishment. Get it?
>> The DOT has the authority under law to require a behind the wheel test of
>> your driving abilities. The Bar did not have the authority under law to
>> require the examination.
>> Further, everyone who wishes to get a driver's licence must have such a
>> test at least once in their life.
>> Your analogy doesn't work at all.
> I think that even Larry is bright enough to know that it doesn't, but his
> animus toward me is second only to Ted's.
Why should I, or Larry, harbour any animus against you? What, besides your
apparent paranoia, would lead you to suspect that this is the case?
> This also explains why my legally sound arguments have fallen upon deaf
> ears in our courts: When someone has a vested interest in ruling against
> you, you can rest assured that he or she will.
So let me get this straight: Judge Edward Nottingham, the jurists of the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals, the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board, the Colorado
Supreme Court, and virtually the entire Colorado legal establishment have a
"vested interest" in making sure that Ken Smith does not become a lawyer???
Is that what you are trying to tell us? Or is it more likely that Ken Smith
apparently suffers from an acute form of paranoia?
> Judges don't like it when people sue judges, even when the claims are
> meritorious.
And they like it even less when the claims AREN'T!
> And our judges are mainly Christians, which means their oaths of office
> are less than worthless.
But (if I'm not mistaken) Larry is Jewish. What would explain his supposed
"animus" against you? (Aside from your apparent paranoia?)
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> While the Kaldis family dinner table will again have an empty chair on
>>> this holiday, and his sister Patty's bed will again be cold, but let us
>>> not forget that Cam's continuing predicament is his own damn fault, and
>>> that Ted's God would never allow punishment of an innocent man -- right,
>>>Teddums? :)
>> This is an idea that is contrary to the Bible. God does not micro-manage
>> what goes on here in this sinful world. And sin happens, though generally
>> through the conscious decision of sinful individuals.
> So, why do you continue to allege that my situation constitutes divine
> retribution for exposing Bob Larson?
I never said it was "divine retribution" -- you merely assumed that. In
point of fact, you are looking at exactly the WRONG direction if you think
that God had anything to do with your situation. The [spiritual] origins of
your predicament are DIABOLICAL -- and it is YOU who opened the doors to it
by your own actions.
Teresita
>
>I never said it was "divine retribution" -- you merely assumed that. In
>point of fact, you are looking at exactly the WRONG direction if you think
>that God had anything to do with your situation. The [spiritual] origins of
>your predicament are DIABOLICAL -- and it is YOU who opened the doors to it
>by your own actions.
So if it is not divine retribution it must be infernal retribution. And here I
thought the devil wanted to punish the white hats and reward the black hats.
--
--
Encyclopedia Teresita
http://home.comcast.net/~rubyredinger
Teresita
>
>Bear in mind that Ken does not know and has never interacted with Cameron in
>any way, nor with his wife (my sister), and should therefore properly have no
>beef against him. I don't know of anything that so wonderfully illustrates
>why Ken was asked to submit to a psychological examination by the Colorado
>Bar Examiners' Board as does a message like this.
You're still riding that psych eval hobby horse around?
That's...that's................crazy.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>>Larry wrote:
>>>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>I think that even Larry is bright enough to know that it doesn't, but his
>>animus toward me is second only to Ted's.
>
> Why should I, or Larry, harbour any animus against you?
The fact that you have demonstrated an animus toward me is sufficient.
>>This also explains why my legally sound arguments have fallen upon deaf
>>ears in our courts: When someone has a vested interest in ruling against
>>you, you can rest assured that he or she will.
>
> So let me get this straight: Judge Edward Nottingham, the jurists of the 10th
> Circuit Court of Appeals, the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board, the Colorado
> Supreme Court, and virtually the entire Colorado legal establishment have a
> "vested interest" in making sure that Ken Smith does not become a lawyer???
You obviously haven't been paying much attention, Ted. Judges have
an interest in not being held personally liable for their misconduct on
the bench, and the Examiners have an interest in protecting the
reputation of their institution. Think of what the Boston Archdiocese
did in the face of its pedophile priest scandal: Rather than do what was
necessary to prevent sexual abuse, they covered the problem up.
Institutions are naturally inclined to 'cover up' their misdeeds. As I
have pointed out before:
_______________________________________________________________________
When I speak of judicial corruption, I don’t refer to the simple
appearance of impropriety -- e.g., Vice-President Cheney and Justice
Scalia, in a duck-blind2 -- but rather, acts both subtle and pernicious,
which can honestly be called “felonious.” As Professor Monroe Freedman,
one of the nation’s leading scholars on judicial ethics, observes:
Frankly, I have had more than enough of judicial opinions that bear
no relationship whatsoever to the cases that have been filed and
argued before the judges. I am talking about judicial opinions that
falsify the facts of the cases that have been argued, judicial
opinions that make disingenuous use or omission of material
authorities, judicial opinions that cover up these things with
no-publication and no-citation rules.3
While his evidence is obviously anecdotal, Northwestern University
law Professor Anthony D’Amato suggests that incidents of this shocking
form of judicial malfeasance are distressingly common.4 Still, few seem
as cleanly documented as the murder conviction of Dr. John Branion, a
black physician who secretly treated Black Panthers during the ’60s.5
From D’Amato’s account of the incident, it’s easy to see how the
unscrupulous judge could virtually ensure the conviction of an innocent
man, or vice versa. By controlling what a jury can hear, he can distort
the true facts of the case beyond recognition. By changing or misstating
facts in his opinion, he can virtually ensure that it will not be
overturned. And by misapplying or completely disregarding black-letter
law, appellate courts can conceal the crime6 with impunity. Not
surprisingly, D’Amato calls the lack of candor in opinion-writing the
“dirtiest of [judicial] linen that should not be displayed in public.”7
To hear him tell it, judges seek appointments on the bench for the
power and prestige, rather than the money8; former Colorado Supreme
Court Justice Gregory Scott seems to agree.9 And if even one Father
Geoghan can bring the entire Catholic priesthood into disrepute, judges
have an obvious motive to conceal the crimes of their colleagues. Prof.
D’Amato explains:
No matter what the profession, any charge that a fellow professional
is guilty of malpractice is a prima facie invitation to other pro-
fessionals to retreat to a guild mentality, denying that the infrac-
tion took place. The impetus to cover up is not primarily due to
friendship toward the accused but rather to a general perception that
disclosure would lead to public disrespect of the profession as a
whole. ... We perhaps demand too much of human nature if we expect
judges to be unconcerned with the loss of public prestige that results
from admitting that cases of serious judicial misconduct are not
extraordinarily rare.10
Whether called the “conspiracy of silence,”11 the “blue wall of
silence,”12 or even omerta,13 guilds have always had ways of keeping
their dirty linen from public view. And if doctors protect doctors, cops
protect cops, and mobsters protect mobsters, would it really be all that
surprising if judges protected fellow judges?
__________________________________________________________________________
>>Judges don't like it when people sue judges, even when the claims are
>>meritorious.
>
> And they like it even less when the claims AREN'T!
Considering your *demonstrated* animus toward me, you are hardly in a
position to render a fair judgment in that matter. Let me put it this
way: Would you be happy if I were appointed as the judge in Cam's case?
Would you trust my judgment on such matters? Yes or no answers will do,
Ted.
>>And our judges are mainly Christians, which means their oaths of office
>>are less than worthless.
>
> But (if I'm not mistaken) Larry is Jewish. What would explain his supposed
> "animus" against you?
It is enough that it exists.
Ken Smith
Kent Wills wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 07:27:19 -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
> <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>>While the Kaldis family dinner table will again have an empty chair on
>>>>>this holiday, and his sister Patty's bed will again be cold, but let us
>>>>>not forget that Cam's continuing predicament is his own damn fault, and
>>>>>that Ted's God would never allow punishment of an innocent man -- right,
>>>>>Teddums? :)
>>>>
>>>>This is an idea that is contrary to the Bible. God does not micro-manage
>>>>what goes on here in this sinful world. And sin happens, though generally
>>>>through the conscious decision of sinful individuals.
>>>
>>>So, why do you continue to allege that my situation constitutes divine
>>>retribution for exposing Bob Larson?
>>
>>I never said it was "divine retribution" -- you merely assumed that.
>
> You more than hinted at it. You worded your statements in
> such a way as to almost insure that everyone would believe you thought
> it was divine retribution.
As usual, Ted is being intentionally parsimonious.
>>In
>>point of fact, you are looking at exactly the WRONG direction if you think
>>that God had anything to do with your situation. The [spiritual] origins of
>>your predicament are DIABOLICAL -- and it is YOU who opened the doors to it
>>by your own actions.
>
> How is exposing a corrupt radio evangelist (Bob Lar$on)
> opening the spiritual doors to Satan? Too few Christians were doing
> anything about Lar$ons misdeeds, so God had a heathen expose the wolf
> in sheep's clothing. Doesn't should like El Diablo had anything to do
> with it to me.
Ted does seem to have a close working relationship with 'Ol Scratch. :)
>
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>This also explains why my legally sound arguments have fallen upon deaf
>>ears in our courts: When someone has a vested interest in ruling against
>>you, you can rest assured that he or she will.
>
> So let me get this straight: Judge Edward Nottingham, the jurists of the 10th
> Circuit Court of Appeals, the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board, the Colorado
> Supreme Court, and virtually the entire Colorado legal establishment have a
> "vested interest" in making sure that Ken Smith does not become a lawyer???
> Is that what you are trying to tell us? Or is it more likely that Ken Smith
> apparently suffers from an acute form of paranoia?
So let me get this straight: A half-dozen or so detectives with the
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, a medical examiner, a forensic
accountant, judges, jailors, his fellow 195s, the Daily Breeze, Mancow,
the RPV Parks and Rec Department, D.A. Craig Hum and almost the entire
Los Angeles legal establishment have a "vested interest" in railroading
a mere stevedore??? Is that what you are trying to tell us? Or is it
more liely that Ted Kaldis suffers from an acute form of paranoia?
Ken Smith
> In article <43848A57...@worldnet.att.net>, Theodore A. Kaldis says...
>
>>I never said it was "divine retribution" -- you merely assumed that. In
>>point of fact, you are looking at exactly the WRONG direction if you think
>>that God had anything to do with your situation. The [spiritual] origins of
>>your predicament are DIABOLICAL -- and it is YOU who opened the doors to it
>>by your own actions.
>
> So if it is not divine retribution it must be infernal retribution. And here I
> thought the devil wanted to punish the white hats and reward the black hats.
Ted isn't going to tell you this straight up, but even he thinks I'm
the one wearing the white hat here. ;)
Ken Smith
> In article <43847C74...@worldnet.att.net>, Theodore A. Kaldis says...
>
>>Bear in mind that Ken does not know and has never interacted with Cameron in
>>any way, nor with his wife (my sister), and should therefore properly have no
>>beef against him. I don't know of anything that so wonderfully illustrates
>>why Ken was asked to submit to a psychological examination by the Colorado
>>Bar Examiners' Board as does a message like this.
>
> You're still riding that psych eval hobby horse around?
> That's...that's................crazy.
That's what Kent's wife -- a practicing psychologist -- said,
although she was more precise in her analysis. :)
Larry
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 07:35:14 GMT, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
> The DOT has the authority under law to require a behind the
> wheel test of your driving abilities. The Bar did not have the
> authority under law to require the examination.
The Bar does have the authority to ensure good moral and psychological
character. Ken didn't demonstrate this to their satisfaction.
> Further, everyone who wishes to get a driver's licence must
> have such a test at least once in their life.
> Your analogy doesn't work at all.
Everyone applying for bar membership must demonstrate moral and
psychological fitness.
The board could have simply rejected Ken outright; instead, they gave
him the opportunity to have a professional analysis. He declined. They
decided he did not demonstrate psychological fitness. Case closed.
Larry
Oh, yeah, there is that too.
And if he's not yet petitioning SCOTUS for cert because he's working on
a state level appeal, when can we expect to see that? Don't these
things have some sort of SoL in Colorado?
Larry
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Ken Smith wrote:
>
> Why should I, or Larry, harbour any animus against you? What, besides your
> apparent paranoia, would lead you to suspect that this is the case?
>
> > This also explains why my legally sound arguments have fallen upon deaf
> > ears in our courts: When someone has a vested interest in ruling against
> > you, you can rest assured that he or she will.
>
> So let me get this straight: Judge Edward Nottingham, the jurists of the 10th
> Circuit Court of Appeals, the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board, the Colorado
> Supreme Court, and virtually the entire Colorado legal establishment have a
> "vested interest" in making sure that Ken Smith does not become a lawyer???
And me, Ted! Remember, I supposedly have some vested interest too.
(Although a butterfly flapping its wings in China has more of an effect
on my life than whether or not Colorado gives Ken a law license, but
that's apparently besides the point.)
> Is that what you are trying to tell us? Or is it more likely that Ken Smith
> apparently suffers from an acute form of paranoia?
I must say, this became quite clear reading his amicus brief against Ken
Salazar. What I got from that was: "Salazar represented judges who did
bad things, and his job is to do only constitutional things, so he
should be impeached and replaced with a Republican."
>
> > Judges don't like it when people sue judges, even when the claims are
> > meritorious.
>
> And they like it even less when the claims AREN'T!
>
> > And our judges are mainly Christians, which means their oaths of office
> > are less than worthless.
>
> But (if I'm not mistaken) Larry is Jewish. What would explain his supposed
> "animus" against you? (Aside from your apparent paranoia?)
He thinks I hate him because he's anti-Israel. Not that 1) I have ever
made my personal views on Israel known, or 2) I know what Ken's views on
the topic are. All I know is that he's made anti-Semetic slurs towards
me, but I don't know if its because he hates all Jewish people, or just
me.
Larry
>
> That's what Kent's wife -- a practicing psychologist -- said,
> although she was more precise in her analysis. :)
>
>
>
> From: Ken Smith <for...@it.com>
> Subject: Ted Kaldis: OCD Sufferer, Possible Stalker (Re: Ken Smith Before The
> Colorado Bar Examiners
>
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> > Ken Smith wrote:
>
>
> Ted has been diagnosed as suffering from an Axis II disorder (OCD) by
> a professional. And judging by his conduct regarding Kym Horsell, I'm
> not his only victim.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Kent, but I don't think any professional
psychologist would diagnose someone from reading their Usenet posts.
Offer an opinion, maybe. But actually diagnose a serious condition?
Unlikely.
Which means that once again Ken is distorting the truth to suit his
goals.
Larry
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not according to applicable law.
>
> >Ken didn't demonstrate this to their satisfaction.
>
> Bummer for them.
No, bummer for Ken. You don't see them whining about it years later, do
you?
Ken Smith
> In article <gjd8o15sdiiqbq0jo...@4ax.com>,
> Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 07:35:14 GMT, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>>In article <j847o1p7sgcueki9m...@4ax.com>,
>>>Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:03:49 -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
>>>><kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>> When one can be punished for refusing a request, it is no
>>>>longer a request, but a demand. You seem to have trouble with this.
>>>>And here I thought it was an easy concept.
>>>
>>>He wasn't punished.
>>>
>>>If I apply for a driver's license, but refuse to get behind the wheel
>>>and let the evaluator examine me, I've refused. And I end up not
>>>getting a driver's license. Is this a punishment? No. Going to jail
>>>to failing to take the road test - that's a punishment. Get it?
>>
>> The DOT has the authority under law to require a behind the
>>wheel test of your driving abilities. The Bar did not have the
>>authority under law to require the examination.
>
> The Bar does have the authority to ensure good moral and psychological
> character. Ken didn't demonstrate this to their satisfaction.
If you don't get a hearing, you can't *demonstrate* anything. What a
dipshit!
>> Further, everyone who wishes to get a driver's licence must
>>have such a test at least once in their life.
>> Your analogy doesn't work at all.
>
> Everyone applying for bar membership must demonstrate moral and
> psychological fitness.
>
> The board could have simply rejected Ken outright;
Really? How is that, Lar? Ever heard of due process?
You obviously didn't get that one in law school -- did you pay
someone to take your bar exam for you? Obviously, the fact that you
have a law license is conclusive proof that New York's technical
standards are FAR too low.
Ken Smith
Naaaahhhh, I'm just being a little loose with the language -- remeber
that this is Usenet, and not a courtroom.
He who is without sin may cast the first stone, Herr Glasser.
Ken Smith
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 03:28:40 GMT, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>The board could have simply rejected Ken outright; instead, they gave
>>him the opportunity to have a professional analysis. He declined. They
>>decided he did not demonstrate psychological fitness. Case closed.
>
> Except that they didn't have the authority under the law to
> require/request any mental health exam.
Larry doesn't understand the difference between legal authority and
raw power. Hint: What the Nazis did to the Jews, they had the power to
do, but not the legal authority.
If a new incarnation of the Nazis could teach it to Lar the hard way,
he might even begin to understand it....
Ken Smith
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 03:41:51 GMT, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>In article <4384FE06...@it.com>, Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That's what Kent's wife -- a practicing psychologist -- said,
>>>although she was more precise in her analysis. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>From: Ken Smith <for...@it.com>
>>>Subject: Ted Kaldis: OCD Sufferer, Possible Stalker (Re: Ken Smith Before The
>>>Colorado Bar Examiners
>>>
>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> Ted has been diagnosed as suffering from an Axis II disorder (OCD) by
>>>a professional. And judging by his conduct regarding Kym Horsell, I'm
>>>not his only victim.
>>
>>Correct me if I'm wrong, Kent, but I don't think any professional
>
>
>>psychologist would diagnose someone from reading their Usenet posts.
>>Offer an opinion, maybe. But actually diagnose a serious condition?
>>Unlikely.
>
> tentative diagnosis) based solely on Ted's Usenet posts as archived at
> Google. She is unwilling and unable to give a definitive diagnosis.
> In order to do so, she would have to meet with Ted, and that's not
> likely to ever happen. They aren't within an easy commute of each
> other.
> Ted has proven to my satisfaction that he does have OCD, in
> addition to some other issues. Keep in mind that I don't have the
> training and education Lindsay has, and as such, what Ted had proven
> to me in this matter means little.
>
>>Which means that once again Ken is distorting the truth to suit his
>>goals.
>
> given a true diagnosis is wrong. She has not done so. All she is
> willing to say with certainty is that Ted's posts are consistent with
> OCD.
And we've already had this discussion. I stood corrected, but I'm
too lazy to re-write the post.
> As I, and others, have stated, Ted may be perfectly sane.
> It's quite possible that he's simply giving an Oscar worthy
> performance of a mentally ill person. There is no way for any of us
> to really know.
> Ken, having met Ted, will have more insight into it than any
> of the rest of us, but he also lacks the training needed to make any
> definitive claim.
All I can say is what you see of Ted is more-or-less what you get in
real life -- except that he wouldn't *dare* do what he does here in real
life, as he knows that his grille would have been rearranged a long time
ago by someone with a tyre-iron.
>
Ken Smith
> In article <438483CA...@worldnet.att.net>,
> I must say, this became quite clear reading his amicus brief against Ken
> Salazar. What I got from that was: "Salazar represented judges who did
> bad things, and his job is to do only constitutional things, so he
> should be impeached and replaced with a Republican."
That's your biggest problem, Lar: basic reading comprehension. You
obviously didn't understand what you read.
If the attorney general is charged with acting in parens patriae, he
is obligated to represent the affected citizen when government officials
are acting outside of the bounds of law.
It's pretty simple, really. If you managed to get better than a C-
in Con Law, you should understand it without slides.
Larry
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 03:41:51 GMT, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <4384FE06...@it.com>, Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> That's what Kent's wife -- a practicing psychologist -- said,
> >> although she was more precise in her analysis. :)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> From: Ken Smith <for...@it.com>
> >> Subject: Ted Kaldis: OCD Sufferer, Possible Stalker (Re: Ken Smith Before
> >> The
> >> Colorado Bar Examiners
> >>
> >> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >> > Ken Smith wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> Ted has been diagnosed as suffering from an Axis II disorder (OCD) by
> >> a professional. And judging by his conduct regarding Kym Horsell, I'm
> >> not his only victim.
> >
> >Correct me if I'm wrong, Kent, but I don't think any professional
>
> Ken wrote that, not me.
I know that - but if it was your wife who made the comments, then you'd
be the one to verify with her whether it was a professional "diagnosis"
or not. I didn't mean to imply it was your post.
> >psychologist would diagnose someone from reading their Usenet posts.
> >Offer an opinion, maybe. But actually diagnose a serious condition?
> >Unlikely.
>
> She has given a preliminary diagnosis (Ken often uses the term
> tentative diagnosis) based solely on Ted's Usenet posts as archived at
> Google. She is unwilling and unable to give a definitive diagnosis.
> In order to do so, she would have to meet with Ted, and that's not
> likely to ever happen. They aren't within an easy commute of each
> other.
Which is all I meant. I wouldn't expect a competent professional to
give a diagnosis about such a serious issue without first-hand, face to
face knowledge.
> Ted has proven to my satisfaction that he does have OCD, in
> addition to some other issues. Keep in mind that I don't have the
> training and education Lindsay has, and as such, what Ted had proven
> to me in this matter means little.
>
> >
> >Which means that once again Ken is distorting the truth to suit his
> >goals.
>
> Ken definitely worded his comment poorly. To claim she's
> given a true diagnosis is wrong. She has not done so.
My point exactly.
Larry
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 03:45:56 GMT, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
> >> >The Bar does have the authority to ensure good moral and psychological
> >> >character.
> >>
> >> Not according to applicable law.
> >>
> >> >Ken didn't demonstrate this to their satisfaction.
> >>
> >> Bummer for them.
> >
> >No, bummer for Ken.
>
> Major bummer for Ken, since he's the one they punished for
> declining their demand.
>
> >You don't see them whining about it years later, do
> >you?
>
> I've never seen a victor whine about winning.
I doubt they think that their denial of Ken's application for a license
was a "win." Of course, Ken's lawsuit being dismissed is a "win" for
them, but I'm talking about the initial application decision. If they're
considered the "victors" in denying Ken's application, does that mean
they're the losers every time someone is admitted?
Larry
> Larry wrote:
> >
> > The Bar does have the authority to ensure good moral and psychological
> > character. Ken didn't demonstrate this to their satisfaction.
>
> If you don't get a hearing, you can't *demonstrate* anything. What a
> dipshit!
Personal attack against me #1 in this post.
> >> Further, everyone who wishes to get a driver's licence must
> >>have such a test at least once in their life.
> >> Your analogy doesn't work at all.
> >
> > Everyone applying for bar membership must demonstrate moral and
> > psychological fitness.
> >
> > The board could have simply rejected Ken outright;
>
> Really? How is that, Lar? Ever heard of due process?
>
> You obviously didn't get that one in law school -- did you pay
> someone to take your bar exam for you?
Personal attack #2 against me in this post.
> Obviously, the fact that you
> have a law license is conclusive proof that New York's technical
> standards are FAR too low.
Personal attack #3 against me in this post.
And Ken is so delusional as to claim *I* have a personal animus towards
*him*?
Larry
"Loose with the language"? However you want to categorize it, the facts
are the facts. You said that a psychologist made a diagnosis of Ted,
when, in fact, she did not make a diagnosis. Period.
Even Kent stated "To claim she's given a true diagnosis is wrong. She
has not done so." It's pretty black and white. And I don't think I've
ever seen Kent disagree with you before.
(Uh-oh, Kent, you might be part of the "conspiracy" now!)