Re: Cam Brown will plead guilty?
Ken Smith
> Is it true that Brown will plead out to a 20-year manslaughter sentence?
>
Can't be true ... or *can* it? (It WOULD explain why Ted's suddenly
running silent, though.)
Please tell us where you heard *THAT* one, ienj!
Somebody e-mail Ted. If it isn't true, he's gonna want to squelch
the rumor, and fast.
forevernitefan
doesn't manslaughter involve LESS maximum time?
But if Cam is pleading out, kinda interesting if he's supposedly so
innocent that he would not go through with a trial.
I am sure Kaldis will pipe in with some bullshit excuse or defense or
something, Kaldis never remains silent for long. However if this IS
true, Kaldis would have to admit the possibility that CAM did murder
the child, and IMO Kaldis would rather suck a transvestite biker's dick
than admit he was wrong. And you can bet Kaldis isn't gonna notify us
about the plea bargain. :-D
If it's true it will be in public record. Guess only time will tell if
Kaldis responds at all.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
ienj...@yahoo.com
Kent Wills wrote:
> For reasons I don't want to explore, on Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:24:47
GMT,
> original content.
> I'll fire off an E-mail to him, but he may not read it, since it
> comes from me.
>
> Kent
> --
> If you have a bad cough, take a large dose of laxatives, then you
will
> be afraid to cough.
I guess I was wrong. I was just browsing through old messages, and
when Ted Kaldis first hinted there might not be a trial, someone
responded that he might plead guilty. I thought it was based on
personal knowledge.
Dane Metcalfe
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:p406v0lu7686fs48m...@4ax.com...
> For reasons I don't want to explore, on 22 Jan 2005 14:05:05 -0800,
> "forevernitefan" <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
\
snipped
>
> Presuming it's true, it would be the same as admitting guilt,
> unless he's giving a "no contest" plea. I think it's formal name is
> an Alfred plea, but I'm not 100% sure.
> Whatever its name, it means that while you don't actually admit
> guilt, you feel the prosecution has evidence that would make a jury
> believe you are guilty and that you would be found such.
>
>
snipped
An Alford plea came into being from the ruling given in North Carolina v.
Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970);
From U.S. v. MARTINEZ
2002 10CIR 225
Case Number: 00-1447
Decided: 02/22/2002
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
1. Alford plea
¶15 First, Mr. Martinez attempts to differentiate his conviction for felony
menacing that resulted from a plea entered pursuant to North Carolina v.
Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). An Alford plea permits a defendant to maintain
his innocence while agreeing to forego his right to a trial. Id. at 37 ("An
individual accused of [a] crime may voluntarily, knowingly, and
understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if he is
unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the
crime."). Because the USSG did not enumerate an Alford disposition in the
definition of "prior sentence," Mr. Martinez contends, this conviction
should not be counted as a prior felony conviction. See USSG §2K2.1, Applic.
Note 15; § 4A1.2(a)(1) (defining "prior sentence" as "any sentence
previously imposed upon adjudication of guilt, whether by guilty plea,
trial, or plea of nolo contendere"); cf. USSG § 4A1.2(a)(4) ("The term
'prior sentence' means any sentence previously imposed upon adjudication of
guilt, whether by guilty plea, trial, or plea of nolo contendere, for
conduct not part of the instant offense.").
¶16 We agree with the government that an Alford plea is an "adjudication of
guilt" under § 4A1.2(e)(1) and therefore can properly be counted as a prior
sentence under the USSG. We also note that the state trial court could not
have accepted a plea under Alford unless there existed independent factual
evidence of Mr. Martinez's guilt. See United States v. Mackins, 218 F.3d
263, 268 (3d Cir. 2000) (noting that "there must always exist some factual
basis for a conclusion of guilt before a court can accept an Alford plea;
indeed, a factual basis for such a conclusion is an essential part of an
Alford plea") (internal quotation marks omitted). "In the face of a claim of
innocence[,] a judicial finding of some factual basis for defendant's guilt
is an essential part of the constitutionally-required finding of a voluntary
and intelligent decision to plead guilty." Willett v. Georgia, 608 F.2d 538,
540 (5th Cir. 1979). We therefore reject Mr. Martinez's contention and
conclude that the district court properly adduced his "Alford plea [with]
the same finality . . . accord[ed] any other 'adjudication of guilt, whether
by guilty plea, trial, or plea of nolo contendere.'" Mackins, 218 F.3d at
269 (quoting § 4A1.2(a)(1
The Third Circuit has further noted:
[A] Note to § 8A1.2 states that "'[p]rior criminal adjudication' means
conviction by trial, plea of guilty (including an Alford plea), or plea of
nolo contendere." § 8A1.2, comment. (n. 3(g)). Chapter Eight of the
Guidelines, dealing with the sentencing of organizations, however, was added
by amendment on November 1, 1991. In contrast, the language of § 4A1.2(a)(1)
at issue in this case was enacted on November 1, 1987. Not to have included
an Alford plea in § 4A1.2(a)(1) and its inclusion in § 8A1.2, four years
later, cannot be read to evidence an intent on the part of the drafters of
the Guidelines to exclude Alford pleas from § 4A1.2(a)(1). To the contrary,
the Note to § 8A1.2 could be read as evidencing an understanding by the
drafters of § 8A1.2 that, as we have concluded, an Alford plea is nothing
more than a plea of guilty.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Ken Smith
> For reasons I don't want to explore, on 22 Jan 2005 18:17:26 -0800,
> ienj...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>I guess I was wrong. I was just browsing through old messages, and
>>when Ted Kaldis first hinted there might not be a trial, someone
>>responded that he might plead guilty. I thought it was based on
>>personal knowledge.
>
> was true. He replied with one word. No.
That's why I wanted to get word to Ted in the first place, and why I
asked ienj for his source. ienj is generally so reliable that I tend to
give what he has to say instant credence, but that was the kind of rumor
that shouldn't be allowed to take root if there wasn't something to it.
Thanks again for your assistance, Kent.
Ken Smith
> "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:kaldis-B6385A....@news.giganews.com...
>>ienj...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>Is it true that Brown will plead out to a 20-year manslaughter sentence?
>>
>>It's a load of bollocks. He's not guilty. All the "evidence" against
>>him has been manufactured.
>>--
>>Theodore A. Kaldis
>> kal...@worldnet.att.net
>
> ALL of the evidence?
You heard him. Lauren Key is actually alive, well, and living in a
split-level ranch in Walla Walla, Washington with Bigfoot. The "dead"
body was provided by "Props 'R' Us" of Tarzana, CA; Ted has an invoice.
Craig Hum is the lover "Camshaft" Brown jilted when he suddenly left
the gay porn industry upon becoming saved by Patty, and he was out for
revenge.
Sarah's in on the hoax, as she obviously lied to reporters:
[Lauren's] mother, [Sarah Key-Marer, 35, said she dated [Cameron
John Brown] in December 1995 and became pregnant with Lauren. But
Brown. she said, told her he was not ready for a child, and sug-
gested she have an abortion. Key-Marer refused and Brown dropped
out of her life, she said.
Shortly after Lauren was born Aug. 29, 1996, Key-Marer filed paper-
work with the Orange County District....
[all you can get from the Breeze's 1602-word article on the alleged
murder without having to pay $2.95, according to a third-party source]
It's all a bunch of filthy lies, because any woman who refuses to have
an abortion when asked by a member of the Kaldis Klan can't be honest.
She took the money from the insurance company -- and high-tailed it to
Hawai'i.
This is all an elaborate hoax perpetrated by the three of them, so
that they can sell their blockbuster movie script. The contracts for
book, movie, and action figure dolls have already been signed (Lauren
Key doll sold separately; some assembly required). And it took Teddi
six months to figure this all out. He's been hired by Patty to write
the script, because he's a better writer than Patty. Ted says so.
You can trust Electric TeddiBeer Kaldis on this, because he *never*
lies, and we all know this because he said so -- and that born-again
Christians never lie. And of course, we *know* that this cannot be
another one of his frequent acid flashbacks, because he only had one
"Electric Beer" [beer laced with LSD, according to Ted] at the Jethro
Tull concert.... :)
> Such as the dead child at the bottom of the cliff, the
> improbability that he could accidentally become seperated from from a four
> year old child in dangerous terrain, the questions as to why he elected to
> hike with her there in the first place, his earlier break-up with the childs
> mother when he learned she was pregnant because he wasn't interested in
> fatherhood and whose position on that only changed three years later after
> he was ordered to pay a child support payment that financially burdened him,
> and the question as to the likely course of action a four year old girl
> would choose after becoming lost in regards of whether she would venture
> close enough to a cliffs edge so that she could accidentally lose her
> footing and fall off all add up to serious circumstancial evidence against
> him, like it or not. Can you allege that any of the above has been
> "manufactured" by anyone other than Cam?
This is enough for an indictment in everyone's mind but that of our
Electric TeddiBeer. Remember what Timothy Leary said.... :)
Dane Metcalfe
"Ken Smith" <for...@it.com> wrote in message news:41F3C44E...@it.com...
snipped
>
> This is enough for an indictment in everyone's mind but that of our
> Electric TeddiBeer. Remember what Timothy Leary said.... :)
>
>
Seriously, I am a true crime buff, and I used to devour true crime books as
quickly as I could devour them.
I clearly remember one such book that is similar to the Cam Brown case, and
it also was in California, and I have wondered if it might have involved the
very same cliffs.
I think it was in the early '90's and it involved an older couple, well,
middle-aged, who took in on a boarding arrangement a young lady who had
moved to California from out of state .Apparntly the young woman developed a
fondness for them and took out a life insurance policy naming them as
benificiary.
The couple later alleged that the three of them decided to have a picnic on
top of some sheer cliffs that were abutments to the bay.They stated that the
lady asked them to take some photo's of her while she posed for them on the
cliff, and she somehow lost her footing and fell to her death.
For some reason that has never ben clear to me the proscuting attirney
decided that these photo's gave probable cause to take them to trial for
first degree murder, at which time they were able to get a conviction by a
jury. I believe my memory serves me right on this because within the last 2
or 3 years I saw it profiled on A&E and I immediately recognized it.
The point is, it seemed to me that the state had considerable less to go on
in that case than they do with Cam Brown, so I'm not so certain that he can
expect anything less than a first degree conviction.
I'm wondering if it might be possible to pull up the information on that
case on a search engine somewhere, but it doesn't seem likely, really,
especially since I can't remember the names of any of the three people.
Ken Smith
>>Dane Metcalfe wrote
>
>
> ">ALL of the evidence? Such as the dead child at the bottom of the cliff, the
> improbability that he could accidentally become seperated from from a four year
>
> According to Ted, they were NEVER seperated. That little point creates as many
> problems as it solves.
It actually creates more problems, as there can be no credible claim
that she merely got lost. At absolute best, Cam is guilty of criminal
stupidity resulting in the death of a child, which could translate into
second-degree murder.
> "...the questions as to why he elected to hike with her there in the first
> place,..."
>
> And if the defense is, as Ted suggests, "but dadddddddddddddyyyyyyy, i *wanna*
> !!!! I'll pout, i williwilliwill !!!!!" its gonna be a long day for Geragos
> because no jury will allow an indian to tell the chief what to do.
You just gotta know who the chiefs are and who the indians are,
right, Ted?
>
> (Rumor has it that Mr. Tiger *still* has some sharp teeth.... but no one has
> gotten close enough to see.)
And lived to tell the tale.
>
> "... his earlier break-up with the childs mother when he learned she was
> pregnant because he wasn't interested in fatherhood and whose position on that
> only changed three years later after he was ordered to pay a child support
> payment that financially burdened him,...."
>
> Cam suggesting *abortion* ????? Cant wait for the chant of "lies" to start on
> that one.
Ted, defending a man who asked his paramour to get AN ABORTION?!?
Knowing what we do about Teddious, that's a dead-girl certainty. :)
> "...and the question as to the likely course of action a four year old girl
> would choose after becoming lost in regards of whether she would venture close
> enough to a cliffs edge so that she could accidentally lose her footing..."
>
> We keep asking, Ted keeps running. Perhaps, Lauren was throwing rocks and her
> own momentum propelled her forward off the cliff, but if that were the case,
> the notion that she took a running start would never have been advanced, let
> alone tolerated thru the monsterous length of this thread.
> "....and fall off all add up to serious circumstancial evidence against him,
> like it or not. Can you allege that any of the above has been "manufactured" by
> anyone other than Cam?"
>
> Yeah.... by Craig Hum. Ted may have to F**** the Dictionary Definition of
> "manufactured" to get there, though ;-)
>
> Keep in mind that post where Ted says it took him MONTHS of 'investigation' to
> put this perfect frame all together. I dont know about you, but i sleep *so*
> much better knowing Maxwell Smart, Sam Spade and Inspector Gadget have
> successfully all been rolled into one.... <g>
Not possible. Even if you put them all together, you'd need more
mass to make one Ted. :)
Ken Smith
> Dane Metcalfe wrote:
>>>ienj...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>Is it true that Brown will plead out to a 20-year manslaughter
>>>>sentence?
>>>
>>>It's a load of bollocks. He's not guilty. All the "evidence" against
>>>him has been manufactured.
>>
>>ALL of the evidence?
>
> Yes.
Including Lauren's dead body -- which was acquired at "Props 'R' Us
in Tarzana, California; Ted has a copy of the invoice. (What Ted means
when he uses the word "evidence" isn't the commonly accepted meaning,
and can only be gleaned from Ted Kaldis' Thoroughly-Fucked Dictionary.)
Lauren is living in a split-level ranch in Walla Walla, Washington
with Bigfoot -- who will be called to testify today. :)
>>Such as the dead child at the bottom of the cliff,
>
> As a result of a VERY tragic accident.
IOW, the granting of unsupervised custody of a child to a man with
the native intelligence of a kumquat.
>>the improbability that he could accidentally become seperated from
>>from a four year old child in dangerous terrain,
>
> They became separated when she accidentally slipped and fell off the
> cliff.
Pick a lane, Ted. Either they were together when she was impelled
off the cliff, or they were separated. Which *IS* it?
>>the questions as to why he elected to hike with her there in the first
>>place,
>
> He took her to a playground. She saw the hiking trails adjacent to the
> playground which led up to the site where the accident occurred. She
> wanted to go up the hiking trails. His weakness was that he couldn't
> say "no".
And I'm sure this "prissy little girl" who "didn't like bugs or mud"
and got dolls and girly-stuff for her birthday (see, Ted's photos) hiked
up that trail all by herself, and literally threw herself off the cliff.
And his only culpability in this matter was that he couldn't say
"no"?!? Like, a jury is going to believe THAT one....
>>his earlier break-up with the childs mother when he learned she was
>>pregnant
>
> That's not why he broke up with her.
Well, I guess it comes down to who you believe: A woman who had what
you would call the personal character to deal with her mistake, and had
a child out of wedlock when she could have easily and lawfully aborted
her, or a man who has a long history of making "poor life-choices" (as
you yourself put it), and gave the cops a cover story that smelled like
three-day-old fish. Under the circumstances, the mother is going to be
believed ten times out of ten.
> He broke up with her because she
> was two- (and possibly even three- or four-) timing him. Moreover, he
> didn't really know if she was indeed pregnant.
Why would she tell him that he was the father, if (1) she wasn't even
pregnant and (2) even if she was, it was the other guy's kid?
> (Her credibility was worse than Ken Smith's.)
And as such, Sarah is far more credible than Ted Kaldis will ever be.
After all, it is a matter of record that you have been *caught* in any
number of lies before, "Electric TeddiBeer" Kaldis. You claimed that
you drank an "electric beer" -- which you described as beer laced with
LSD. I'd pay good money to watch you get asked this question by Craig
Hum while on the stand.... :)
> And if she was, was it even his kid?
Sounds like another job for "Dr. Monkey," who will confidently inform
the jury that, well, "you know how women are...." LOL!
>>because he wasn't interested in fatherhood
>
> Not with her, he wasn't.
Which is why he had been sleeping with her, right? I suppose he was
just one of those "Kaldis Christians" -- you know, the ones who oppose
abortion for others, but want that option available for themseleves at need?
>>and whose position on that only changed three years later after he was
>>ordered to pay a child support payment
>
> His "position ... changed" when he found out that he actually did have a
> child.
When your SO tells you she's PG, you would tend to believe her.
>
>>that financially burdened him,
>
> The child-support payments did not financially burden him.
>
>>and the question as to the likely course of action a four year old
>>girl would choose after becoming lost
>
> She didn't become lost. She was right at his side.
Which is even more difficult to explain. The danger was so obvious
that, according to you, "no sane parent" would expose his child to it.
>>in regards of whether she would venture close enough to a cliffs edge
>>so that she could accidentally lose her footing and fall off all add
>>up to serious circumstancial evidence against him, like it or not.
>
> Ah, but there is much more here than meets the eye.
No, there isn't. Judging from the photo you provided, the danger was
self-evident.
> Unfortunately, I can't talk about it right now.
Because you would look stupid -- again.
>>Can you allege that any of the above has been "manufactured" by anyone
>>other than Cam?
>
> I can absolutely and categorically state that the "evidence" that he has
> been charged and is being held on has been manufactured.
Problem is, we can never know what you mean when you use common words
and phrases like "day in court" and "evidence" -- because you deviate so
far from the accepted dictionary definitions that your statements become
pure gibberish.
Ken Smith
> Dane Metcalfe wrote:
>
>
> There is a hearing today, if that's what you mean.
At which, the judge will hear all all your arguments, coming from one
more skilled than you, as to why Cam is "obviously innocent" and should
be released by the end of the day. And, if your arguments are anywhere
near as compelling as you claim them to be, Cam should be back home in
less than 24 hours.
If they're not, they will still be heard at trial.
Ken Smith
> For reasons I don't want to explore, on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:24:39 GMT,
> It's roughly 9:17PM as I write this. The LA County court house
> should be closed for the day, and Cam should have had his hearing.
Not a peep on the newswires, either. The high drama and hype wasn't
there, at least. Evidently, the Big Four networks didn't bother to pay
the courtroom a call today.
> Why hasn't Ted posted the outcome of the hearing?
Because it went the way everyone expected. No bombshells. Not even
a decent municipal fireworks display. There was probably a motion
trying to get Cam's statement to the police excluded, but if Ted asked
his pals in the media to show up, they were almost certain to have been
seriously disappointed.
Given that the indictment made the AP newswires, you'd presume that a
dramatic ruling -- with the judge, reading DA Hum the riot act -- would
have made the wires.
If Cam is released, it will almost certainly be because the judge
made a ruling excluding some of the evidence, and that Craig Hum decided
that taking the matter to trial would no longer be worth the brain damage.
> My guess, Cam's being held over for trial, and Ted's too
> embarrassed about his implications that Cam would be released.
Ted's already invoked an adaptation of the "ham sandwich" defense --
that Cam's god has blessed him with a judge who will bind anything over
for trial. :)
Dane Metcalfe
"Ken Smith" <for...@it.com> wrote in message news:41F5D285...@it.com...
>
snipped
> Ted's already invoked an adaptation of the "ham sandwich" defense --
> that Cam's god has blessed him with a judge who will bind anything over
> for trial. :)
Luckily they dont fry ham sandwiches anymore...they gas them, it's so much
more humane :)
Which reminds me.
I read a book about, heck, I can;'t rememb...wait, I do!
Randy Kraft, a fag in California who liked to pick up marines hitchhiking,
drug them, do a lot of nasty stuff, and then kill them. Dozens of them.
Well, after he got the death penalty (In California) he filed a pro se
appeal that the gas chamber violated his freedom of religion.
LMAO
You see, by putting him to death in a way that made him cooperate with his
death by breathing in the fumes, the state would essentially be forcing him
to commit suicide, they would nullify his newfound christian religion and
send him to hell.
Apparantly the California Appelate Courts figured that would be a good place
for him, cause they said no dice :)
I affirm
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Why hasn't Ted posted the outcome of the hearing?
Ted did, but Ted's newsreader barfed, and apparently the article never
got posted.
What happened is the judge said that he hadn't gotten around to reading
the case file, and until he does, he won't be ruling on any motions.
Next hearing is in February.
Ken Smith
> Kent Wills wrote:
>
>> Why hasn't Ted posted the outcome of the hearing?
>
> Ted did, but Ted's newsreader barfed,
Guess it had enough of Ted's bullshit. Even it has limits. :)
> and apparently the article never got posted.
>
> What happened is the judge said that he hadn't gotten around to reading
> the case file,
Now, *THAT'S* outrageous! Of course, it's still light-years ahead of
the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, where the judges don't even bother reading
decisions they supposedly "wrote."
> and until he does, he won't be ruling on any motions.
IOW, it's still "put up or shut up" time for Ted.
The contents of any motions filed with the Court are now public
record -- and any 'aces' Ted gave Geragos have been played. No more
excuses.
> Next hearing is in February.
Specific date in February?
Dane Metcalfe
No reason to be in any hurry when a man's liberty is at stake....is this an
Oklahoma Judge, by chance, masquerading, or, are they all like that?
Ken Smith
> "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:kaldis-1B2C4D....@news.giganews.com...
>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why hasn't Ted posted the outcome of the hearing?
>>
>>Ted did, but Ted's newsreader barfed, and apparently the article never
>>got posted.
>>
>>What happened is the judge said that he hadn't gotten around to reading
>>the case file, and until he does, he won't be ruling on any motions.
>>
>>Next hearing is in February.
>
If it weren't for the fact that Ted didn't seem to think it was so
big a deal when the federal courts were fucking aroung with my case, I'd
be a little more upset. But hey, that's life in the big city-- right, Ted?
>.is this an Oklahoma Judge,
You can tell one of them by the penis pump under the bench. :)
> by chance, masquerading, or, are they all like that?
At least he, *CAN* read -- that puts him head and shoulders above the
average Tenth Circuit judge. :)
Dane Metcalfe
"Ken Smith" <for...@it.com> wrote in message news:41F72CF0...@it.com...
Ummmm...but is he reading motions, or Penthouse Forum?
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> Why hasn't Ted posted the outcome of the hearing?
>> Ted did, but Ted's newsreader barfed, and apparently the article never
>> got posted.
>> What happened is the judge said that he hadn't gotten around to
>> reading the case file, and until he does, he won't be ruling on any
>> motions.
>> Next hearing is in February.
No reason to be in any hurry when a man's liberty is at stake ...
Judges get inured to that sort of thing. After all, practically every
defendant asserts he's innocent.
> is this an Oklahoma Judge, by chance, masquerading,
It's a California judge.
> or, are they all like that?
They seem to be.
StinkFoot
> For reasons I don't want to explore, on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:40:49
> -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>
>>> Why hasn't Ted posted the outcome of the hearing?
>>
>> Ted did, but Ted's newsreader barfed, and apparently the article
>> never got posted.
>>
>
>
>> What happened is the judge said that he hadn't gotten around to
>> reading the case file, and until he does, he won't be ruling on any
>> motions.
>
> On the plus side, all motions are public domain, so you can post
> the text of each and every one, or scan copies and put them on your
> web site.
>
>>
>> Next hearing is in February.
>
>
> Kent
Case No.: BA25520601
Charge No.: 187(A)PC
Charge Description: MURDER:FIRST DEGREE
Charge Level: F (Felony)
Bail Amount: NO BAIL
Court Date: 02/23/2005
Ken Smith
> Dane Metcalfe wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>
>
>>>>Why hasn't Ted posted the outcome of the hearing?
>>>
>>>Ted did, but Ted's newsreader barfed, and apparently the article never
>>>got posted.
>>
>>>What happened is the judge said that he hadn't gotten around to
>>>reading the case file, and until he does, he won't be ruling on any
>>>motions.
>>
>>>Next hearing is in February.
>>
> No reason to be in any hurry when a man's liberty is at stake ...
>
> Judges get inured to that sort of thing. After all, practically every
> defendant asserts he's innocent.
As does Cam. Why should we believe him, seeing as how the evidence
you have presented is so indisputably damning?
If Geragos has filed his motions, then we ought to be able to see the
exculpatory evidence you have (or at least, the evidence he has to this
point revealed). Post the motions, Ted!
>>is this an Oklahoma Judge, by chance, masquerading,
>
> It's a California judge.
>
>>or, are they all like that?
>
> They seem to be.
On this, we can agree: Judges are as a species corrupt, slovenly, and
generally incompetent political hacks.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Dane Metcalfe wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> What happened is the judge said that he hadn't gotten around to
>>>> reading the case file, and until he does, he won't be ruling on any
>>>> motions.
>>>> Next hearing is in February.
>>> No reason to be in any hurry when a man's liberty is at stake ...
>> Judges get inured to that sort of thing. After all, practically
>> every defendant asserts he's innocent.
> As does Cam.
Who in fact IS innocent.
> Why should we believe him,
Honourable people do so as a matter of courtesy.
> seeing as how the evidence you have presented is so indisputably damning?
No it isn't. Quit mendaciously prevaricating.
> [...]
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Dane Metcalfe wrote:
>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>
>>>>>What happened is the judge said that he hadn't gotten around to
>>>>>reading the case file, and until he does, he won't be ruling on any
>>>>>motions.
>>>>
>>>>>Next hearing is in February.
>>>>
>>>>No reason to be in any hurry when a man's liberty is at stake ...
>>>
>>>Judges get inured to that sort of thing. After all, practically
>>>every defendant asserts he's innocent.
>>
>>As does Cam.
>
> Who in fact IS innocent.
"Kaldis Rules": You claim it; you prove it. :)
And don't tell us you can't post the briefs filed by Geragos to date
-- the "open case" argument won't hunt.
>>Why should we believe him,
>
> Honourable people do so as a matter of courtesy.
And I'm *sure* you extend that courtesy to O.J. Simpson, who was not
just not convicted but *acquitted* for the alleged murders of his wife
and her friend....
All I have to concern myself with at this point is whether there is
enough evidence to warrant Cam's incarceration under California law --
and the fact that they have enough evidence has been established beyond
reasonable dispute by your own public admissions.
The evidence *you* have presented leads inexorably to the conclusion
that Cam *probably* murdered his illegitimate four-year-old daughter in
cold blood. However, as I have repeated ad nauseum, YMMV at trial, and
the presentation of exclupatory evidence by a more skilled advocate may
change my mind -- which remains *open*. Indeed, I have maintained that
he will probably be acquitted, on the grounds that the bar for a murder
conviction in California is extremely high.
>>seeing as how the evidence you have presented is so indisputably damning?
>
> No it isn't.
Everyone else appears to agree with me here -- including some rather
high-wattage individuals. You're the only one who disagrees, and in no
small part due to your pecuniary interest in the matter. Everyone knows
your bias -- and notes the lack of evidence presented in support of your
claims -- and discounts your wild-eyed claims accordingly (remember, you
were the one who claimed that you had lined up a book and movie deal).
Ken Smith
> For reasons I don't want to explore, on Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:41:53
> -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>Dane Metcalfe wrote:
>>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>What happened is the judge said that he hadn't gotten around to
>>>>>>reading the case file, and until he does, he won't be ruling on any
>>>>>>motions.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Next hearing is in February.
>>>>>
>>>>>No reason to be in any hurry when a man's liberty is at stake ...
>>>>
>>>>Judges get inured to that sort of thing. After all, practically
>>>>every defendant asserts he's innocent.
>>>
>>>As does Cam.
>>
>>Who in fact IS innocent.
>
The Kaldis Klan walks on water, Kent. If this were the case of *any*
other baby-killing bro-in-law (yes, Ted, Cam is responsible for Lauren's
death -- even if he is not convicted of murder), Ted would be willing to
provide the noose ... gratis.
>>>Why should we believe him,
>>
>>Honourable people do so as a matter of courtesy.
>
> Then why do you believe him? You are many things, Ted, but
> honorable is not one of them.
Ted has interests here -- including a book and movie deal (or, so he
intimates). It's not like he's an unbiased observer....
>>>seeing as how the evidence you have presented is so indisputably damning?
>>
>>No it isn't. Quit mendaciously prevaricating.
>
> You've supplied little in the way of exculpatory evidence. In
> fact, I can think of only one thing: the matter of the testimony of
> abrasions, and there is some question as to the accuracy of The Breeze
> article (you've stated that they get everything wrong).
If you didn't know better, at times, you would swear he was Craig
Hum. :)
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Dane Metcalfe wrote:
>>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>> What happened is the judge said that he hadn't gotten around to
>>>>>> reading the case file, and until he does, he won't be ruling on
>>>>>> any motions.
>>>>>> Next hearing is in February.
>>>>> No reason to be in any hurry when a man's liberty is at stake ...
>>>> Judges get inured to that sort of thing. After all, practically
>>>> every defendant asserts he's innocent.
>>> As does Cam.
>> Who in fact IS innocent.
> Cameron is, at best, guilty of criminal negligence.
You are, at best, guilty of presumptuousness. Cameron is absolutely
innocent of any wrongdoing -- and most certainly of what he is charged
with.
>>> Why should we believe him,
>> Honourable people do so as a matter of courtesy.
> Then why do you believe him? You are many things, Ted, but honorable
> is not one of them.
This statement speaks more to your own character than it does to mine.
>>> seeing as how the evidence you have presented is so indisputably
>>> damning?
>> No it isn't. Quit mendaciously prevaricating.
> You've supplied little in the way of exculpatory evidence.
And I've also told you why: this is still an open case. Why can't you
understand that?
> In fact, I can think of only one thing: the matter of the testimony of
> abrasions, and there is some question as to the accuracy of The Breeze
> article
The question of accuracy isn't with the _Breeze_ article, but rather
with the testimony that has been presented to the Grand Jury. The
_Breeze_ accurately recounted what was in the Grand Jury transcript --
but what was in the Grand Jury transcript (wrt the coroner's report) was
wrong.
> (you've stated that they get everything wrong).
I've stated that what they PRINTED was wrong. The prosecutor fed them a
bunch of misrepresentations, and they reprinted them verbatim. And I
don't fault them for that, if that is the only account that they have to
go with. What I DO fault them for is that, even when they DID have the
other side of the story, they STILL presented the prosecutor's account
verbatim, without any mention of controversy. (And I believe that this
is something that will one day [soon] come around to bite them.)
Ken Smith
> Kent Wills wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>Dane Metcalfe wrote:
>>>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>What happened is the judge said that he hadn't gotten around to
>>>>>>>reading the case file, and until he does, he won't be ruling on
>>>>>>>any motions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Next hearing is in February.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No reason to be in any hurry when a man's liberty is at stake ...
>>>>>
>>>>>Judges get inured to that sort of thing. After all, practically
>>>>>every defendant asserts he's innocent.
>>>>
>>>>As does Cam.
>>>
>>>Who in fact IS innocent.
>>
>> Cameron is, at best, guilty of criminal negligence.
>
> You are, at best, guilty of presumptuousness. Cameron is absolutely
> innocent of any wrongdoing -- and most certainly of what he is charged
> with.
Cameron is *most certainly* guilty of criminal stupidity resulting in
the death of a child (which translates into a lesser degree of homicide)
-- excusable only if he has roughly the intelligence of a kumquat -- at
a bare minimum. Letting any four-year-old child run around and play on
"Dead Man's Cliff" (http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/deadman.eml)
translates into a prima facie case of inconceivable stupidity. Kind of
like "pointing the shaken champagne bottle at your eye" stupidity.
>>>>Why should we believe him,
>>>
>>>Honourable people do so as a matter of courtesy.
>
>> Then why do you believe him? You are many things, Ted, but honorable
>>is not one of them.
>
> This statement speaks more to your own character than it does to mine.
"Honorable" is not an adjective anyone here would use to describe
you, Ted. Quite the opposite, really.
>>>>seeing as how the evidence you have presented is so indisputably
>>>>damning?
>>>
>>>No it isn't. Quit mendaciously prevaricating.
>>
>> You've supplied little in the way of exculpatory evidence.
>
> And I've also told you why: this is still an open case. Why can't you
> understand that?
Because that dog won't hunt any more. If you have that silver
bullet, so does Geragos, and now that there's a judge assigned to hear
the case, he should have it, too. And unless there's an order sealing
the motion, it is in the public domain.
Since it is public domain information, there is no reason to hide it,
even if there was one before. Money talks, bullshit walks.
>>In fact, I can think of only one thing: the matter of the testimony of
>>abrasions, and there is some question as to the accuracy of The Breeze
>>article
>
> The question of accuracy isn't with the _Breeze_ article, but rather
> with the testimony that has been presented to the Grand Jury. The
> _Breeze_ accurately recounted what was in the Grand Jury transcript --
> but what was in the Grand Jury transcript (wrt the coroner's report) was
> wrong.
Prove that this is (1) true and (2) material. All we need is the GJ
transcript, which should be in the public domain if the Breeze has it.
(Remember that the GJ would also have access to the autopsy, and could
read it for themselves -- if there is a discrepancy and they saw it to
be immaterial and/or explainable, it would have exactly *no* impact on
their decision, and it's not worth bitching about.)
>>(you've stated that they get everything wrong).
>
> I've stated that what they PRINTED was wrong. The prosecutor fed them a
> bunch of misrepresentations, and they reprinted them verbatim. And I
> don't fault them for that, if that is the only account that they have to
> go with. What I DO fault them for is that, even when they DID have the
> other side of the story, they STILL presented the prosecutor's account
> verbatim, without any mention of controversy.
Maybe they considered the source (Tyre-Iron Teddi), did a background
check on the Internet, and dismissed him as the mentally unstable crank
we all know he is.
So, what they printed about the GJ testimony was wrong?
[snip]
jls
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:74flv0l5teq312apv...@4ax.com...
> For reasons I don't want to explore, on Fri, 28 Jan 2005 08:34:33
> -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Kent Wills wrote:
> >
> >> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >>> Ken Smith wrote:
> >>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >>>>> Dane Metcalfe wrote:
> >>>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>> What happened is the judge said that he hadn't gotten around to
> >>>>>>> reading the case file, and until he does, he won't be ruling on
> >>>>>>> any motions.
> >
> >>>>>>> Next hearing is in February.
> >
> >>>>>> No reason to be in any hurry when a man's liberty is at stake ...
> >
> >>>>> Judges get inured to that sort of thing. After all, practically
> >>>>> every defendant asserts he's innocent.
> >
> >>>> As does Cam.
> >
> >>> Who in fact IS innocent.
> >
> >> Cameron is, at best, guilty of criminal negligence.
> >
> >You are, at best, guilty of presumptuousness. Cameron is absolutely
> >innocent of any wrongdoing -- and most certainly of what he is charged
> >with.
>
> according to you. This means he either caused her fall, or allowed it
> via his negligence.
>
> >
> >>>> Why should we believe him,
> >
> >>> Honourable people do so as a matter of courtesy.
> >
> >> Then why do you believe him? You are many things, Ted, but honorable
> >> is not one of them.
> >
> >This statement speaks more to your own character than it does to mine.
>
>
> >
> >>>> seeing as how the evidence you have presented is so indisputably
> >>>> damning?
> >
> >>> No it isn't. Quit mendaciously prevaricating.
> >
> >> You've supplied little in the way of exculpatory evidence.
> >
> >And I've also told you why: this is still an open case. Why can't you
> >understand that?
>
> nothing preventing you from posting the text of the files, or scanning
> them and placing them on your web site, then posting links to them.
> Why aren't you doing that? It's not like Hum hasn't had time to read
> them and prepare an answer.
>
> >
> >> In fact, I can think of only one thing: the matter of the testimony of
> >> abrasions, and there is some question as to the accuracy of The Breeze
> >> article
> >
> >The question of accuracy isn't with the _Breeze_ article, but rather
> >with the testimony that has been presented to the Grand Jury. The
> >_Breeze_ accurately recounted what was in the Grand Jury transcript --
> >but what was in the Grand Jury transcript (wrt the coroner's report) was
> >wrong.
>
> quite well. Now you seem to be saying they accurately reported what
> was presented at the GJ. Pick a lane.
>
> >
> >> (you've stated that they get everything wrong).
> >
> >I've stated that what they PRINTED was wrong. The prosecutor fed them a
>
> framing Cam.
> And from what I can tell, what they printed was accurate. The GJ
> was told there were no abrasions. The Breeze reported it.
>
> >bunch of misrepresentations, and they reprinted them verbatim. And I
>
>
> >don't fault them for that, if that is the only account that they have to
> >go with. What I DO fault them for is that, even when they DID have the
> >other side of the story, they STILL presented the prosecutor's account
> >verbatim, without any mention of controversy. (And I believe that this
>
> way of evidence. It's not the paper's job to evaluate the honesty of
> the evidence presented.
>
> >is something that will one day [soon] come around to bite them.)
>
>
>
> Kent
> --
> Born once - Die twice. Born twice - Die only once. Your choice...
> Sig "borrowed" from Joe.
Someone in the Torrance area can talk to one or more of the grand jurors.
If the grand jury is no longer convened you can talk to them, see what it
was that stuck out in their minds causing them to indict the accused.
Some of the grand jury testimony in the Michael Jackson case has been
released -- like the testimony by past victims whom he allegedly "touched,"
gave alcohol and showed pornography --- and has already been all over the
news.
StinkFoot
Hmmmmm..... looks like you're wearing this one TeddyBeer:
The DSM-IV-TR defines anti-social personality disorder as a pervasive
pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring
since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
1.. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as
indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2.. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or
conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3.. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4.. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical
fights or assaults
5.. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6.. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to
sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
7.. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing
having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
Diagnostic criteria (PCL-R test)
In contemporary research and clinical practice, APD is most commonly
assessed with the Hare Psychopathy Checklist- Revised (PCL-R), which is a
clinical rating scale with 20 items. Each of the items in the PCL-R is
scored on a three-point scale according to specific criteria through file
information and a semi-structured interview. The items are as follows:
Interpersonal dimension
a.. Glibness/superficial charm
b.. Grandiose sense of self-worth
c.. Pathological lying
d.. Conning/manipulative
e.. Lack of remorse or guilt
f.. Shallow affect
g.. Callous/lack of empathy
h.. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Affective dimension
a.. Need for stimulation/-proneness to boredom
b.. Parasitic lifestyle
c.. Poor behavioral controls
d.. Early behavioral problems
e.. Lack of realistic, long-term goals
f.. Impulsivity
g.. Irresponsibility
h.. Juvenile delinquency
i.. Revocation of conditional release
Behavioral dimension
a.. Promiscuous sexual behavior
b.. Many short-term marital relationships
c.. Criminal versatility
Score 0 if the trait is absent, 1 if it is possibly or partially present and
2 if it is present. The item scores are summed to yield a total score
ranging from 0 to 40 which is then considered to reflect the degree to which
they resemble the prototypical psychopath. A score higher than 30 supports a
diagnosis of psychopathy. Forensic studies of prison populations have
reported average scores of around 22 on PCL-R; control "normal" populations
show an average score of around 5.
forevernitefan
case is vaguely familiar. I almost want to say Anne Rule wrote about
that, but I could be mistaken. The west coast is her terrain, usually.
Actually there have been a few "accidental" falling off cliffs or
ledges or canyon tops that later turned out to be murders. The true
crime archives may have something on that.
Here are some true crime links:
http://www.crimenews2000.com/links/
http://www.mayhem.net/Crime/archives.html
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
Ken Smith
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
[snip to focus on this point]
>>>>>Why should we believe him,
>>>>
>>>>Honourable people do so as a matter of courtesy.
>>>
>>>Then why do you believe him? You are many things, Ted, but honorable
>>>is not one of them.
>>
>>This statement speaks more to your own character than it does to mine.
>>
> Hmmmmm..... looks like you're wearing this one TeddyBeer:
>
> The DSM-IV-TR defines anti-social personality disorder as a pervasive
> pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring
> since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
>
> 1.. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as
> indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
Based on his public admissions.
> 2.. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or
> conning others for personal profit or pleasure
We're all waiting for the book and movie deal -- not to mention the
H-bomb. ;)
> 3.. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
> 4.. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical
> fights or assaults
We don't see him in real life, but he does seem to have this trait in
spades, judging from his on-line "behaviour."
> 5.. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
This is admittedly more of a Cam Brown problem.
> 6.. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to
> sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
Do interpersonal relationships count here?
> 7.. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing
> having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
One of his defining traits.
> Diagnostic criteria (PCL-R test)
> In contemporary research and clinical practice, APD is most commonly
> assessed with the Hare Psychopathy Checklist- Revised (PCL-R), which is a
> clinical rating scale with 20 items. Each of the items in the PCL-R is
> scored on a three-point scale according to specific criteria through file
> information and a semi-structured interview. The items are as follows:
>
> Interpersonal dimension
>
> a.. Glibness/superficial charm
I've met Ted personally, and give him a 1. He can behave himself in
person, but what we see here is probably more of what he is.
> b.. Grandiose sense of self-worth
A one at best. Grandiose, but only when one uses a tape measure.
> c.. Pathological lying
Two-plus.
> d.. Conning/manipulative
Two, based on his extensive Usenet history.
> e.. Lack of remorse or guilt
Two (http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/tedracistnew.txt).
> f.. Shallow affect
How could anyone that large be that shallow? Two-plus.
> g.. Callous/lack of empathy
"Callous." That's his nickname in a.f.b-l. :) Definitely a 2.
> h.. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Yeppers. Two.
> Affective dimension
>
> a.. Need for stimulation/-proneness to boredom
Dropping acid at a Tull concert. Probably a two.
> b.. Parasitic lifestyle
Presumably, a productive member of society. A one at worst.
> c.. Poor behavioral controls
"Viva, Dukakis!" Definitely a two.
> d.. Early behavioral problems
Probably a two, based on how he turned out.
> e.. Lack of realistic, long-term goals
Hard to say.
> f.. Impulsivity
Again, probably a two, as the industrial scale measures it....
> g.. Irresponsibility
Ted, what was the reason you couldn't get married? Couldn't handle
the responsibility, iirc. Definitely a two.
> h.. Juvenile delinquency
Participation in a conspiracy to commit felony assault, and the use
of *dangerous* illicit narcotics (most of us wouldn't *willingly* fuck
with acid) ... he isn't called "Tyre-Iron Teddi" for nothing. Two.
> i.. Revocation of conditional release
> Behavioral dimension
>
> a.. Promiscuous sexual behavior
Limited, for reasons having little to do with having one's druthers
(http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/TED_AUS.jpg). Give him a two.
> b.. Many short-term marital relationships
Disastrous love life, by his own admission. Give him a two.
> c.. Criminal versatility
Bing! "Electric TeddiBeer" wins the kewpie doll!!! :)
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Someone in the Torrance area can talk to one or more of the grand jurors.
> If the grand jury is no longer convened you can talk to them, see what it
> was that stuck out in their minds causing them to indict the accused.
The grand jury hearing wasn't held in Torrance, but rather in the downtown
courthouse.
Theodore A. Kaldis
>>>>> As does Cam.
> Hmmmmm ... looks like you're wearing this one TeddyBeer:
No, you are.
> The DSM-IV-TR defines anti-social personality disorder as a pervasive
> pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring
> since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
Then that does NOT describe me.
> 1.. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors
> as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for
> arrest
Nope, not me.
> 2.. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or
> conning others for personal profit or pleasure
Ken Smith, please take note. But not me.
> 3.. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
Well, I am somewhat impulsive. But not to the point where such behaviour is
destructive. And while perhaps I am not the world's best planner, "failure
to plan ahead" is NOT a description of me.
> 4.. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical
> fights or assaults
While I am somewhat irascible, I do NOT get into fistfights (or any other
kind) because of it. Nor am I aggressive.
> 5.. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
Nope.
> 6.. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to
> sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
Nope.
> 7.. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or
> rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
I do NOT even hurt, mistreat, or steal from others, let alone rationalise
such misbehaviour.
> Diagnostic criteria (PCL-R test)
> In contemporary research and clinical practice, APD is most commonly
> assessed with the Hare Psychopathy Checklist- Revised (PCL-R), which is a
> clinical rating scale with 20 items. Each of the items in the PCL-R is
> scored on a three-point scale according to specific criteria through file
> information and a semi-structured interview. The items are as follows:
> Interpersonal dimension
> a.. Glibness/superficial charm
> b.. Grandiose sense of self-worth
> c.. Pathological lying
[Ken Smith, take note.]
> d.. Conning/manipulative
> e.. Lack of remorse or guilt
> f.. Shallow affect
> g.. Callous/lack of empathy
> h.. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Not me.
> Affective dimension
> a.. Need for stimulation/-proneness to boredom
> b.. Parasitic lifestyle
> c.. Poor behavioral controls
> d.. Early behavioral problems
> e.. Lack of realistic, long-term goals
> f.. Impulsivity
> g.. Irresponsibility
> h.. Juvenile delinquency
> i.. Revocation of conditional release
Nope.
> Behavioral dimension
> a.. Promiscuous sexual behavior
> b.. Many short-term marital relationships
> c.. Criminal versatility
Nope.
> Score 0 if the trait is absent, 1 if it is possibly or partially present
> and 2 if it is present. The item scores are summed to yield a total score
> ranging from 0 to 40 which is then considered to reflect the degree to
> which they resemble the prototypical psychopath. A score higher than 30
> supports a diagnosis of psychopathy. Forensic studies of prison
> populations have reported average scores of around 22 on PCL-R; control
> "normal" populations show an average score of around 5.
And my score is certainly no higher than that -- IF EVEN.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> [mendacious prevarications, elided]
Theodore A. Kaldis
> [malicious lies about me]
You need to repent of your malice and your lies.
Ken Smith
> Kent Wills wrote:
>
>>[malicious lies about me]
>
> You need to repent of your malice and your lies.
Everything he has said is spot-on, Ted. You really *do* need to seek
immediate psychiatric care, Ted.
Ken Smith
[nothing]
Ken Smith
[Ted continues to prove that he is completely delusional.]
forevernitefan
that :D)..
Seems to me you have forgotten the MANY posts you have made showing
malice to people of other cultures and races , to gays and to women.
I do find it interesting that you score very highly on the antisocial
personality disorder. If all this online is an act, you should get an
Oscar or all the hard work pretending to be a scumbag . :-D
Actually as to the characteristic about lying. psycopaths tell the
truth when it suits them. I don't have DSM-IV so I don't know FOR SURE
the clinical characteristics of psycopath/sociopath, tho I have read
more than enough true crime books on such criminal profiles to have a
good idea. I agree that Callous appears to be antisocial, considering
his lying and his claims of being a babe magnet and all that crap. The
fact that Ken has met this guy and says he can tone down and act nice
for awhile indicates to me he may be a psycopath, as psycopaths can
pretend to be nice to fool people.
I have this feeling that Callous may have commited more harm than he
admits. I can't believe that the tyre iron incident and the stalking a
guy in Australia incident are coincidental , random behavior
occurrences. There's something about his pattern of behavior online
that indicates to me a CONTINUOUS problem. This stuff doesn't just
happen out of the blue.
I have YET to see Callous apologize for ANYTHING or admit he was
wrong. It could be his massive ego or it could be a personality
disorder.
Ken Smith
> For reasons I don't want to explore, on Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:45:51> [...]
>>>The DSM-IV-TR defines anti-social personality disorder as a pervasive
>>>pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring
>>>since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
>>
>>Then that does NOT describe me.
>
> More than three describe you. It's certainly enough to *suspect*
> you have ASPD.
And more than three have diagnosed you, Ted. :)
>>> 2.. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or
>>> conning others for personal profit or pleasure
>>
>>Ken Smith, please take note. But not me.
>
> Do I have to post the link proving your lies...AGAIN?
Our Electric TeddiBeer must be suffering from one of his repeated
acid flashbacks -- brought on by washing down a doobie with cheap beer
spiked with LSD at a Jethro Tull concert.
How do we know this happened? BECAUSE TED SAID SO! Uh, you mean,
our Electric TeddiBeer *ISN'T* candid, honest, and veracious?!?!
[snip]
>>> 5.. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
>>
>>Nope.
>
> Uh, yep. While this one definitely fits Cameron better (he is
> guilty of criminal negligence resulting in Lauren's death at best),
> you did give your friends the Tyre iron, knowing that they weren't
> going to help an elderly widow with a flat.
Criminal stupidity seems to run in the Kaldis Klan. You wouldn't
have to be just stupid, but CAMERON BROWN-CLASS STUPID, to not know that
your mates weren't out looking to help some elderly widow stranded by a
flat. Again, our Electric TeddiBeer seems to be rationalizing his
indisputably criminal conduct away....
>>> 7.. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or
>>> rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
>>
>>I do NOT even hurt, mistreat, or steal from others, let alone rationalise
>>such misbehaviour.
> But I didn't know what they were going to use the Tyre-iron for."
> A paraphrase of Theodore A. Kaldis.
Ted tries his level best to injure people he disagrees with with his
words and then, tries to rationalize his sociopathic behaviour by saying
something to the effect of, "if you can't take the heat, get out of the
kitchen." Ted has no regard for others or toleration for those who are
not 'like' him (http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/tedracistnew.txt).
It is a recurring theme, spanning back *nearly twenty years.* Ted
can't even be shamed into expressing guilt.
My favorite is Ted's defense of his remark that Muslim women are 'too
ugly to be flight attendants.' "Well, that was made in the aftermath of
September 11" (words to that effect) is hardly a rational defense.
>>>Diagnostic criteria (PCL-R test)
>>
>>>In contemporary research and clinical practice, APD is most commonly
>>>assessed with the Hare Psychopathy Checklist- Revised (PCL-R), which is a
>>>clinical rating scale with 20 items. Each of the items in the PCL-R is
>>>scored on a three-point scale according to specific criteria through file
>>>information and a semi-structured interview. The items are as follows:
>>
>>>Interpersonal dimension
>>
>>> a.. Glibness/superficial charm
>>> b.. Grandiose sense of self-worth
>>> c.. Pathological lying
>>
>>[Ken Smith, take note.]
>
> This implies Ken is a pathological liar. Can you offer any
> evidence to support this diagnosis? I've known Ken for approximately
> 10 years, and have never known him to lie.
> I've know you far less, and know you to prefer lying. I'm not
> willing to say you are pathological in your lying, but it's clear you
> prefer it to truth.
Our "Electric TeddiBeer" keeps whining about this, but when pressed
to it, he can't seem to identify even one example reasonably supporting
his accusation. And even Ted seems to know this, because he has changed
his tack to accusing me of "mendacious prevarication" -- which is
(assuming you use Ted Kaldis' Thoroughly-Fucked Dictionary) reduced to
"not seeing the world in Ted's way."
Ted's problem is that he can't argue with me on even terms and stand
a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing, and even he knows it. Hell,
if you read some of Jon Beaver's rap these days, you'd swear it was me
from 18 months ago. :) His worldview and even his aberrant Christianity
have no chance of standing upon open debate -- but he has so much
invested in them that he can't let go.
[snipped DSM-IV tests, which describe the Ted we know quite nicely]
>>>Score 0 if the trait is absent, 1 if it is possibly or partially present
>>>and 2 if it is present. The item scores are summed to yield a total score
>>>ranging from 0 to 40 which is then considered to reflect the degree to
>>>which they resemble the prototypical psychopath. A score higher than 30
>>>supports a diagnosis of psychopathy. Forensic studies of prison
>>>populations have reported average scores of around 22 on PCL-R; control
>>>"normal" populations show an average score of around 5.
>>
>>And my score is certainly no higher than that -- IF EVEN.
>
> I got you in the high 20's. Not the bench mark 30 needed by the
> test for a definitive diagnosis, but high enough to make me concerned.
That's because you give him the benefit of a *lot* of doubt on points
where we just don't know whether he is off the reservation. I have Ted
at 31 (unless I miscounted). Certainly, higher than the typical felon.
jls
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:41FC595C...@worldnet.att.net...
Bad English, Kaldis. Redundant. Like your religion, superfluous.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith, mendacious prevaricator, wrote:
>>> [mendacious prevarications, elided]
> Bad English, Kaldis. Redundant.
It's meant to point out that the point cannot be overemphasized.
> Like your religion, superfluous.
Yes, I agree that it is superfluous to point out that Ken Smith is a
mendacious prevaricator. But you need to get your heart right with the Lord.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> [malicious lies about me]
>> You need to repent of your malice and your lies.
> So you aren't going to work every day and paying your bills on time?
Who says I don't?
> I recall that was one of the items I wrote. As I understand it, you are
> saying everything I wrote was a lie
You reall mus work on our reading comprehension. Where did I sa "everhing"?
> (you snipped EVERYTHING),
Because the LIES weren't worth responding to. But there is no point in
responding to that which is true.
> so I guess you are, in reality, a burden on society.
Those who are a burden upon society, I submit, are those who file cases in
court that have absolutely no chance of success.
> You are fully capable of working and paying your bills, but seem unwilling
> to do so.
You seem to have taken on your mentor's disposition to mendacity.
Ken Smith
If there is anyone more deserving of a front-end malignment than our
obsessed crackpot religious nutter Electric TeddiBeer, I am not aware of
that person's existence.
Ken Smith
> jls wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Ken Smith, mendacious prevaricator, wrote:
>>
>>>>[mendacious prevarications, elided]
>
>>Bad English, Kaldis. Redundant.
>
> It's meant to point out that the point cannot be overemphasized.
In Electric TeddiBeer's acid-induced little world, if he shouts a lie
a thousand times, it becomes the truth. Evidence and proof are matters
for the little people to worry about....
Ken Smith
> Kent Wills wrote:
[snip]
>>so I guess you are, in reality, a burden on society.
>
> Those who are a burden upon society, I submit, are those who file cases in
> court that have absolutely no chance of success.
At least, Ted isn't talking about me any more. Moreover, Cam Brown's
counsel hasn't filed a motion seeking his immediate release, which must
mean that such an effort would be frivolous and wasteful. :)
Larry just told us that it is *routine* for defense attorneys to file
appeals in cases which have virtually no chance of success. As he said,
there's no harm in asking. :)
Every now and again, an attorney wins one of those stone-cold turkeys
-- Gideon v. Wainwright, Roe v. Wade, Miranda v. Arizona -- and in doing
so, our rights as citizens are defined and protected. Why is this a bad
thing, Ted?
The way I see it, those people who are so incredibly stupid as to let
illegitimate four-year-old daughters free to run around on the edge of
dangerous cliffs ought to remain in protective custody -- as they are a
clear and present danger to themselves and others.
But the Kooks Kaldis Klan's shit don't stink....
Ken Smith
> Kent Wills wrote:
[snip]
> Because the LIES weren't worth responding to. But there is no point in
> responding to that which is true.
To which "LIES" are you referring, Ted? The statement in which *you*
admitted washing down a doobie with beer laced with LSD at a Jethro Tull
concert, or the retraction? The one in which you claimed that you have
"never expressed malice, online or otherwise," or the statements Hattan
compiled which constitute conclusive proof to the contrary? (I can come
up with others, if need be.)
Everything Kent has written about you has clear record support. That
you don't like the conclusion he has drawn, with nothing more, is of no
consequence whatever.
Your problem is that you lie and prevaricate so often that you can't
even hope to keep your stories straight. (Of course, this may be due to
the brain damage you have suffered from your "fatal" car accident and/or
your illicit drug abuse in the '70s, which can't really be helped.)
Ken Smith
> jls wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Ken Smith, mendacious prevaricator, wrote:
>>
>>>>[mendacious prevarications, elided]
>>>
>>Bad English, Kaldis. Redundant.
[snip to focus on this point]
> Ken Smith is a mendacious prevaricator.
Prove it. Provide substantive examples. And do try to keep in mind
that -- outside the pages of Ted Kaldis' Thoroughly-Fucked Dictionary --
"mendacious prevaricator" does not mean "one who disagrees with Ted."
Kent Wills
Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
[...]
>
>> But I didn't know what they were going to use the Tyre-iron for."
>> A paraphrase of Theodore A. Kaldis.
>
> Ted tries his level best to injure people he disagrees with with his
>words and then, tries to rationalize his sociopathic behaviour by saying
>something to the effect of, "if you can't take the heat, get out of the
>kitchen." Ted has no regard for others or toleration for those who are
>not 'like' him (http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/tedracistnew.txt).
> It is a recurring theme, spanning back *nearly twenty years.* Ted
>can't even be shamed into expressing guilt.
>
> My favorite is Ted's defense of his remark that Muslim women are 'too
>ugly to be flight attendants.' "Well, that was made in the aftermath of
>September 11" (words to that effect) is hardly a rational defense.
>
A comment he states was made *on* 9/11. No one knew who was
responsible until a few days later. His comments could not have been
brought on my any anger towards Muslims, regardless of gender, over
the attacks since no one knew if Muslims, Christians, Hindus, etc.
were behind the attacks.
Heck, it could have been some rouge Christian militia (Ted's kind
of people) that did it, for all we knew at the time.
[...]
>>>
>>>And my score is certainly no higher than that -- IF EVEN.
>>
>> I got you in the high 20's. Not the bench mark 30 needed by the
>> test for a definitive diagnosis, but high enough to make me concerned.
>
> That's because you give him the benefit of a *lot* of doubt on points
>where we just don't know whether he is off the reservation. I have Ted
>at 31 (unless I miscounted). Certainly, higher than the typical felon.
A score of 31 would give him a diagnosis under the test (which
I'm told is widely used and accepted in the mental health profession
as a tool in diagnosing someone). I did give him the benefit of the
doubt, since I wanted to make absolutely certain I didn't give him an
inflated score.
You know him far better than I do, so I'm more than willing to
accept your score as more accurate.
Kent
--
Be really good to your family and friends. You never know
when you are going to need them to empty your bedpan.
Kent Wills
-0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Kent Wills wrote:
>
>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>
>>>> [malicious lies about me]
>
>>> You need to repent of your malice and your lies.
>
>> So you aren't going to work every day and paying your bills on time?
>
>Who says I don't?
You. I pointed out that you most probably did. As can be seen
above, you snipped it and wrote that I posted "[malicious lies about
me]". If I did, then you are claiming you do not go to work every day
and pay your bills on time.
>
>> I recall that was one of the items I wrote. As I understand it, you are
>> saying everything I wrote was a lie
>
>You reall mus work on our reading comprehension. Where did I sa "everhing"?
>
>> (you snipped EVERYTHING),
>
>Because the LIES weren't worth responding to. But there is no point in
>responding to that which is true.
Then why not make a point of it? All you did was tell people
that you are a burden on your family and/or society by snipping it.
>
>> so I guess you are, in reality, a burden on society.
>
>Those who are a burden upon society, I submit, are those who file cases in
>court that have absolutely no chance of success.
Obsess much? And yes, we all know who you mean here.
>
>> You are fully capable of working and paying your bills, but seem unwilling
>> to do so.
>
>You seem to have taken on your mentor's disposition to mendacity.
Not at all. It's the logical conclusion based on YOUR post. You
snipped EVERYTHING I wrote and made the implication that everything
was a lie. If this is the case, then my claim that you go to work
every day and pay your bills on time must be a lie. This means you
don't.
Hey, I'm just following YOUR rules of debate here.
Kent
--
On a posted sign: "Bill Stickers will be prosecuted!" and written next
to it, "Bill Stickers is innocent!"
Ken Smith
> For reasons I don't want to explore, on Sun, 30 Jan 2005 16:16:08 GMT,
> Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>so I guess you are, in reality, a burden on society.
>>>
>>>Those who are a burden upon society, I submit, are those who file cases in
>>>court that have absolutely no chance of success.
>>
>> At least, Ted isn't talking about me any more. Moreover, Cam Brown's
>>counsel hasn't filed a motion seeking his immediate release, which must
>>mean that such an effort would be frivolous and wasteful. :)
>
>
>> Larry just told us that it is *routine* for defense attorneys to file
>>appeals in cases which have virtually no chance of success. As he said,
>>there's no harm in asking. :)
>
> bothered with it. If there's no harm in asking, I can only presume
> they didn't ask because they knew the answer wouldn't just be no, but
> HELL NO!
"Eddie would go."
If their hand was anywhere *near* as strong as Ted claims, they would
have reamed Craig Hum a new asshole by now.
>> Every now and again, an attorney wins one of those stone-cold turkeys
>>-- Gideon v. Wainwright, Roe v. Wade, Miranda v. Arizona -- and in doing
>>so, our rights as citizens are defined and protected. Why is this a bad
>>thing, Ted?
>
> Because Ted said so! You want actual reasoning? Clearly you
> aren't ready for the newest religion to hit the planted, TEDDIEISM!
Planted? Don't you mean "potted plants?" They're the only things
Ted could convert. Even the kumquats are on to him.
> Drink electric beer at communion and see what TEDDIE will show
> you. The walls are melting? It's OK. It's just TEDDIE'S love
> pouring over you (note, this can only happen to white males. All
> others are being tricked by the Evil one k*n sm*th).
Hey! I kinda like being "the evil one" of somebody's religion, after
being washed in the cream gravy of the Kit'n Grrrrl and all that. :)
> Some evil looking demon type creature is attacking you? Why
> that's just TEDDIE testing your faith in him. If you are truly one
> with TEDDIE, you'll be able to fend off this attack with your
> expanding girth and fake Aussie accent. Be strong young disciple, for
> TEDDIE will not fail you!
And when bad things happen, it wasn't TEDDIE; it was your own lack of
faith. You ever notice how our TeddiBeer's 'theology' is sounding more
and more like Lar$on and Tilton?
> Unless some bored business woman needs to "get some."
> Don't like the accepted definitions of words? F*CK THE
> DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS! Make up your own and rest assured that TEDDIE
> will honor your new definition (until someone come up with a different
> one).
But only if he approves of the outcome. Important caveat.
> OK, I'm not as witty as John Hattan, but I gave it a shot.
Hey, the UberPope had more to work with. Shatner has charisma; Ted
only inspires loathing.
>> The way I see it, those people who are so incredibly stupid as to let
>>illegitimate four-year-old daughters free to run around on the edge of
>>dangerous cliffs ought to remain in protective custody -- as they are a
>>clear and present danger to themselves and others.
>>
> Certainly others if nothing else.
Cam's story reminds me of Teddi's claim that he didn't know what his
mates were up to when they took his tyre-iron. You'd have to blaze new
vistas in stupidity to believe a line like that....
>> But the Kooks Kaldis Klan's shit don't stink....
>
> Been near their septic tank? Whew! :)
She'd never seen the ocean look pretty or clean....
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Hey, I'm just following
Ken Smith's
> rules of debate here.
Indeed.
Kent Wills
-0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Kent Wills wrote:
>
>> Hey, I'm just following
>
>Ken Smith's
>
>> rules of debate here.
>
>Indeed.
What's most sad is that this is quite the typical display of Ted
Kaldis dishonest snipping. And I doubt anyone is the least bit
surprised.
Ken Smith
> Kent Wills wrote:
>
>>Hey, I'm just following
>
> Ken Smith's
>
>>rules of debate here.
Wassamatta, widdle TeddiBeer? Don't like having to PROVE your claims
like the rest of us?
> Indeed.
I'll ask you again: To what "LIES" are you referring? Please try to
be reasonably specific for once, both in identifying exactly what it is
what you are whining about and in proving that they are "lies," as you
claim.
Ken Smith
> For reasons I don't want to explore, on Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:48:05
> -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>
>>>Hey, I'm just following
>>
>>Ken Smith's
>>
>>>rules of debate here.
>>
>>Indeed.
>
> What's most sad is that this is quite the typical display of Ted
> Kaldis dishonest snipping. And I doubt anyone is the least bit
> surprised.
I really don't know what the problem is, because *my* rules of debate
are eminently fair. Even Ted admits it (see attached), conceding that
it is "how things work in an enlightened society." Apart than the fact
that he has an unhealthy obsession with me, the only sad thing about it
is that Ted has no stomach for fair play (and it's about the only thing
he has no stomach for).
Ted made the claim; he needs to prove it. Otherwise, he is "back in
the Dark Ages." :)
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> Hey, I'm just following
>> Ken Smith's
>>> rules of debate here.
>> Indeed.
> What's most sad is that this is quite the typical display of Ted Kaldis
> dishonest snipping. And I doubt anyone is the least bit surprised.
Hey, it's a style I learned from Ken Smith.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Kent Wills wrote:
>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>> Hey, I'm just following
>>> Ken Smith's
>>>> rules of debate here.
>>> Indeed.
>> What's most sad is that this is quite the typical display of Ted Kaldis
>> dishonest snipping. And I doubt anyone is the least bit surprised.
> I really don't know what the problem is, because *my* rules of debate are
> eminently fair. [...]
STFU, you stinkin' hypocrite, you've done the same thing. In fact, I'm just
copying you.
Ken Smith
> Kent Wills wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>
>>>>Hey, I'm just following
>>>
>>>Ken Smith's
>>
>>>>rules of debate here.
>>>
>>>Indeed.
>>
>>What's most sad is that this is quite the typical display of Ted Kaldis
>>dishonest snipping. And I doubt anyone is the least bit surprised.
>
> Hey, it's a style I learned from Ken Smith.
Considering that "Kaldis Rules" (you have to prove everything, Ted
has to prove nothing) go damn near all the way back to ARPANET....
You stick to the rules attached, and spare us all the cheap ad-homs,
and we could actually have a real discussion of issues. Of course, we
won't be holding our collective breath on that.... :)
Ken Smith
You mean, in the attached post? If you actually stuck with that, as
opposed to "Kaldis Rules" (you have to prove everything; Ted doesn't
have to prove anything), and kept your personal animus toward me out of
the debate, we could actually discuss issues. (Of course, no one here
would hold their breath....)
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> Hey, I'm just following
>> Ken Smith's
>>> rules of debate here.
> Wassamatta, widdle TeddiBeer? Don't like having to PROVE your claims like
> the rest of us?
Wh should I have o boher "proving" claims ha are jus simpl manifesl obvious on
heir face?
>> Indeed.
> I'll ask you again: To what "LIES" are you referring? [...]
The ones that you've told about me. Don't tell me that you're such a
psychopathic liar that you tell lies without even recognising them as lies?
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> so I guess you are, in reality, a burden on society.
>> Those who are a burden upon society, I submit, are those who file cases in
>> court that have absolutely no chance of success.
> At least, Ted isn't talking about me any more.
So who was it that wasted Judge Edward Nottingham's time, as well as that of
the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, with a frivolous missive berating the
Colorado Bar Examiners' Board disguised as a complaint?
> Moreover, Cam Brown's counsel hasn't filed a motion seeking his immediate
> release, [...]
Who says he hasn't (besides mendacious prevaricator Ken Smith)?
Patrick Lee Humphrey
>For reasons I don't want to explore, on Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:48:05
>-0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>> Hey, I'm just following
>>Ken Smith's
>>> rules of debate here.
>>Indeed.
> What's most sad is that this is quite the typical display of Ted
>Kaldis dishonest snipping. And I doubt anyone is the least bit
>surprised.
I have to confessed to being a bit surprised -- having endured a number of
Teddles' tirades in talk.politics.misc when I was a Usenet newbie back at the
end of the 1980s, at least he was a lot more upfront about his open bigotry
and hatred of anyone not just like him. Now, he's just another mumbling
run-of-the-mill whackjob...
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 3, Chicago 2 (January 29)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, February 2 at Chicago, 7:05
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>
>>>>so I guess you are, in reality, a burden on society.
>>>
>>>Those who are a burden upon society, I submit, are those who file cases in
>>>court that have absolutely no chance of success.
>>
>>At least, Ted isn't talking about me any more.
>
> So who was it that wasted Judge Edward Nottingham's time, as well as that of
> the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, with a frivolous missive berating the
> Colorado Bar Examiners' Board disguised as a complaint?
Nobody. But then, I forget that in Ted Kaldis' Thoroughly-Fucked
Dictionary, "frivolous" means "any legal action Ted doesn't personally
like, including Michael Newdow's monentarily successful appeal to the
Ninth Circuit."
"Frivolous" has a specific legal meaning, and it is incumbent upon
you to prove your claim with reference to the case law. Good luck, idiot!
>>Moreover, Cam Brown's counsel hasn't filed a motion seeking his immediate
>>release, [...]
>
> Who says he hasn't (besides mendacious prevaricator Ken Smith)?
You have implied it e silentio, by refusing to disclose either it or
the issues controverted therein. You post the motion, and I will stand
corrected.
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> jls wrote:
>
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> > > Ken Smith, mendacious prevaricator, wrote:
>
> > > > [mendacious prevarications, elided]
>
> > Bad English, Kaldis. Redundant.
>
> It's meant to point out that the point cannot be overemphasized.
>
> > Like your religion, superfluous.
>
> Yes, I agree that it is superfluous to point out that Ken Smith is a
> mendacious prevaricator. But you need to get your heart right with
> the Lord.
Fuck your "lord" Teddy, and fuck what it stands for.
Any questions?
Positive Sex Fiend
Hey, if you don't believe in the Lord then that is your business, but I
will thank you for not taking the word "fuck" in vain! Heathen!
Kent Wills
-0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
How do you come up with these witty retorts? I am so (NOT)
amazed.
Kent
--
Heaven lent you a soul. Earth will lend a grave.
Kent Wills
-0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Kent Wills wrote:
>
>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>
>>>> Hey, I'm just following
>
>>> Ken Smith's
>
>>>> rules of debate here.
>
>>> Indeed.
>
>> What's most sad is that this is quite the typical display of Ted Kaldis
>> dishonest snipping. And I doubt anyone is the least bit surprised.
>
>Hey, it's a style I learned from Ken Smith.
Ken doesn't snip portions and then add lies to them. That's 100%
Ted.
I seem to recall something in the Bible about lying being a bad
thing. Perhaps the book of Jude actually does say, "Except Ted."
Kent
--
If the grass if greener on the other side of the fence, the septic
tank probably has a leak.
Kent Wills
Patrick Lee Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>For reasons I don't want to explore, on Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:48:05
>>-0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>>Kent Wills wrote:
>
>>>> Hey, I'm just following
>
>>>Ken Smith's
>
>>>> rules of debate here.
>
>>>Indeed.
>
>> What's most sad is that this is quite the typical display of Ted
>>Kaldis dishonest snipping. And I doubt anyone is the least bit
>>surprised.
>
>I have to confessed to being a bit surprised -- having endured a number of
>Teddles' tirades in talk.politics.misc when I was a Usenet newbie back at the
>end of the 1980s, at least he was a lot more upfront about his open bigotry
>and hatred of anyone not just like him.
If you aren't a white, male, Christian, you aren't squat to Ted
or his god.
> Now, he's just another mumbling
>run-of-the-mill whackjob...
Part of that is due to the increased access to the Internet.
With more people getting on-line, Ted becomes less and less prominent.
Kent
--
When the world ends, there'll be no more air.
That's why it's important to pollute the air now. Before it's too
late. :)
forevernitefan
alive/ Fatfality means death, dead. corpse( or road kill in his case).
Therefore his alleged car crash was NOT fatal--to him at least.
I honesty don't know if Callous even knows the difference between a
truth and a lie. Over the years of readng his posts has me believing
this guy is so mentally messed up that he can't be honest about
anything, including himself. He tossed around Aussie words until I
pointed out that he hasn't been in Australia for a LONG time, then he
stopped that act. His repeated use of the words " mendacious
prevarication" becomes tiresome and makes him look like a moron
pretending to be literate. IOW posturing to be what he clearly is not.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
Kent Wills
-0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Ken Smith wrote:
>
>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>
>>>> Hey, I'm just following
>
>>> Ken Smith's
>
>>>> rules of debate here.
>
>> Wassamatta, widdle TeddiBeer? Don't like having to PROVE your claims like
>> the rest of us?
>
>Wh should I have o boher "proving" claims ha are jus simpl manifesl obvious on
>heir face?
Such as your claim to never having expressed malice, on-line or
otherwise? The list proving you have done so on-line has been posted
several times. If you require it, I can do it again.
>
>>> Indeed.
>
>> I'll ask you again: To what "LIES" are you referring? [...]
>
>The ones that you've told about me. Don't tell me that you're such a
>psychopathic liar that you tell lies without even recognising them as lies?
Care to offer specifics? Google links would help as well.
In all the years I've known Ken, I've not known him to lie (which
puts him scores above most evangelists, it shames me to admit). You,
on the other hand, are a Lar$on class liar, Ted.
Kent
--
Born once - Die twice. Born twice - Die only once. Your choice...
Sig "borrowed" from Joe.
forevernitefan
Callous often covers up for his cussing by not typing the fullowrds
out, No matter. His own savior would not approve of cussing.
Butit does show that Callous got mad, lost his temper and his act and
showed what he REALLY is.
Kent Wills
-0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Ken Smith wrote:
>
>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>
>>>> so I guess you are, in reality, a burden on society.
>
>>> Those who are a burden upon society, I submit, are those who file cases in
>>> court that have absolutely no chance of success.
>
>> At least, Ted isn't talking about me any more.
>
>So who was it that wasted Judge Edward Nottingham's time, as well as that of
>the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, with a frivolous missive berating the
>Colorado Bar Examiners' Board disguised as a complaint?
Obsess much?
Hint: The answer is YES!
>
>> Moreover, Cam Brown's counsel hasn't filed a motion seeking his immediate
>> release, [...]
>
>Who says he hasn't (besides mendacious prevaricator Ken Smith)?
Your unwillingness or inability to post the motions, which are
public domain, BTW, speaks volumes.
And don't use the lie that you won't because it's an open case.
Anything we can figure out, Hum can, and probably already has, as
well. Posting the motions can neither help nor harm Cameron, but they
can help your credibility out quite a bit.
Kent
--
Si hoc legere scis numium eruditionis habes.
forevernitefan
of you.
Would Jesus tell someone to shut the fuck up?
Callous, you just exposed what you actually are. You got mad and lost
it, idiot.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>> Hey, I'm just following
>>>> Ken Smith's
>>>>> rules of debate here.
>>> Wassamatta, widdle TeddiBeer? Don't like having to PROVE your claims like
>>> the rest of us?
>> Why should I have to bother "proving" claims that are just simply
>> manifestly obvious on their face?
> Such as your claim to never having expressed malice, on-line or otherwise?
Exactly. (And jocular pretensions don't count.)
> The list proving you have done so on-line has been posted several times.
> If you require it, I can do it again.
And prove what? That you don't get the joke?
>>>> Indeed.
>>> I'll ask you again: To what "LIES" are you referring? [...]
>> The ones that you've told about me. Don't tell me that you're such a
>> psychopathic liar that you tell lies without even recognising them as
>> lies?
> Care to offer specifics?
Why bother? Ken knows (or at least SHOULD know) what he is talking about.
> Google links would help as well.
Not in your case.
> In all the years I've known Ken, I've not known him to lie (which puts him
> scores above most evangelists, it shames me to admit).
This only tells me that you are unable to spot lies.
> You, on the other hand, are a Lar$on class liar, Ted.
How can I be when I don't even tell lies?
Kent Wills
-0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Kent Wills wrote:
>
>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>
>>>>>> Hey, I'm just following
>
>>>>> Ken Smith's
>
>>>>>> rules of debate here.
>
>>>> Wassamatta, widdle TeddiBeer? Don't like having to PROVE your claims like
>>>> the rest of us?
>
>>> Why should I have to bother "proving" claims that are just simply
>>> manifestly obvious on their face?
>
>> Such as your claim to never having expressed malice, on-line or otherwise?
>
>Exactly. (And jocular pretensions don't count.)
This is the first time I've seen you claim any of the items were
a joke. You've tried other ways to rationalize your racists and
misogynist views, but you've never claimed them to be a joke.
There isn't one item that can be realistically viewed as a joke.
>
>> The list proving you have done so on-line has been posted several times.
>> If you require it, I can do it again.
>
>And prove what? That you don't get the joke?
So now it was all a joke? That makes you a Lar$on class
hypocrite then, since you berated me for making a joke. And one could
see the humor in mine, even if it was fairly weak.
>
>>>>> Indeed.
>
>>>> I'll ask you again: To what "LIES" are you referring? [...]
>
>>> The ones that you've told about me. Don't tell me that you're such a
>>> psychopathic liar that you tell lies without even recognising them as
>>> lies?
>
>> Care to offer specifics?
>
>Why bother?
Because you made the claim and it falls upon you to support it.
Since Ken has never lied, you can not support the claim. QED.
> Ken knows (or at least SHOULD know) what he is talking about.
Agreed. Ken does know of what he speaks (or writes as the case
is here). You still haven't supported your claim that he's lied.
>
>> Google links would help as well.
>
>Not in your case.
Sure it would. Nothing works like evidence from a disinterested
third party. If Ken has lied, google isn't going to care and the
post(s) will be there. Since he hasn't, you can't supply any links.
>
>> In all the years I've known Ken, I've not known him to lie (which puts him
>> scores above most evangelists, it shames me to admit).
>
>This only tells me that you are unable to spot lies.
Not so. I've spotted many of yours many times.
>
>> You, on the other hand, are a Lar$on class liar, Ted.
>
>How can I be when I don't even tell lies?
Sigh. Here is but ONE example of your lying. You certainly have
expressed malice on-line, contrary to your LIE that you have not.
Chances are you have in RL as well, but I don't have any evidence of
this.
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I have never expressed malice, online or otherwise.
I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
What "cute" hindu chick? Sorry, but I think the swarthy dot-heads are
dogs. I wouldn't even f*** her with your d***.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Hey, they let ragheads and towelheads and slapheads and camel jockeys
in. Why shouldn't they let me in? At least I'm not from a completely
alien culture.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Darling, you're just wound a little too tight. And I know exactly
what'll loosen you up.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
But no towel-heads, no slap-heads, no rag-heads, no camel jockeys, and
no bloody swarthy wogs!
--Theodore A. Kaldis
What other words are there? "Gook". "Slope". "Slant-eye". The list
continues further downhill from here.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
BTW, you're not ugly, or a fat chick, now are you?
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I do not use the word "nigger", nor do I use the word "coon"
--Theodore A. Kaldis
At that rate, assuming there are somewhere between 25 to 50 million
blacks in the U.S. (and I don't know what the exact figure is, but I
would surmise that it falls somewhere within that range), they each
get
between US$140 to $280. Chump change. With that they would only be
"nigger rich".
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I've already been assaulted a couple of times, but both times by
Guido's
rather than by coons.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Raghead women are too ugly to become flight attendants.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
That's easy. This is yet another example of feminine ``logic'' (truly
an oxymoron if ever there was one).
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Ragheads, towel heads, camel jockeys, and other swarthy types not
allowed.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
The Dick-suckin' Chicks are toast.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I have the Holy Spirit to lead me into all the truth and
righteousness.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Kent
--
Why don't people who believe in reincarnation leave all their money to
themselves?
Kent Wills
"forevernitefan" <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>If he claimed to have had a "fatal" car accident, he would not be
>alive/ Fatfality means death, dead. corpse( or road kill in his case).
Ted once claimed that he was brain dead after an accident. I'm
not familiar enough with medicine to know if one can reasonably
recover from such a state or not.
>Therefore his alleged car crash was NOT fatal--to him at least.
But to his ability to reason and think, it was a DOA!
>
>I honesty don't know if Callous even knows the difference between a
>truth and a lie.
He does. He just doesn't care. His god allows it. I'm not sure
which god Ted serves, but I've not found this god inside the covers of
the Bible. But then, I don't read the Kaldis translation.
>Over the years of readng his posts has me believing
>this guy is so mentally messed up that he can't be honest about
>anything, including himself. He tossed around Aussie words until I
>pointed out that he hasn't been in Australia for a LONG time, then he
>stopped that act. His repeated use of the words " mendacious
>prevarication" becomes tiresome and makes him look like a moron
He hasn't gotten around to buying a new thesaurus.
>pretending to be literate. IOW posturing to be what he clearly is not.
Exactly!
Kent
--
May God bless those who love us. And those who do not love us, may He
turn their hearts. And if He does not turn their hearts, may He turn
their ankles so we may know them by their limping. - Irish Blessing.
Chas
> STFU usualy is short for shut the fuck up. Gee Callous, how CHRISTIAN
> of you.
> Would Jesus tell someone to shut the fuck up?
and to get the fuck out of the temple to boot.
It's a vulgarism; nothing prohibited in that.
Profanity is deplored-
And, 'Fuck Bush' is as much a play on 'Bush' as anything about 'Fuck'.
I consider it reasonably good advice- and such as might well come from any
proponent of good ol' American heterosexuality.
Rather a compliment, as it were.
Chas
Chas
> Ted once claimed that he was brain dead after an accident.
Haiti, by any chance?
> I'm
> not familiar enough with medicine to know if one can reasonably
> recover from such a state or not.
Wid' enuff chickens, mon; anyt'ing be possible.
> But to his ability to reason and think, it was a DOA!
Now you tryin' to spen' goats by de score, mon.
We jus' gonna get his fat ass movin' on dat chicken budget-
> He does. He just doesn't care. His god allows it. I'm not sure
> which god Ted serves, but I've not found this god inside the covers of
> the Bible. But then, I don't read the Kaldis translation.
He is an embarrassment to us all-
for varying reasons, but sufficient to go around.
> He hasn't gotten around to buying a new thesaurus.
He's a rider?
Chas
Patrick Lee Humphrey
>For reasons I don't want to explore, on 31 Jan 2005 10:32:34 -0600,
>Patrick Lee Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>For reasons I don't want to explore, on Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:48:05
>>>-0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>> Hey, I'm just following
>>>>Ken Smith's
>>>>> rules of debate here.
>>>>Indeed.
>>> What's most sad is that this is quite the typical display of Ted
>>>Kaldis dishonest snipping. And I doubt anyone is the least bit
>>>surprised.
>>I have to confessed to being a bit surprised -- having endured a number of
>>Teddles' tirades in talk.politics.misc when I was a Usenet newbie back at the
>>end of the 1980s, at least he was a lot more upfront about his open bigotry
>>and hatred of anyone not just like him.
>If you aren't a white, male, Christian, you aren't squat to Ted or his god.
Well, I'm white, male, heterosexual, and married to a South Dakota farmer's
daughter since 1990 -- but I'm one of those old-time conservatives (from back
before the American Taliban hijacked the GOP) who thinks that separation of
church and state is there for a very good reason, so it's no wonder Teddles
blows a gasket if I'm present.
>> Now, he's just another mumbling run-of-the-mill whackjob...
> Part of that is due to the increased access to the Internet.
>With more people getting on-line, Ted becomes less and less prominent.
You have a point in there among the land mines, indeed.
Patrick Lee Humphrey
>If he claimed to have had a "fatal" car accident, he would not be
>alive/ Fatfality means death, dead. corpse( or road kill in his case).
>Therefore his alleged car crash was NOT fatal--to him at least.
He's not the first one to pull that stunt -- check alt.revisionism's "Doc
Tavish" (R. Scott Bradbury, in real life), who posted (as one of his
sockpuppets) that "Doc Tavish" had died on May 15, 1997. This May 15th will
be the eighth anniversary of his supposed suicide, and he *still* comes
unglued when anyone points it out.
Kent Wills
Patrick Lee Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>"forevernitefan" <fvr...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>If he claimed to have had a "fatal" car accident, he would not be
>>alive/ Fatfality means death, dead. corpse( or road kill in his case).
>>Therefore his alleged car crash was NOT fatal--to him at least.
>
>He's not the first one to pull that stunt -- check alt.revisionism's "Doc
>Tavish" (R. Scott Bradbury, in real life), who posted (as one of his
>sockpuppets) that "Doc Tavish" had died on May 15, 1997. This May 15th will
>be the eighth anniversary of his supposed suicide, and he *still* comes
>unglued when anyone points it out.
Doc Tavish isn't going to let anything like his death stop him
:-)
Yes, I'm familiar with him, though probably not nearly as well as
you.
Kent
--
A mouse trap, placed on top of your alarm clock, will prevent you
from rolling over and going back to sleep when you hit the snooze
button.
Patrick Lee Humphrey
>For reasons I don't want to explore, on 31 Jan 2005 22:09:55 -0600,
>Patrick Lee Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>"forevernitefan" <fvr...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>If he claimed to have had a "fatal" car accident, he would not be
>>>alive/ Fatfality means death, dead. corpse( or road kill in his case).
>>>Therefore his alleged car crash was NOT fatal--to him at least.
>>He's not the first one to pull that stunt -- check alt.revisionism's "Doc
>>Tavish" (R. Scott Bradbury, in real life), who posted (as one of his
>>sockpuppets) that "Doc Tavish" had died on May 15, 1997. This May 15th will
>>be the eighth anniversary of his supposed suicide, and he *still* comes
>>unglued when anyone points it out.
> Doc Tavish isn't going to let anything like his death stop him :-)
> Yes, I'm familiar with him, though probably not nearly as well as you.
Probably so -- Bradbury's already convinced more than a few people that his
brain checked out long ago. Kaldis will wind up being remembered as a
slightly less single-minded version of Serdar Argic. ;-)
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Kent Wills wrote:
[...]
>> If you aren't a white, male, Christian, you aren't squat to Ted or his
>> god.
LIE!
> Well, I'm white, male, heterosexual, and married to a South Dakota farmer's
> daughter since 1990 -- but I'm one of those old-time conservatives
Genuine conservatism has its roots in the recognition of God.
> (from back before the American Taliban
What American "Taliban"?
> hijacked the GOP) who thinks that separation of church and state is there
> for a very good reason,
It _IS_ there for a very good reason. It was put there so as to keep the
state from meddling in the affairs of the church. That is a historical
fact, and it is undeniable (unless you are given to mendacity).
> so it's no wonder Teddles blows a gasket if I'm present.
You flatter yourself.
19ran...@earthlink.net
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> Kent Wills wrote:
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >> Ken Smith wrote:
> >>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>
> >>>>> Hey, I'm just following
>
> >>>> Ken Smith's
>
> >>>>> rules of debate here.
>
> >>> Wassamatta, widdle TeddiBeer? Don't like having to PROVE your
claims like
> >>> the rest of us?
>
> >> Why should I have to bother "proving" claims that are just simply
> >> manifestly obvious on their face?
>
> > Such as your claim to never having expressed malice, on-line or
otherwise?
>
> Exactly. (And jocular pretensions don't count.)
Translated, "I have never expressed malice, on-line or otherwise ...
if you throw out everything I've written which proves otherwise over
the last twenty years or so." It's another manifestation of Electric
TeddiBeer's anti-social disorder -- absurd attempts at rationalization.
>
> > The list proving you have done so on-line has been posted several
times.
> > If you require it, I can do it again.
>
> And prove what? That you don't get the joke?
Try as I might, it's hard to read, "Raghead women are too ugly to be
flight attendants" as even a lame attempt at jocularity.
> >>>> Indeed.
>
> >>> I'll ask you again: To what "LIES" are you referring? [...]
>
> >> The ones that you've told about me. Don't tell me that you're
such a
> >> psychopathic liar that you tell lies without even recognising them
as
> >> lies?
>
> > Care to offer specifics?
>
> Why bother?
Because you can't, and we both know it. (It's another invocation of
Ted Kaldis' Thoroughly-Fucked Rules of Debate: "We have to prove
everything, but Ted doesn't have to prove anything."
> Ken knows (or at least SHOULD know) what he is talking about.
When Ken says something, he does so with ample record support.
> > Google links would help as well.
>
> Not in your case.
He's hip to your act, Electric TeddiBeer.
>
> > In all the years I've known Ken, I've not known him to lie (which
puts him
> > scores above most evangelists, it shames me to admit).
>
> This only tells me that you are unable to spot lies.
>
> > You, on the other hand, are a Lar$on class liar, Ted.
>
> How can I be when I don't even tell lies?
Ted's gone bye-bye, Kent.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>> so I guess you are, in reality, a burden on society.
>>>> Those who are a burden upon society, I submit, are those who file cases
>>>> in court that have absolutely no chance of success.
>>> At least, Ted isn't talking about me any more.
>> So who was it that wasted Judge Edward Nottingham's time, as well as that
>> of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, with a frivolous missive berating
>> the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board disguised as a complaint?
> Nobody.
So Ken Smith is "nobody"? I'm not so sure that I can argue with that
assertion.
> But then, I forget that in Ted Kaldis' Thoroughly-Fucked Dictionary,
> "frivolous" means "any legal action Ted doesn't personally like,
It means "an action without legal merit". And any court in the land would
agree that the state has a substantive interest in determining whether a
candidate to the bar is psychologically fit to practise law.
> including Michael Newdow's monentarily successful appeal to the Ninth
> Circuit."
The "Ninth Jerk-it Court of Shlemiels" (as one commentator calls them)? They
knew that they had bitten off a big one when the public outrage at their
decision erupted. SCOTUS knew they had no choice but to set things straight
(though in reality they ducked the issue). Nevertheless, I don't see any
groundswell of public opinion to remove the words "under God" from the
pledge.
> "Frivolous" has a specific legal meaning, and it is incumbent upon you to
> prove your claim with reference to the case law.
Why bother? I told you what the outcome was going to be. And I was right.
> Good luck, idiot!
Hey, I'm not the one who came out looking like a fool after the 10th Circuit
issued their decision.
>>> Moreover, Cam Brown's counsel hasn't filed a motion seeking his immediate
>>> release, [...]
>> Who says he hasn't (besides mendacious prevaricator Ken Smith)?
> You have implied it e silentio,
You're being presumptuous. (And I'm being lazy.)
> by refusing to disclose either it or the issues controverted therein.
I'll discuss it after the judge issues his ruling.
> You post the motion, and I will stand corrected.
If you wouldn't accept correction from the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board,
Judge Nottingham, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, why should I expect
that you would receive it from me?